Agenda - Council - 12/10/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

decision cannot be used in arbitration according to the attorney she consulted. She stated that this is being brought to the Committee to find out if they want to settle this issue without arbitration. If we settle without arbitration, we need to revisit our policy. If termination is too severe a consequence for refusal to be tested, the policy should be amended, perhaps to make a refusal the same as a positive test result. In that case, she has been advised by the attorney, if we settle, we should require the Union to sign a statement saying this does not set a precedent. If the decision is to continue to arbitration, she would suggest retaining an attorney who specializes in this at a cost of about $2,500. Ms. Koskinen stated that last week she talked with Ms. Waite Smith and with Gregg Belsaas. He has agreed to submit to a test and to go to one of the counselors from the names given him by Ms. Wake Smith at the termination hearing. The arbitration would have a cost of $2,000 to $4,000. She noted that in the second to the last paragraph of Waite Smith's memo, one of the things the City did not do - is to give him a chance to have that test taken and did not refer him to a counselor at that time. She stated that termination was too severe for the offense. He could be suspended, but should not be terminated. Treating a refusal as a positive test result is better than what took place. She felt this is positive and it gives the City and the employee some options. With regard to the unemployment award, she disagreed with that - that information could and would be used in arbitration. Ms. Wake Smith stated she is assuming this State Statute relating to what can be used in arbitration is fairly recent as it is not in the 1994 Statutes. Ms. Koskinen argued that it is still admissible and suggested that maybe this is not an actual statute, it may have been a proposal to change a statute. City Administrator Schroeder pointed out that if it were not a statute, it would not have a State Statute number assigned to it. Ms. Koskinen stated she believes we would not be meeting if this was not a more reasonable approach. Mayor Hardin inquired if staff and the attorney feel the City's policy is sound. _Mr. Schroeder replied yes, we are confident that upon completion of the policy, all training, etc. was implemented properly. With regard to should refusal of the test be grounds for term/nation, Ms. Waite Smith offered that the City of Plymouth is the only city she's aware of that does not have that in their policy. The firrn we contract with to do the random testing said this is the standard policy used across the country. Councilmember Beyer noted that AFSCME was a part of drafting the policy and they agreed it was okay. Then we get the first test and the stories change. She expressed having a real problem with that. Will we have to amend the policy again? Will we be setting a precedence? If we have to amend our policy, I would rather it be done in binding arbitration. Ms. Koskinen stated that Ms. Waite Smith mentioned a written disclaimer by the Union that this would not be setting a precedent. This is a better way to deal with these issues and make sure employees have some protection as well as having the obligation to have an evaluation, In this case, she said she can understand what his problem was with having to testify. Personnel Committee/November 26, 1996 Page 2 of 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I