My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 11/26/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1996
>
Agenda - Council - 11/26/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:38:13 PM
Creation date
9/24/2003 3:14:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
11/26/1996
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
216
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
of Barna, GUZ? and Steffen and asked for an opinion about whether Ms. <br /> Koskinen's <br /> assumption <br />was valid. <br /> <br />Scott Lepak, v&o specializes in employment law, responded to my inquiry on November 22 by <br />phone. He toldime that the unemployment hearing and resulting decision is not admissible at the <br />arbitration hearing. He reaffirmed that the City has a right to enact its policies and that we <br />should have no:. qualms about pursuing our original course of action. He referred me to MN <br />Statute 268.105subdivision 5, which reads: <br /> <br />All test' ~h~ony at any hearing conducted pursuant to subdivision 1 shall be recorded, but <br />shall be ~ranscribed only if the disputed claim is appealed further and is requested by a <br />party, o4 as directed by the commissioner or an authroized representative. Testimony <br />obtained render subdivision 1, may not be used or considered in any civil, administrative, <br />or contr~tual proceeding, except by a local, state, or federal human rights group with <br />enforcen~?nt powers, unless the proceeding is initiated by the department. No findings of <br />fact or decision issued by a reem~)lovoment insurance Judge or the commissioner or <br />authonze~l representative may be held conclusive or binding or used as evidence in any <br />~eparate 6~r subsequent action in any other forum, except proceedings provided for under <br />this chat)¼er, regardless of whether the action involves the same or related parties or <br />involves' the san~e facts. (underlining added) <br /> <br />Tonight the City Council will be asked whether they wish to settle this matter or continue on to <br />arbitration. <br /> <br />If the decision is t,o settle, I believe it is imperative to revise our CDL policy so that a refusal to <br />submit to testing ii considered the same as a positive test result, i.e., the employee can't be fired, <br />but is required to participate in evaluation and follow-up treatment. <br /> <br />If the decision is, to continue to arbitration, I believe the City should be represented by an <br />attorney who is experienced in employment law. Mr. Lepak estimates the cost at around $2500. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.