Laserfiche WebLink
member is chosen by the veteran, one by the <br />employer and the third by the other two <br />members. Oftentimes the members chosen <br />by the employer and the employee negate <br />one another. One neutral arbitrator agreed to <br />by both the city and the veteran employee in <br />lieu of a three person panel is preferable and <br />more cost-effective. <br />Prior to 2015, a hearing would be held <br />before a local civil service commission, if <br />one existed. If one did not exist, a three <br />person panel would be formed. A 2015 <br />change to Minn. Stat. § 197.46 allows a <br />veteran to choose a hearing before the local <br />civil service commission, or a three person <br />panel. The law also states if the city has a <br />civil service commission or merit board <br />authority, that body shall conduct the <br />hearing, making the law unclear and <br />potentially subject to legal challenges. <br />Members of civil service commissions are <br />chosen for their expertise and experience <br />with employment law. Establishing a three <br />person panel for a hearing instead of <br />utilizing an established civil service <br />commission is inefficient. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities recognizes the important <br />contributions veterans have made and <br />supports giving veterans limited <br />preference in employment. To strengthen <br />and improve the VPA, the legislature <br />should: <br />a) Clarify the law on use of promotional <br />points when an employee becomes <br />disabled after a first promotion; <br />b) Allow cities to place veterans on <br />probationary periods upon hire as <br />they do with other employees; <br />c) Allow public employers to include a <br />neutral arbitrator as a choice for a <br />hearing process in lieu of a three <br />person panel; and <br />d) Restore the language in Minn. Stat. § <br />197.46 requiring a hearing to be held <br />before a local civil service commission <br />where one exists. <br />HR -15. Drug and Alcohol <br />Rehabilitation <br />Issue: Under Minn. Stat. § 181.953, <br />subd. 10(b), an employer cannot terminate <br />an employee for a positive controlled - <br />substance test without first providing the <br />employee a chance for rehabilitation and <br />treatment. Some cities have been advised <br />this law applies to "probationary" <br />employees, as well as to regular employees. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports a legislative change to <br />clarify the state law on drug and alcohol <br />rehabilitation and treatment does not <br />apply to probationary employees. <br />HR -16. Background Checks <br />Issue: Current law allows criminal justice <br />background checks on active employees (as <br />opposed to applicants for employment) only <br />when such employees are firefighters or <br />work with children. The law governing <br />criminal history background checks on <br />police and other city employees does not <br />specifically allow such checks on active <br />employees. Cities need the ability to be able <br />to conduct criminal history background <br />checks on active employees as well as <br />applicants for employment using the BCA or <br />the BCA database access. <br />Response: Cities should be able to <br />conduct, but not be required to conduct, <br />criminal history background checks on <br />active employees using the BCA database. <br />The laws governing background checks <br />for all city employees should be amended <br />to allow for this practice. For those cities <br />that choose to use the BCA to run the <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 83 <br />