PEF/WCB
STATEWIDE L/M MEETING
1168-70 TROY-SCHENECTADY ROAD, LATHAM, NY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2005
Present:
|
PEF Barbara Manolakos Posner, L/M Chair, Council Leader Division 285, Executive Board B. Casey Small, Steward Grace Kelly, Council Leader Adam Regenbogen, Steward Barry Markman, Field Representative William P. Donovan, Assistance Council Leader Division 285 Eileen Hryckowian, Buffalo Steward Lani Bauer, Rochester Steward Diana O’Dowd, Sr. WC Examiner, Queens Steward Anitra Butler, Hempstead Steward Josephine Rice, Recorder |
MANAGEMENT Lisa Sunkes, Human Resources, Chair Michael Braksmajer, Labor Relations Representative Nick Schkrioba, Safety & Health David Donahue, Operations Joe McDermott, Director of IMS Jean Kneiss, Office of Adjudication Cheryl Wood, General Counsel Derrick J. Holmes, Human Resources Linda Doody, Human Resources Joseph V. Smith, Security
|
ISSUE
1. Minutes
DISCUSSION
Minutes of the April 12, 2005 meeting were approved and will be posted to the website.
ISSUE
2. Health and Safety Issues – Safety in the Hearing Room
DISCUSSION
Joe Smith discussed/responded to questions about up coming Workplace Violence Training, potential training in court room security to be previewed by Security staff, a Buffalo and Rochester pilot program where security personnel asked visitors for weapons (pilot discontinued) and confirmed that metal detectors are not being considered. He also stated that red books were distributed to the local crisis response teams. Nick Schkrioba updated the group on equipment for all Local Crisis Response Teams, personal emergency safety kits and the AED (Automatic Electrical Defibrillator) program.
ISSUE
3. Information Management Services (IMS) Issues – Electronic Diaries
DISCUSSION
Governor’s Line of Business Councils is an internal process that will look at ideas, their impact on the agency and develop proposals for the Executive Council to prioritize. The agency is constantly facing situations where there is more work than can possibly get done. The six areas are: Issue Resolution, Compliance, Self-insurance, Administration, Executive (auditor), and the Enterprise committee for projects with impact across all programs. The electronic diaries issue will be presented to the Issue Resolution Council. If accepted, a business analysis is done to decide whether it should go to Executive Council.
PEF was told that the electronic diaries could not be implemented from IMS’ point of view because of technical problems. Management replied that the Councils will make recommendations based on a cost/benefit analysis. PEF will be notified of the status of the proposals. Management will inform PEF when their items are on the priority list. Currently any IMS initiative, i.e. electronic diaries, will be going through the Governors process.
ACTION
Electronic diaries remains on the agenda.
3. Work Queues – Interim AD’s
DISCUSSION
The Office of Operations will continue monitoring interim AD’s from a quality perspective. There were significantly less statewide interim AD’s generated this year. They are better in quality and more complete in resolving accident issues. The call center has received less questions for explanation.
ACTION
Remove from agenda.
ISSUE
4. Section 150, Workers’ Compensation Law – Judges Other Employment
DISCUSSION
Judges are all considered policy makers, and if earnings are greater than $1000 in one year, they need agency approval. If earning more than $4000 they also need approval from the Ethics Commission regardless of the type of work. If Judges practice any kind of law, no conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety must take place. Outside employment cannot be conducted on state time or with the use of Board resources. All employees will be notified of updated Subject numbers. An electronic notification will be sent next week of the upcoming Judge’s conference where copies of updates and all ethics and codes of responsibilities will be provided. Terry Schillaci from the Ethics Commission will be the speaker.
ACTION
Item will remain on the agenda.
ISSUE
5. Telecommuting Update
DISCUSSION
The September 2004 pilot program has been extended an additional thirty days for the twenty participants. A final report was submitted to the executive staff on September 14. Both management and labor felt the program was very successful, with an increase in overall productivity by approximately six percent. Participants were provided with laptops to work from home two days per week. The Committee is developing criteria for further implementation. PEF added that there was an increase in morale. The ultimate goal is to move from the pilot to a statewide program. PEF felt letting the pilot lapse would not be the best practice for participants or management. Both agreed greater participation should be allowed.
ACTION
Telecommuting to remain on agenda.
ISSUE
6. Judges Calendar Parity
DISCUSSION
David Donahue to report on any improvements anticipated.
ACTION
Remains on agenda to report changes at the next meeting.
ISSUE
7. Conciliator – Emergency Policy
DISCUSSION
PEF was very pleased with the emergency policy issued by management and the fact that they had taking into consideration almost every issue raised by PEF. PEF noted that a copy was not provided by management prior to its official release, as was the understanding at the last meeting, and hoped that wouldn’t recur in the future. Management commented that it was released during the transition period but expects no more problems with defining what constitutes a real emergency.
ACTION
Remove from agenda.
ISSUE
8. Vacancies
DISCUSSION
A Judge for Queens was hired last week and an offer was extended to a conciliator this week. Brooklyn is still under consideration for a Judge and a conciliator. Approval was given for one of the two conciliator requests for Binghamton. The Hempstead Judge’s item couldn’t be filled for a year, pending the vacancy. The greater need of the agency will decide placement. A grade 23 is needed in Hempstead.
The Hearing Reporter exams were given a week ago. Civil Service is expected to have a list out within sixty days of the results. Level 2 and 3 are PEF titles. The provisional Verbatim Reporter 2 in Brooklyn was newly created, subject to passing the exam, as the need was identified.
ACTION
Item will remain on agenda.
ISSUE
9. Upgrades for Conciliators
DISCUSSION
Management was to look into State Insurance Fund (SIF) titles. PEF heard that attorneys were being upgraded at the SIF and felt management could access greater information from Civil Service. Management was informed by the Assistant Director of Personnel at SIF that there are no plans for upgrades for any senior attorneys. All statewide Senior Attorneys are Grade 25 in any agency. PEF was aware of at least one Grade 26 in NYC. Conciliators are still asking for an upgrade to Grade 26. Management replied that the Senior Attorney title is very broad and used in various ways in many different agencies. DMV uses the title for hearing officers. A new title would need to be created if it were to be raised by even one grade. Civil Service is attempting to decrease the number of titles. PEF continues to believe that a reallocation is justified for the conciliators.
ACTION
Item removed from agenda.
ISSUE
10. Post-OPTICS Reengineering and Integrated Statewide Staffing Model – PRISSM
DISCUSSION
This group acted as a think tank to develop a five-year and ten-year plan. Recommendations were submitted in an August report. Management is planning to hold a conference for DA’s, DM’s and Team Leaders. Two or three projects will be selected for implementation based on recommendations. A copy of the document will be sent to the PEF LM Chair and Field Representative.
ACTION
Item remains on agenda.
ISSUE
11. Contact Relationship Management (CRM)
DISCUSSION
Management decided to create an organization of customer relations to develop programs to enhance customer services. Joanne Conrad was designated to head that office. The first program proposed is the first part of quality assurance, monitoring phone calls with hardware and software.
ACTION
Remove from agenda, raise if necessary.
NEW ITEMS
ISSUE
1. New PEF Members List
DISCUSSION
PEF expressed the importance of being notified of new members in order to promptly contact and inform them of union rights and benefits. Members may not be aware that they need to rejoin if off payroll for a certain time. The shop steward(s) needs to be notified when new members are hired or promoted into PEF. Management stated that employees are provided with a packet prepared by PEF during the orientation process. Civil Service provides a list of all people by location in the PS & T unit. PEF requested a list be provided of new PS&T members. Management felt that would create a work load issue for staff and offered to provide a quarterly list for comparison. PEF stated that there was an agreement for them to provide the list of new PS&T unit members. Management will look into some options and contact PEF.
ACTION
Remain item from Agenda.
ISSUE
2. Impartial Specialists Unit
DISCUSSION
PEF reported that this is an important issue for Judges who wish to retain this right for many cases that are difficult to make a fair decision on. It’s a tool that some Judges need to have available. Knowing the Judge has that right sometimes expedites the resolution. Management had experienced a problem upstate where those who signed to be Impartial Specialists did not expect to be called and had problems setting their fees. There were difficulties in certain locations in getting specialists. PEF felt it was an excellent negotiating tool that may motivate one side or the other. The Committee is still meeting and considering it. PEF felt the Senior Law Judge could handle any misuse. Management will relay PEF’s thoughts and concerns to the Committee. PEF stated that there is currently no mechanism to break an impasse. Management was aware that the Health Management Bureau was canvassing which doctors would be serving as individual specialists and setting rates to create a database of qualified doctors.
ACTION
Remains on agenda.
ISSUE
3. Rescission of WCL Judges Decisions by Senior Judges
DISCUSSION
PEF disagreed with Senior Judges arbitrarily rescinding decisions made by Judges. PEF reported one case where a Senior Judge assigned a case to three Judges before getting the decision he wanted, with no record in the file informing the parties. It would be advisable if there was a feedback mechanism before a decision is overturned where the Senior Judge must have contact with the Judge. PEF also indicated that there have been instances where a Senior. Judge changes the decision of a Judge after the Judge changes a decision of a Conciliator without communication.
ACTION
Item will remain for discussion. Both PEF and Management to research Baseline for procedure regarding conciliation decisions.
ISSUE
4. Reallocation of Judges
DISCUSSION
PEF stated that judges were continuously interested in reallocation. Under Section 150 Judges have some opportunities for additional income. With the changes in this section, some Judges show no interest in outside employment because their jobs require their full energy, not allowing for doing anything outside. The complexity of the law and written material have increased. Judges are rendering fully developed and researched legal decisions. Judges have direct responsibilities for overseeing all administrative decisions and complex conciliation decisions. District Manager (Grade 29) was created one grade above Judges. PEF doesn’t think Grade 29 D M’s work any harder or have more complex duties than the Judges. District Manager is an MC 3, equal in dollars between a Grade 28/29. Management looked at reallocation and compared it against ALJ’s in other agencies. Many are at the hearing officer Grade 25 level. Positions were classified many years ago. If anything changes regarding positions, Civil Service may look at it. One grade upgrade is very difficult. PEF respectfully disagreed. Federal ALJ’s receive higher salaries. There is precedent in the public sector. DEC upgraded their Judges.
ACTION
Remove from Agenda.
ISSUE
5. UEF Fund
DISCUSSION
There is no authorization for contracting out. PEF requested that the RFP be withdrawn. Law firms that are interested in this work frequently have conflicts of interest. This would require a statutory change.
ACTION
Remain on agenda until final answer.
ISSUE
6. Four Day Work Schedule
DISCUSSION
PEF felt management should look at the feasibility of a compressed work schedule given the energy crisis and it would benefit all Board employees. Management replied that the Board does not have flex time but staggered work hours are available in all facilities. If seeking to develop a compressed work week or compressed pay period, they will need to look at the circumstances. Individualized work schedules are available now under baseline attendance and leave. It’s meant for short term, temporary basis, not to exceed twelve months for (Sabbath, elder or child care) by submitting to the supervisor and approved by Human Resources (HR). As well as virtual reduction schedules or part-time which require reduction in hours and pay. Criteria needs to be discussed for a formal program. PEF stated that one DA unilaterally changed the work hours and subsequently added a third schedule without notification. Management replied that the DA made recommendations to HR and there were discussions with CSEA at the time the third schedule was added.
A compressed work week is 37.5 hours in less than five days. A compressed pay period is working less than 10 days in every pay period. Computer Operations is on a compressed work week and work over the weekends. Management was not adverse to talking about formalizing some type of program and seeing what other agencies have as guidelines through a subcommittee. An individual work schedule form is on Baseline for those interested to complete and submit to their supervisor. A sub-committee will be established.
ACTION
Remain on Agenda.
ISSUE
7. New Conciliator Procedures
DISCUSSION
Jean Kneiss explained the background on the Conciliator and Examiner Training that she and Dave Donohue are doing. They have already conducted the training in Hauppauge, Hempstead and in Peekskil. PEF maintains that they should have been informed of these procedural
changes/clarifications and that the new guidelines including what types of cases can be resolved at Conciliation are contrary to the WC Law. Management contends that this is not so and invited PEF to submit information for consideration and/or suggestions to revise Baseline procedures. PEF advised that they will consult with their Counsel and may elect to litigate this issue.
ACTION
Item remains on the agenda.