Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-05; City Council; 6309; Response to City Council RequestCITY OF CARLSBAD ** AGENDA BILL NO. (0 307 DATE : Auqust 5, 1980 DEPARTMENT : PERSONNEL Subject: RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL REQUEST Statement of the Matter During the City Council meeting of June 30, 1980 information concerning a' CCEAssociation desire for classification changes was requested. The attached memorandum is herewith submitted. Fiscal Impact None. Recommendation City Council accept the attached ,report. Council Action: 8-5-8il Council accepted the report excluding the position of Deputy City Clerk, arid. .' requested a further report on same. 1 . MEMORANDUM DATE : July 16, 1980 TO : City Manager FROM : Personnel Director SUBJECT: CLASSIFICATION CHANGES DISCUSSED DURING MEET AND CONFER During the City Council hearing of the impass between the City and Carlsbad City Employees Association on June 30, 1980, reference was made to an association request for certain classification changes. The request is shown on the attached proposal dated April 9, 1980, as received from CCEA. The city's position on each of these proposals has been stated clearly several times. For purposes of information for the council the city's response for each proposed change is shown below. COLEMAN, WILLIAM T. TOM COLEMAN, as a result of the city's classi- fication plan changes of last August 1979, serves as a BUILDING MAINTENANCE CARPENTER, Salary Range 28, Step E. Prior to this he was designated as a PUBLIC WORKS LEADMAN at 28E. When his foreman, DICK EGGLESTON, had a heart attack and was unable to work, TOM on April 1, 1979 was provisionally appointed as the PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN, in as much as he was accomplishing the work done by DICK EGGLESTON. At that point it was discovered he had served out-of-class for several months and the differential compensation authorized by the City Manager was made retroactive to July, 1978. This appointment was a provisional appointment which was expected to be changed at the time the classification plan changes were adopted. The classifi- cation plan changes were adopted in August, 1979. On September 28, 1979, as planned, Mr. COLEMAN was appointed a MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN I1 which changed his salary range from 35A to 30E. He was appointed to this position until such time as a maintenance electrician could be hired by the city. Mr. COLEMAN was then to be reappointed to the position of BUILDING MAINTENANCE CARPENTER. Mr. COLEMAN served as a maintenance electrician from September 28, 1979 until March 11, 1980 at which time he was made a BUILDING MAINTENANCE CARPENTER and his salary changed from 30E to 28E. He currently is still serving as a BUILDING MAINTENANCE CATPENTER. His duties are those of a BUILDING MAINTENANCE CARPENTER. He does not work out of classification. All of the appointments and changes in appointments and changes in classifications were carried off as promised by the previous City Manager, Mr. BUSSEY. Nothing in Mr. COLEMAN'S records would indicate he should be serving at any other grade other than BUILDING MAINTENANCE CARPENTER, Salary Range 28, Step E. MURPHY, ANITA. ANITA MURPHY is designated as DEPUTY CITY CLERK at . Salary Range 25. This is comparable to SECRETARY I1 which is Salary Range 25 and who serve principally as secretaries to department heads. It was the association's contention that MURPHY'S serving as a DEPUTY CITY CLERK should be in a salary range higher than mosc departmental secretaries. The association proposed a Salary Range 29 which is the range of the SECRETARY TO THE CITY MANAGER and SECRETARY ,I .Page 2, MEMO dated J y 16, 1980 TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. The salary range of the position of DEPUTY CITY CLERK was discussed in detail at the time the classification plan for Miscellaneous employees was adopted in August, 1979. At that point the decision was made and agreed to by the association that the DEPUTY CITY CLERK should be established at Salary Range 25, the same as SECRETARY I1 which are normally those of departmental secretaries. There was no evidence presented which would cause the city to change the opinion that this designation was done correctly. Therefore, no change was or is recommended. STEVENS, KAREN. KAREN STEVENS serves as SECRETARY I in the City Clerk's office. The association recommended she be promoted to SECRETARY 11. SECRETARY I1 positions basically are secretaries to department heads throughout the city. Presently, in the City Clerk's office the DEPUTY CITY CLERK serves the same level as a SECRETARY I1 as previously discussed and there appears to be no basis for the recommendation of moving KAREN to a SECRETARY 11. It is the opinion of the city that such justification does not exist and the city did not recommend that Miss STEVENS be appointed a SECRETARY 11. MARSH, ROBERTA. ROBERTA MARSH served in the City Clerk's office during April of 1980 as a STENO CLERK I whose principal function is that of handling business licenses. ROBERTA is a probationary employee serving as business license clerk. Experience in the classification and experience of the classification as business license clerk is extremely limited. There is no basis for considering a change in classification for this position at this time. BAYLARD, JANE. JANE BAYLARD is a CLERK TYPIST 11 in the Purchasing Department. This is a new designation with a new incumbent who is still on probation. No information concerning change in functions or duties was presented. There is no information which was presented to the city which would cause the city to change this classification in this department at this time. RAMOS, ANITA. ANITA FWMOS presently serves as a STENO CLERK I1 in the Planning Department. The department head has made a recommendation that this position be upgraded to that of a SECRETARY I. In the past there have been two secretary level positions in this department. There is a precedent established based upon work load and work complexity. The recommendation of the department head has been implemented and the Personnel Department has completed the work and forwarded it to the City Manager which would change this classification to the level of SECRETARY I, thus, causing the incumbent ANITA RAMOS to be reclassified as SECRETARY I. The next series of items pertain to changes in position ranges or titles. First, is the recommendation of establishing the position of SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR. At the time this question was raised the city was expecting a new Building Official to report for work. It was requested that discussions be deferred pending the arrival of the new Building Official and CCEA agreed. The new Building Official has come aboard and has, subsequently, made a recommendation - Page 3, MEMO dated J 116, 1980 to the City Manager that the classification of SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR be established. The Personnel Department is in the process of developing the classification description which will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and recommending adoption. Until that time two BUILDING INSPECTORS have been appointed to Acting SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTORS so they may be employed in those types of positions by the Building Official and not be employed out of classification. Further information will be coming to the council shortly. The next recommendation by the association concerns the development of a position as ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER in the current development section of the Engineering Department. This constitutes a management prerogative and was not discussed during meet and confer by city representatives with CCEA. The subject listed in the April 9, 1980 CCEA proposal as PARKS FOREMAN pertained to the establishment of an additional position as a PARK FOREMAN. The recommendation made by the department head was a reclassification based upon changes and duties of the present TREE TRIMMER LEADMAN. This recommendation was based upon organizational changes which occurred within the parks section of the Parks and Recreation Department. A desk audit was accomplished and the position of leadman was reclassified to that of foreman and the incumbent appointed. The next recommendation concerns three library positions, LIBRARIAN I, LIBRARY ASSISTANT I, and LIBRARY CLERK I. The recom- mendation was that these three positions and incumbents be upqraded as permitted in the change adopted by the council to the classifica- tion plan. This recommendation had also been made by the department head. All three changes have been accomplished. UTILITIES SYSTEMS OPERATOR I1 currently is at Salary Range 27, while UTILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER I1 is at Salary Range 25. The differential between 25 and 27 is brought about because UTILITIES SYSTEMS OPERATOR I1 is a technical specialist, therefore bringing to the position greater background in terms of skill, knowledge and ability. In the next steps of the career ladder the UTILITIES SYSTEMS OPERATOR I11 is at the range 29, whereas UTILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER I11 is at a 30. The differnece here is that the systems operation I11 is as stated a technician who is responsible only for his own performance and does not get involved in supervision of other personnel. The maintenance worker I11 is a supervisor and therefore on the higher salary range. Based on the actions taken in August, 1979 these salary ranges are considered appropriate and no recommendation for change is made. The Parks and Recreation Department PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER I11 is at Salary Range 29. The recommendation was that this be moved to a 30 to be comparable to UTILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER 111. It is the recommendation of the director of that department that the change to range 30 for the PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER I11 be considered. A recommendation will be coming to the City Council shortly. ' 'Page 4, MEMO dated 3 y 16, 1980 The last item concerned a recommendation for a new classification of RESIDENT PARK CARETAKER. This is based on the fact that one of the park caretakers resides in the quarters on the Leo Carrillo Ranch. The association's contention is that by residing on the ranch he provides security and should be provided extra compensation. The incumbent's residence is not a condition of employment and is done voluntarily. He lives in the facilities rent free and essentially receives compensation not presently declared by the city. Based upon these facts the city has not seen fit to discuss nor concur in establishment of a special classification and a special salary range for the resident park caretaker. n U JNP/vs 'W. . s CCEA/AFSCME LOCAL 978 2nd Proposal April 9, 1980 ..- ARTICLE 6 COMPENSATION: 18.6% L,. ARTICLE 10 HOLIDAYS: 12 plus 1 floating at employee's option. . ARTICLE 11 STANDBY COMPENSATION: We withdraw our March 12 proposal. ARTlCLE 12 SICK LEAVE CONVERSION: We withdraw our March 12 proposal. ARTICLE 17 VACANCIES: Amend our March 12 proposal to read that any miscellaneous employee who passes the written exam is to automatically receive an oral interview. Further when no exam is given any miscellaneous City employee with the minimum qual if ications is to automatically receive an oral, ARTICLE 18 A,TTENDANCE AND DISCIPLINE: We withdraw our March 12 proposal on the basis that any updating of current rules are subject to meet and confer. ARTICLE 21 Coleman - Carpenter, Murphy - Dept. City Clerk, Stevens - Sec. I, Marsh - Steno Clerk I, Baylard - Clerk Typist II, Ramos - Steno Clerk 11. Inspector, Assoc. Civil Eng. current develop, Parks Foreman, Librarian 11, Library Clerk 11, Utility System Opr. II and 111, Parks and Rec Haint. Worker 111, Parks and Rec 24 hour Caretaker. CLASSIFICATION PLAN: We amend by specifying the following employees: Positions: Sr. Building ARTICLE 23 FOUR DAY WORK WEEK: or 4 to 5) is subject to affected miscellaneous employee vote. Amend to clarify that any rimnaganent change (5 to 4 i x- ' 1.I ARTICLE 24 LONGITIVITY PAY: Amend to as follows: 10 years of City eniploymcnt = i L-I; 15 years of City employment = L-2; 20 years of City employnierit = L-3. Longitivi ty pay is never lost as any result of promotion. ! ARTICLE 25 BILINGUAL BONUS: Amend to specify: Mata Building; Ramos City Hall; Ramos Uti 1 i ty Maint. ; Sanchez; Ramos Parks & Rec; Montanez. Change 5% to-- ARTICLE 27 EDUCATION INCENTIVE: We withdraw our March 12 proposal i I ;b opci u139 af 1-cio