Loading...
07271987 PERC agn & mins A G E N D A PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION Meeting of Monday, July 27, 1987 7:30 P.M. - Utility Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall I. Review Case No. 86 -CA001 James Bennett, Charging Party vs City of Sanford, Respondent ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC: If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting or hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence, which record is not provided by the City of Sanford, (FS 286.0105) CITY OF SANFORD Local Option Public Employees Relations Commission P. O. Box 386 Sanford, Florida 32771 NOTICE OF P.E.R.C. MEETING Wednesday, August 3, 1988, 5 :00 P.M. Utility Conference Room 2nd Floor, City Hall, Sanford, Florida A G E N D A 1. Introduction of the City Manager, Mr. Frank A. Faison and the new Personnel Director, Mr. Tim McCauley, to the P.E.R.C. members. 2. An up -to -date report of Veterans Laws. Post: City Manager Public & Employee Bullentin Boards Downstairs Lobby - City Hall Sanford Herald ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC: IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE ABOVE MEETING OR HEARING, HE MAY NEED A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, WHICH RECORD IS NOT PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SANFORD. (FS 286.0105) M ' . July 11, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: All Departments VIA: Director of Administra tive Servic-e FROM: Tim McCauley /i� Personnel Officer SUBJECT: Veterans Preference Law Under the provisions of the Veterans Preference Law as contained in Chapter 295 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of Administration was authorized to create rules and regulations to administer the Veterans Preference Program. As of March 30, 1988, the final rules were approved and are now in effect. This memo is intended to give you a brief overview of what those rules require and of the City's obligation thereunder. The Veterans Preference Laws apply to individuals who fall within one of the following categories: 1. Honorably discharged, disabled Veteran, who has a service - connected compensable disability. 2. The spouse of a totally disabled Veteran, who because of this disability cannot qualify for employment. 3. The spouse of any person missing in action, captured in the line of duty or forcibly detained. 4. A Veteran of any war who served on active duty for 181 consecutive days or who has served 180 consecutive days since 1/31/55 if performed during a wartime era. 5. The unremarried widow or widower of a Veteran who died of a service - connected disability. In situations where a competitive exam is not used, the City shall hire a person entitled to Veterans Preference over other equally qualified applicants. Should there be 2 or more persons entitled to preference who are among the most qualified, a person in category 1, 2 or 3 would receive preference over persons who qualify under categories 4 or 5. Veterans Preference Law Page 2 Should the City choose to reassign, promote, or demote from within its existing pool of employees, the Veterans Preference need not be considered. However, if the job is posted to non - City employees (general public), the hiring department must consider the Veterans Preference status of applicants who apply. In every instance in which a person entitled to Veterans Preference meets the minimum job requirements, that person shall be granted an interview. If, during the interview - process, an applicant asserts the preference for the first time, the applicant should be referred to Personnel to fill out all appropriate documents. As long as the preference is asserted prior to a hiring decision having been made, that preference should be considered by the hiring department. Assertion of Vet- erans Preference shall in no way imply the negation of meeting minimum qualifications. This memo' does not address all aspects of the Veterans Preference Law nor does it answer all questions that may arise, therefore, all Department Heads and hiring authorities are asked to attend a meeting on this subject scheduled for Thursday, July 14 at 10:00 A.M. in the City Commission Chambers. Since the City of Sanford is mandated to comply with the Law, it is advisable that all Departments be represented at this meeting and all concerns and questions be addressed. Your cooperation is appreciated. TMc /j is Distribution: All Departments (3b) MINUTES LOCAL OPTION P.E.R.C. JULY 28, 1987, 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Garnett White, Chairman Howard Whelchel Charles J. Volk, Jr. Shirley P. Schilke Others Present: Fran Diedrickm, Personnel Officer, City of Sanford James Brown, Attorney Althea Cooper, P.E.R.C. Clerk The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Garnett White, Chairman. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved and accepted for filing. Mr. White asked Mr. Brown to bring the memebers up to date on the filing that has been filed with the Sanford Local Option P.E.R.C. In the packets that all of you have received the chronological event that has taken place. Jim replied, basically what they are doing tonight to make a final determination in unfair labor practice case. The general dismissed the charge that the Attorney from Orlando Mr. Siwica had filed on the behalf of Mr. Bennett. Mr. Siwica with brief background filed the charge with the State Public Employee Commission back in January or February 1986 right after Mr. James Bennett was terminated by the City of Sanford. They dismissed the charge because we have a local option P.E.R.C. Mr. Brown said sometime around in June 1986 the charge, Mr. Siwica contacted him and he forwarde to his office his forms and told him that he needed to go ahead and file charge. In July 24,1986 this was sent to each of the members that the charge had been filed, unfortunately from their point of view it was not properly filed, it did not contain the specifics that we needed to proceed under Statute and those specific involved Citation to Statute of the Ordinance and to our rules and regulations all which have been given to Mr. Siwica. At that point issued a notice of dis- missal. He issued at those dismissals on, it is dismissed that you have 20 days to appeal of our dismissal P.E.R.C., and have 15 days to refile on the charge, if he Mr. Bennett do so he will treat this amended charge as relating back to the filing of his original charge, the reason for this because there is a 6 month Statute limitation which to file a charge. He thinks that Mr. Bennett was terminated January 22, and the charge was not filed until July 24 raise that issue. According to our rules regulations that he wanted to appeal or amend the new charge, that new charge had to be received by the Office of the Clerk by August 18 not including Saturday and Sunday. August 18, there was no charge received, apparently they have problems with their service through the mail box, sometimes get sent to the City of Sanford and not to our box, spite the fact their separate. At that point he issued what is called an Order of the Show Cause, please explain to use what you tried to do to file the charge, because he alleged at that point perhaps it got lost or he mailed it, and I would say we have a real problem, and we should treat it as final, instead we got back he had a new packet with an affidavit that said on the afternoon 18 I hand delivered at the Post Office to a postal Clerk who promised me that he had put it in the box. Unfortunately, according to our rules, it's not final, our rules based specific to be filed within that period means the office of the Clerk. So he had enought time to see that it got there by the 18th or he could have hand delivered it or called and said that he had a real problem. Mrs. Shirley Schilke, replied that her only problem that this was that this was a man was employed every since 1974, be arbitraly dismissed because he felt like what he was gonna be doing was hazardous and dangerous. July 28, 1987 Mrs. Shirley Schilke, replied that her only problem that this was that this was a man was employed every since 1974 , be arbitrally dismissed because he felt like what he was gonna be doing was hazardous and dangerous. Althea spoke that the last two or three has been hand delivered to her desk. Jim mentioned