January 8, 2001

A: Article 12.17 is a provision of the contract that has existed for 30 years and contains the important bar to timekeeping - "No employee in this unit shall be required to punch a time clock or record attendance with a timekeeper." It also has always provided that overtime eligible employees (SG-22 and below) "shall be required to keep daily time records showing actual hours worked." Critical to a full understanding of 12.17 is Article 12.12 which provides that timekeeping records shall be maintained "on a self accounting basis."

Q: I don't know what to believe about what I've heard about changes in 12.17 negotiated in the current contract. Management is implementing changes in timekeeping for everyone and portraying changes in the contract as a major concession that PEF agreed to. So, who actually agreed to what? What's the problem? How do we fix it?

A: PEF agreed to have overtime ineligible employees (Salary Grades 23 and above) account for their bi-weekly attendance on the same self-reporting form, and in the same way, that overtime eligible employees (Salary Grades 22 and below) had historically been, and were currently, doing.

PEF agreed to currently existing practices, not the changes in historic and current practices GOER is unilaterally attempting to impose on PEF members. All changes agreed to by PEF were fully reported on the PEF Web site, in the COMMUNICATOR and were distributed to every member as part of the contract ratification process. GOER is now attempting to get something that PEF did not agree to at the table.

PEF is using, and will use, all administrative, legal, and political resources necessary to address the situation.

A: PEF agreed that the 25% of the membership who are overtime ineligible would self report time and attendance in the same manner that the 75% of the membership who are overtime eligible had been doing for the past 30 years for the following reasons:

 

1. By making this minimal concession, we preserved the protections of Article 12.17, specifically the prohibitions against "timekeeping".

    

    

2. GOER would not have agreed to a contract without this change.

    

A: The contract language "shall be required to keep daily time records showing actual hours worked" has existed in the contract for 30 years. Over these 30 years, different agencies have adopted different methods for recording "actual hours worked" in compliance with this provision. Agencies have not required precise, to the minute, recording of arrival and departure times because this requirement would violate the first sentence bar to timekeeping that has always and currently still exists in 12.17. In many agencies, recording of one's schedule (noting any significant deviations from normal arrival and departure times) accompanied by appropriate charges to accruals for absences and specific notation of any overtime worked is established practice. However, other agencies have established practices of recording the actual gross number of hours worked (normally 7 1/2 or 8 hours), with appropriate charges to accruals for absences and specific notation of any overtime worked. Depending upon the historical practice in your agency either example may comply with the requirement to record "actual hours worked."

The key issue to focus on is whether there is a change in the 30 year practice for Grade 22s and below in your agency. An identified change in that practice effects all PS&T employees, including the Grade 23s and above, and may mean a violation of the contract. Your PEF steward and Field Rep should review any change immediately.

A: "Red lining" is the process whereby management requires employees to sign in on a centralized sign-in sheet and a supervisor draws a line across the sheet at a particular time (usually the scheduled beginning of a shift) under the last name appearing on the sheet. Employees signing in below the line are presumed to be tardy.

The question of whether or not "red lining" violates the prohibition against the use of a time clock contained in Article 12.17 of the NYS/PEF contract has been arbitrated over the years. Very generally, a single redline at the beginning of a shift has been held not to violate Article 12.17. However, multiple redlines which give management the ability to determine the amount or extent of tardiness function as timeclocks and, thus, are prohibited by Article 12.17. Arbitration cases involving red lining are very fact specific, consequently any new implementation of redlining should be evaluated as a possible contract violation.

During contract negotiations, no change was made in Article 12.17 that gives management any greater or lesser latitude with regard to red lining than existed previously. Therefore, any changes in existing redlining practices or new instances of red lining should be treated as a violation of Article 12.17 and reported to your shop steward for referral to your Field Rep for review and possible further action.

A: No, the Union and the State did nothing in negotiations to change any formal or informal comp time arrangements that many agencies have in place.

Any change in a practice that has historically provided a benefit is very serious and should be brought to the attention of your steward and Field Rep. for a possible filing of either a grievance or Improper Practice charge against the state.