HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 IBEW Grievance LI
Agenda Item # 11
I Iwo
Memorandum• Closed Session
To: Board of Directors
From: Peter Holzmeister
Date: December 2, 2005
Why this matter is before the Board: The matter involves a grievance filed by
IBEW. The grievance is at the step involving Board review.
History: You will recall that the District entered into a contract to install conduits
through Donner State Park. The contract was still in progress on October 15, the
date when Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board puts certain
requirements in place for projects involving digging in the ground. Lahontan
required the District to have a person on site at all times when our contractor was
performing work. That was a particularly busy time for us and we needed a
person to be on site to comply with the Lahontan requirement. We appointed
Dennis Sanchez to perform the work since he has considerable experience in
construction of this kind. We paid him at the rate of a water inspector for this
work on the theory that this project involves construction of conduit much like a
water system uses.
The Union filed a grievance stating that we should have upgraded a lineman to
perform this work and paid him at the rate of an electric inspector, which is higher
than a water inspector. From our perspective, (1) we did not want to lose the
services of a lineman on the line crew during this period because of how busy we
were, (2) we did not believe the requirements of Lahontan required an inspector,
and (3) this project did not really involve work that is unique to the electric
system. The assignment was very limited in scope and responsibility.
The grievance was submitted to me and I denied it. It is now being submitted to
the Board of Directors as the next step in the grievance procedure.
New information: Attached for your review are documents that relate to t
TITLE 14
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
14.1 Definition: A grievance is defined as meaning any dispute regarding the application of the
following:
(a) The terms of this Memorandum of Understanding.
(b) The discharge, demotion, or discipline of an individual employee.
(c) This procedure does not apply to instances of dissatisfaction by employees over their
wage rates once such rates have been established by action of the District's Board of
Directors following the meet and confer process. (Subsection reformatted 1991)
14.2 Representation: In initiating and prosecuting a grievance, any individual employee shall
have the right to present grievances to the District and to have such grievance adjusted
without the intervention of Union, provided that the adjustment shall not be inconsistent with
the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding, provided that Union's Business
Representative shall be given an opportunity to be present at such adjustment, and
provided,further, that grievances settled by individual employees without representation by
Union Officials shall not bind the Union to an interpretation of this Memorandum of
Understanding.
14.3 Time Limits: The time limits specified below may be extended for a reasonable period of
time to a definite date and time by the mutual consent of the involved parties. The party
requesting the time extension shall make such request in writing and submit for
consideration.Time extensions will be valid only with signed approval from both parties.The
failure by the involved employee to meet any specified applicable time limit will constitute a
withdrawal of the grievance. The failure by the involved employer representative to meet
any specified applicable time limit will entitle the involved employee to take the next step in
the grievance procedure.
14.4 Grievance Procedure Steps:
Step 1: The employee,and/or an employee organization official if desired by the employee,
shall discuss the issue with the immediate supervisor.
Step 2: The employee,or an employee organization official if desired by the employee,shall
reduce the issue to writing and refer the matter to the General Manager of the District within
20 working days after the facts or circumstances giving rise to the grievance are available to
the employee, or in the case of disciplinary action against the employee, within ten (10)
working days after(1)the employee is given written notice of the discipline, or(2)a written
determination is made after a pre-disciplinary review, whichever date is later in time. The
written grievance shall state the facts, identify the provisions of the MOU alleged to have
been violated, and state the desired remedy. If necessary to resolve the issue, either party
may request than an informal meeting be held in order to gather pertinent information. If the
dispute is resolved, it shall be reduced to writing and jointly executed by the parties. If the
dispute is not resolved within ten (10)working days after the General Manager's receipt of
referral, then the employee shall immediately proceed to the next step.
Step 3: The employee, or an employee organization official if desired by the employee,
shall,within fifteen(15)days of the General Manager's receipt of the referral in Step 2, refer
the issue,in writing,to the District's Board of Directors. The Board shall respond,in writing,
within ten (10)working days after its next regularly scheduled Board meeting.
Step 4: The employee,or an employee organization official if desired by the employee,shall
refer the issue to Advisory Arbitration within twenty (20) working days after receipt of the
District's response in the foregoing step. The parties shall cooperate in the prompt
appointment of an Advisory Arbitrator. If the parties fail to agree upon the Advisory
Arbitrator, either parry, upon written request to the other, may request the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service to provide the parties a panel of seven(7)Arbitrators. Upon receipt
of such panel the parties will proceed promptly to select an Advisory Arbitrator by altemately
striking one name from the panel. The last remaining shall serve as the Advisory Arbitrator.
The Advisory Arbitrator shall make a written recommendation to the Board of Directors with
respect to the issue submitted for arbitration. The Board of Directors shall issue a final
written decision within ten (10) days of the receipt of the recommendation. The cost of
Arbitration shall be equally borne by the District and the referring party. except each party
shall assume the cost of their presentations.
The following rules shall apply at the arbitration: Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath
or affirmation. Each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce
exhibits and to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any relevant matter even though the
matter was not covered in the direct examination. If the employee does not testify in
employee's own behalf,employee may be called and cross-examined. The hearing shall not
be conducted according to technical evidence rules. Any relevant evidence shall be
admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in
the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of its admissibility in civil actions. Hearsay
evidence, otherwise inadmissible in civil actions, may be used for the purpose of
supplementing or explaining other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a
finding.
Note: An employee disputing a penalty of a suspension without pay in excess of five (5)
days pay during a twelve(12)month period, or a discharge shall forego Step 1 and 2 of this
procedure.
Ali lid ��Yl � 1
Public Utility District
PO Box 309, 11570 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, Ca. 96160
Minute Order
February 2, 2005
No. 2005-06
REVISED
CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING THE TELEVISING OF DISTRICT
BOARD MEETINGS
Director Thomason moved and Director Sutton seconded, a motion to
direct staff to purchase and install the necessary video, switching and
ancillary equipment to allow the live carriage of District meetings on
TTCTV6, at a cost not to exceed $12,500 from HT Electronics in Reno,
Nevada; to direct staff to enter into a contract with TTCTV6 for a camera
person at a cost of $50 per hour; and for funds to come from a building
fund transfer.
ROLL CALL: All Directors, aye. SO MOVED.
Post Office Box 309— 11570 Donner Pass Road—Truckee, CA 96160
Phone 530 587-3896—Fax 530 587-1 189
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO
10a ,
1 UNION 1245
30 ORANGE TREE CIRCLE
'VACAVILLE, CA 95687 Y _ '707) 452 27oo
L'.fl. BOX 2547,VACAV:LLE,CA 95696 - -
EAX i707+452-27e1
November 24, 2005
Board of Directors
Truckee Donner PUD
11570 Donner Pass Road
P.O. Box 309
Truckee, California 96160-0309
Re: Rebuttal to P.Holzmeister's answer on Upgrade Grievance dated Nov 14, 2005
Dear Members of the Board:
Title 3 - Conditions of Employment—3.11 Temporary Upgrades was violated by TDPUD
and Mr. S. Hollabaugh
There was no misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Steve Roden, TDPUD Lineman/Shop
Steward.
Mr. Roden interviewed in person:
1. Mr. Ron Reynolds, Planner, understood at that time this upgrade would cause a
problem and told Mr. Hallobaugh that he was opening a can of worms. Mr.
LIallobaugh's response was"I'll deal with that when it comes."
2. Mr. Pat McQuarry, Inspector for Construction, Electric Department, understood at
that time this upgrade would cause a problem.
3. Mr. Steve Hollabaugh, understood this would cause a problem but decided not to
abide by the MOU because he needed a"body" so work could continue after
October 15,2005 at Donner Lake State Park.
4. Mr. Dennis Sanchez, Building Maintenance, by his own admission said he was
not instructed to monitor dirt work, but indeed was told he was on site as an
inspector and that he did inspect electrical underground facilities.
The MOU calls for the Inspector for Construction, Electric Department to have five (5)
years experience as a Journeyman lineman. The past practice has been that qualified line
department members do inspection on electrical facilities.
How would Lahanton/Donner Lake Park officials feel knowing they were supplied a non-
qualified inspector.
1
13
How Mr. P. Holzmeister could make such comments is beyond understanding.
Mr. Holzmeister and Mr. Hollabaugh complain of grievances yet here they are blatantly a
part of the reason for the submission of a grievance.
With TDPUD being a revolving door for hard to acquire Journeyman Lineman, I find it
quite disconcerting this type of attitude is held by management.
We ask again that TDPUD:
1. Follow the MOU between IBEW 1245 and TDPUD in that"upgrades will be
assigned to the most senior and qualified employee within the effected
department."
2. Since the Inspector for Construction, Electric Department specifies that the
inspector must have five years experience as a Journeyman Lineman, then the
senior available lineman should be awarded an upgrade wage for the October 17'h
to October 21s`, 2005.
Thank you, j
Ae-
Santiago J. Salazar
IBEW 1245
Business Representative
P.O. Box 51165
Sparks, NV. 89435-1165
r
3.11 Temporary Upgrades:
(a) When a non-management employee is temporarily assigned to a higher classification for
a period of more than four(4)hours in a work day,the employee will be paid the next higher
rate applicable to the higher classification for all time actually worked; however/in no case
will two (2)employees be paid for carrying out the responsibilities of a single position at the
time nor will any employee be temporarily upgraded to the rate of a higher
classification while performing in a learning capacity. Temporary upgrades will only be
authorized by the department head, or in the absence of the department head, by the
General Manager, and such authorization shall be made in writing, except that upgrades
during an emergency call-out shall be governed by Section 3.11(b).
(b) The Union and District recognize that a standby employee who is called out to respond
to a problem is expected to exercise good judgment and may become accountable for the
principal responsibilities of a higher classification without being specifically so assigned. The
District shall recognize that as a temporary upgrade.
(c) When an employee is temporarily assigned or reassigned to work in a classification
lower than the employee's regular classification, the employee's rate of pay will not be
reduced.
(d) Employees on long term upgrade assignment, (defined as an upgrade assignment for
more than 10 consecutive working days), shall have authorized time off (vacation or
personal disability leave)paid at upgrade rate. If upgrade assignment is expected to last for
twenty work days or less,vacation greater than one day will not be approved at the upgrade
rate.
3.12 Employee Competency: (See Title 16.2)
3.13 Residency: Emergency Service Response Employees(Electric and Water Department Field
Classifications)may be required to reside within reasonable commute boundaries as solely
determined by the District. (A reasonable commute is where you can report for work within
45 minutes of being contacted. This includes the Reno area but does not include any area
west of Donner Summit. See map for guidelines.)
3.14 Bargaining Unit Work: Non-bargaining unit employees may perform work usually assigned
to employees in IBEW 1245 bargaining unit classifications only under the following
circumstances:
(a) When such assignments are not made for the deliberate purpose of reducing the
number of employees performing work within bargaining unit classifications
(b) When historical assignments are recognized by the parties with respect to overlapping
duties of non-bargaining unit classifications and bargaining unit classifications.
(c) Such work assignments other than as described in (a)and (b)above shall be limited to
work performed in:
(1) Emergency situations.
(2) Training of employees and demonstrating work methods.
(3) Incidental assistance and de minimis assignments.
(d) The parties recognize that there are some duties of bargaining unit classifications which
are quasi-supervisorial. During the temporary absence of a bargaining unit employee with
quasi-supervisorial duties, the District may assign the quasi-supervisorial duties to another
2003-05 MOU - Page 5
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors
Joseph R.Aguera
J.Ronald Hemig
Business Office (530) 587-3896 FAX (530) 587-5056 Patricia S.Sutton
Tim Taylor
William L.Thomason
General Manager
Peter L Holuneister
LETTER AGREEMENT
Defining a Policy for Temporary Upgrades
Purpose:
Provide a consistent practice for assigning employees to temporarily upgraded positions.
TDPUD Temporary Upgrade Policy
The District and IBEW Local 1245 agree temporary upgrades shall be assigned to the
most senior & qualified employee within the affected department. There are generally
two types of temporary upgrades:
1) UNSCHEDULED TEMPORARY UPGRADES OF ONE DAY OR LESS
a) Upgrades under these conditions will remain crew specific, and the employee
upgraded will be the most senior, qualified and available employee assigned
(ongoing crew assignment)to that crew.
b) In the event the crew normally has a leadman, the incumbent and available
leadman will receive the foreman upgrade, regardless of the crew or District
seniority of other employees.
2) SCHEDULED TEMPORARY UPGRADES OF MORE THAN ONE DAY
a) Upgrades will not be crew specific, and upgrades will be awarded to the most
senior, qualified and available employee, provided that employee is working the
same work schedule as the upgraded position to be filled.
b) In the event the crew normally has a leadman, the incumbent and available
leadman will receive the foreman upgrade, regardless of the crew or District
seniority of other employees. If the leadman is unavailable, then the upgrade will
be assigned to the most senior, qualified and available employee with the same
work schedule.
c) Leadmen are not entitled to upgrades to positions on crews other than the crew
they are normally assigned to.
3) WORK SCHEDULES
a) Upgraded employees must be working the same work schedule (i.e. 5/8's or
9180's or other alternate schedules as agreed to by the District and IBEW 1245)
as the upgraded position to be filled.
Post Office Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, California 96160
4) ROTATION OF CREW ASSIGNMENTS
a) The District will provide a schedule for journeyman level employees to rotate
between different crews within a department. Positions higher than journeyman
level will not be included in the crew rotation. A system for determining crew
rotations will be established by the District and will provide reasonable notice to
affected employees to accommodate scheduling of personal activities.
If you agree with implementation of this policy please so indicate by signing in the space
provided below.
FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE UNION
Peter L FrolzrYf6ister Santiago Salazar
General Manager Business Representative
Date Date
2 Post Office Box 309 11570 Donner Pass Road • Truckee,California 96160
November 1, 2005
To: Peter Holzmeister
General Manager
From: Steve Roden
IBEW Local 1245 Shop Steward
Re: Failure to follow 3.11 of the MOU between IBEW 1245 and Truckee Donner
PUT)
Between October 17`h and October 21, 2005, Steve Hollabaugh upgraded Dennis
Sanchez, Building Maintenance, to inspect electrical conduit installation at Donner Lake
State Park, in violation of Sec. 3.11 of the MOU between Truckee Donner PUD and
IBEW Local 1245.
Facts of Grievance
On October 20`h, I met with Steve Hollabaugh to discuss the grievance. Steve indicated
Lahanton required the TDPUD to have an employee on site to ensure the TDPUD
contractor(Hardline Construction) followed all the following Lahanton requirements.
1) No ditches left open
2) Winterize as the contractor digs
3) All winterizing materials were on site
In addition, Steve noted that there were no electric department personnel available to
stand watch over Hardline, and Dennis was not instructed to inspect conduits, as Ron
Reynolds was available as the main inspector, but to stand by to meet Lahanton
requirements.
On October 25`h and October 28`h I met with Dennis Sanchez to discuss what exactly he
was told to do, and what exactly he did at Donner State Park between October 17`h and
October 21.
• Dennis was told the Donner Lake job required a full time inspector.
• He was told by Ron Reynolds, "...contractors cheat", so he was briefed by Ron
on
1) How much sand should be above and below the conduits
2) The appropriate depth of conduits
3) How much concrete was to be poured around the caps
• Dennis said, Ron never mentioned to monitor dirt piles, waddles, or silt fences.
• On October 28`h, Dennis said he was never instructed to monitor Hardline's
construction site for erosion control.
On October 31 s`, I met with Steve Hollabaugh to discuss the discrepancies in Dennis's
description of what his duties were, and what duties Steve had actually upgraded Dennis
for. Steve noted Ron was the inspector; Dennis had no authority to make decisions, and
was just an observer who could have been anyone from the District.
Remedy requested
1) Follow Sec.3.11 of the MOU between IBEW 1245 and TDPUD in that"upgrades
will be assigned to the most senior and qualified employee within the effected
department.,,
2) Since the Inspector for Construction, Electric Department, specifies that the
inspector must have five years experience as a Journeyman Lineman, then the
senior available Journeyman Lineman should be awarded an upgrade wage for
October 17`h to October 21, 2005.
Truck-De Donner JPubfic boftility District r l . ,.,,r .;
t e00 R..a<�w;rr
3 sness ice nr�,m9
) 33896 FAX 3r) F875C66 fi rfton 4iim ley!or
bGil!sm L.TF.omasrn
Geeeral. larager
Peter L.Holzm6ster
RESPONSE TO GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED BY
STEVE RODEN ON NOVEMBER 3, 2005
Submission of the grievance
A grievance was submitted by shop steward Steve Roden on November 3, 2005 alleging that
the upgrade of Dennis Sanchez between Oct 17'' and Oct 2151, 2005 was in violation of section
3.11 as amended by letter agreement of the MOU. There exists a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the District and IBEW Local 1245 which sets forth a grievance
procedure, sets certain ground rules about temporary upgrades and recognizes certain
management rights that are reserved to the District.
Section 14.1 of the MOU defines a grievance as "meaning any dispute regarding the application
of the following:
(a) The terms of this Memorandum of Understanding,
(b) The discharge, demotion, or discipline of an individual employee,
(c) This procedure does not apply to instances of dissatisfaction by employees over their
wage rates once such rates have been established by action of the District's Board of
Directors following the meet and confer process.
What the grievance alleges
21 at Title 3.11 was violated when Dennis Sanchez was upgraded between Oct 17th and Oct
Remedy Requested
1) Follow section 3.11 of the MOU and that "upgrades will be assigned to the most qualified
employee within the effected department".
2) Since the Inspector for Construction, Electric Department, specifies that the inspector must
have five years experience as a Journeyman Lineman, then the senior available
Journeyman Lineman should be awarded an upgrade wage for October 17`h to October
216, 2005.
Analysis of the grievance
Their are certain "Facts of grievance" that have been misstated or misunderstood by Steve
Roden during his discussion with Stephen Hollabaugh. I will try to clarify these here.
;.Y.: 79 Cc,rer tP a s ad _ ,;.:r,e 3g1 gg
In order to continue excavating past October 15"', Lahanton had four requirements.
Lahanton requirements: (paraphrase)
1) No excavation left open
2) Winterize as the contractor excavates
3) All winterizing materials must be on site
4) Truckee Donner PUD to be on site full time after October 15 while contractor is
excavating.
The misunderstood facts are who is responsible for which of these four requirements.
Items 1 thru 3 were the contractor responsibility, not TDPUD.
Items 1 thru 3 were told to the contractor (Hard Line) by Stephen Hollabaugh.
The contractor agreed to items 1 thru 3 in order to excavate after October 15"' until weather
stops the project or project is finished.
Item 4 was TDPUD's responsibility.
Truckee Donner PUD was to be on site full time after October 15 while contractor is excavating.
Stephen Hollabaugh instructed Dennis Sanchez to report to Ron Reynolds as Ron was the
inspector and Dennis would only be on site to meet the Lahanton requirement that was
TDPUD's responsibility.
As the inspector on the job, Ron knew what the project entailed and what the contractor was to
do. Dennis was his observer of the project reporting to Ron. Ron told Dennis what to watch for.
Dennis had no authority to make decisions, and was just an observer reporting to Ron. If
anything looked out of the ordinary, Dennis was to call Ron who would respond. The grievance
alleges that Dennis's job was to monitor dirt piles, waddles, or sift fences. This was never
Dennis's job. This was the responsibility of the contractor who knew what they were
responsible for.
Stephen Hollabaugh believed that the position of Inspector for Pipeline Construction
(Temporary) was the closest job description that would match the task that Dennis was to do.
This job description did not perfectly fit the task but was the closest in Stephen's opinion.
Therefore Stephen Hollabaugh upgraded Dennis to this wage during the few days he reported
to Ron.
My opinion is that the work performed by Dennis in this temporary assignment is not the work
anticipated in either the Construction and Maintenance Inspector (Electric Department) or the
Inspector for Pipeline Construction (Water Department). Dennis was making no judgment and
was not inspecting the scope of work being done. This work could have been done by any
employee of the District with minimum orientation. Dennis could have been assigned this task
without being upgraded at all.
The grievance appears to rely on the Letter Agreement entered into in March of 2005. The
entire background of that agreement concerned upgrades on the line crew where there is a
need to consider an upgrade to foreman or leadman and where the crew and work schedule are
a factor. I do not believe the Letter Agreement applies to this situation.
2 P. O.Box 309—Truckee,CA 96160—Phone 530-587-3896—www.tdpud.org
Title 1.4 of the MOU states that the management of work of the District, the direction of the work
and the right to plan and control District operations and make and enforce reasonable work
rules is reserved exclusively in the District, provided that such rights will not be inconsistent with
the terms of this agreement. The District believes that Title 1.4 gave the Stephen Hollabaugh
the right to assign this work to Dennis Sanchez and that the work could be capably done by
Dennis with minimal orientation and there is no inconsistency with the terms of the MOU.
Discussion
It is the management's right to manage the work of the District and decide who is qualified to do
the work. The upgrade language of section 3.11 covers the upgrade to an existing position. In
this case, the work that was performed by Denis Sanchez was a group of tasks performed to
satisfy a requirement of Lahanton, and was not covered by an existing position. Therefore the
District made the decision that Dennis Sanchez was qualified to do this work. He was paid a
wage scale that matched as closely as possible the work to be done, although the match was
not perfect.
The grievance misstates what the Union thought Dennis was responsible for.
Section 3.11 did not apply and therefore was not violated in this instance.
Decision
The grievance is denied.
Peter L. Holzmeister
General Manager
Date
3 P.O. Box 309—Truckee,CA%160—Phone 530-587.38%—www.tdpud.org