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