T&F/PEFSTATEWIDE
LABOR/MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
PEF Headquarters
1168-70 Troy-Schenectady Road
Latham, NY 12210
July 22, 2003
MINUTES
Present:
PEF
|
Joe Carusone, Chair, Central Office Janet Dell, Westchester D.O. Eugene Greco, Capital Region Office James Kemenash, PEF Field Rep Gwendolyn Leverett, Manhattan D.O. Norman Light, Brooklyn D.O. |
Oji C. Reed, Albany Desk Audit Donna Rodriquez, Suffolk/Nassau D.O. Ed Ryan, Albany TSRD Nancy Sweeney, Syracuse Cyriac (Sid) Thottan, Queens D.O.
Josephine Rice – Recorder |
MANAGEMENT
Matt Guinane, Labor Relations
Nancy Spenziero, Labor Relations
ISSUE
Ergonomics Training
DISCUSSION
PEF submitted a written proposal for the development of an office ergonomics program, which would include PEF offering to do ergonomics train-the-trainer for the employees at no cost to the Department. PEF requested that management grant release time for PEF employees to attend the train the trainer program. PEF also requested management appoint a liaison to work with Jonathan Rosen to coordinate the structure. Management recognized that this issue has been brought up by PEF many times at Labor Management. Management noted that the proposal submitted by PEF calls for several steps to be taken before any actual training was done. The first step in the proposal calls for the development of a department policy on ergonomics. Management stated that since PEF has placed the development of a statewide policy on ergonomics as a demand on the table during current contract bargaining, that any discussion involving the development of a policy at the department level would have to be tabled.
Management also suggested it be discussed at the Joint Health and Safety taskforce and that any initiative should include CSEA. PEF disagreed with being mandated to involve CSEA. PEF argued that the training can be viewed as instructing employees on how to properly use the equipment within their scope of work. Management also pointed out that the implementation of a program like that described in PEF’s proposal would have costs associated with it, in terms of release time for training for employees and resources to coordinate the training. Management suggested distributing information to the employees as an alternative.
PEF asked if the Department was refusing to discuss an ergonomics policy for its Department at this point in time because it allegedly is being discussed at statewide contract negotiations? Management replied that as much as this proposal calls for the development of a Department policy on ergonomics, they think that discussion should be tabled at this time for the Department level while contract negotiations are continuing. PEF disagreed.
Management reiterated that it would be premature, under this proposal, to allow release time prior to steps 1 and 2 being completed. They wanted to explore if this matter would be under the umbrella of the Joint Health and Safety Task Force. PEF realizes the mechanics will be derived from some type of committee.
ACTION: Management will communicate with the PEF chair by August 8th as to whether this proposal could be reviewed by the Joint Health and Safety Task Force or whether or not there is executive support.
ISSUE
Pre-Tax Transportation Program Support
DISCUSSION
The program is for the Metro North, New Jersey Transit and Metro lines in downstate New York and works by purchasing cards through pre-tax payroll deductions. Currently the state is piloting the transit check portion with certain agencies. PEF requested a letter from the Commissioner be sent to GOER expressing support for the Tax Department participating in the pre-tax transportation benefit program. Management replied that GOER informed them that they are not accepting any new participants into the pilot. The Department did express its interest on behalf of PEF. GOER stated they are not expanding the pilot but will consider including the Department if there is any expansion of the program once it’s off the ground. PEF added that Downstate Medical was added to the program upon the employer’s request.
ACTION: Management will forward PEF’s position that Tax and Finance be on record as supporting the program, its interest in participating and acknowledgement of the benefits and return with any response by August 8th to the PEF chair.
ISSUE
Parking – Queens, DO
DISCUSSION
Management is aware of the situation and the issues raised by PEF at the last meeting regarding the difficulties and limited options but, at this time, has no funding for additional spaces. After speaking with Mr. Vano at the District Office, management stated that further discussion of this issue should take place on a local level. Mr. Vano had a number of suggestions that could address this problem in light of the limited parking, such as increasing time in the field and telecommuting. PEF stated the two-year lease would be open for negotiations in the near future and proposed that negotiations with the landlord include parking. Management said it would be up to the Director of Audit to convey to OGS the need for additional spaces. PEF felt some accommodations could be made for them as existing tenants after a major occupant has recently vacated the building.
ACTION
Management will forward PEF’s suggestions to the Office Services Bureau.
ISSUE
State Police Department – Tax Enforcement Functions of PATB
DISCUSSION
PEF expressed the members’ concerns over their functions being assumed by the State Police. Management shared an e-mail from Peter Farrell confirming that there was no truth behind this rumor. There are shared interests in certain areas but the Director of Tax Enforcement intends to retain these functions.
ISSUE
OTE Pistol Permits
DISCUSSION
PEF felt that the Office of Tax Enforcement employees should not be required to obtain pistol permits because it is not required for New York City’s Tax Enforcement employees. It also creates security and privacy issues with the information required for the permits. PEF asked for the Department’s support to pass legislation which would wave the pistol permit. Management replied that existing privacy laws prevent personal information from being given out. Management explained that this issue refers to police officers, who carry their pistol under a shield, as opposed to peace officers, which the laws require permits for. New York City also requires gun permits. The office has reviewed the 2002 legislation which was meant to clarify the peace officer status with limited police officer powers. All tax enforcement employees have to have permits. A special stamp is used for permits issued outside of New York City to enter the city with a gun. Management explained that all counties outside NYC require permits, and that NYC is requiring them also. If they didn’t, then out NYC employees, who are peace officers, would not be able to carry their guns outside of NYC. Management was unaware of any confidentiality issues with the permits. PEF added that they wanted to amend existing privacy legislation for parole officers to include tax employees. Management replied that various constituencies are seeking police officer designation. The Department believes current laws are sufficient for management’s purposes and is not interested in any further legislative changes. However, if PEF wants changes to these employees’ legal status, they need to seek legislative change.
ACTION: Management will share the legislative proposal submitted by PEF with PATB Management and a copy of Sections 120 (police officer status and powers) and 210 (criminal procedures) will be provided to PEF.
Management asked if the Department will be questioned regarding the retirement system on the draft bill that has not yet been submitted.
ACTION: PEF will provide a reply through the PEF chair.
ISSUE
AT & T Phone Guidelines
DISCUSSION
PEF was concerned with the new phone system and Caller ID disclosing the auditor’s location when they are at a taxpayer’s place of business, thereby, violating confidentiality. PEF stated that Audit Management is aware of the problem and field personnel have been instructed not to make calls but that hinders operations and is not conducive for telecommuting. PEF asked if a blocking feature could be negotiated with the vendor. Management has spoken to our telecommunications manager who said that these concerns have been forwarded to the vendor and suspects other agencies have the same concerns. They are preparing a second letter and will follow up with Tom Beckstein and Tom Heinz.
ISSUE
Air Travel Guidelines
DISCUSSION
PEF questioned the $200 savings threshold for employees to make arrangements other than through Carlson Travel. Currently employees are required to ask for the cheapest fare, government fare and if any other options exist. PEF felt this was very time consuming and should be under contract to avoid additional research. PEF gave an example where a hotel room was charged higher under the government rate than private. Other restrictions prevent people from using personal credit cards or utilizing the Internet. PEF questioned the repercussions for not following procedures. The State did negotiate with certain airlines agreements between cities, but the city fare doesn’t apply to all destinations. Many are required to extend their travel to accommodate the lower fares, on their own personal time, or have to travel at unreasonable hours. PEF felt this issue should be investigated by the travel committee and wanted some uniformity among the section heads making individual rules.
ACTION: Management will forward the concerns expressed by PEF to the fiscal management bureau and discuss with the Labor Relations Rep on Audit’s travel committee. They will then follow up with Mr. Greco and Ms. Sweeney within the next couple of weeks.
ISSUE
Database by Social Security #’s
DISCUSSION
PEF expressed their concerns with identity theft and asked the Department to use some other identifier on the database, ie: badge number or employee ID#. PEF added that the database need not be based on Social Security numbers.
ACTION: Management will forward PEF’s concerns and suggestions.
Management added that there are ongoing discussions on this topic at contract negotiations. Because Human Resources is managing the database, they are tying everything in with the SS#. They feel the information is secure with a limited number of people having access, in the same way paper personnel records are secure and accessed only by a limited number of people for work related reasons.
ISSUE
Acting Positions
DISCUSSION
PEF requested the current status on getting the acting positions filled permanently at the appropriate salary and reducing the out of title work.
ACTION: PEF will provide a list of acting positions within one week for management’s reply.
Management replied that the Department has posted positions and interviewed candidates in anticipation of pending DOB approvals.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2003 at 9:30 at PEF.
__________________________ _____________________________
Joseph Carusone, L/M Chair Deb Dominski
Tax Labor Relations Board
Cc: Roger Benson
Patricia Baker
Roger Scales