PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
				  MEETING MINUTES

			         November 25, 2002

A special meeting of the Chippewa County Board of Commissioners' Personnel Committee was held on
Monday, November 25, 2002 at the Chippewa County Courthouse in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.  Chairman 
Hopper called the meeting to order at 7:19 p.m. with a quorum present.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Hopper, Chairman, Ted Postula, Bernard LaJoie and Gary McDowell (ex-officio)

MEMBERS ABSENT:	 None

OTHERS PRESENT:	 Tim Dolehanty, County Controller, Barbara Fortin, President, AFSCME 
                 Local 1552, Lisa Wilcox, Chapter Chairperson, AFSCME Local 1552, C. 
                 Ron Cross, Steward, AFSCME Local 1552

Additions / Deletions to the Agenda
Chairman Hopper called for additions or deletions to the agenda.  Hearing none, the agenda was declared 
approved as presented.

Public Comments
Chairman Hopper called for pubic comments.  No public comments were offered.

Agenda Item: AFSCME Step 3 Grievance
Chairman Hopper stated the purpose of the meeting was to fulfill the requirements of step 3 of the grievance
process set forth in the collective bargaining agreement with the AFSCME General Employee unit.  He then
called on Union representatives to present the grievance.

Lisa Wilcox, AFSCME Local 1552 Chapter Chairperson, said the Union thought Section 20 of the collective 
bargaining agreement was violated when the revised sick leave accumulation was made retroactive to the date 
the contract was executed.  She stated her belief that the calculation should be made retroactive to January 1, 
2002.  She added that it was past practice to make contract terms retroactive to the beginning of the year.

Commissioner Hopper disagreed with Ms. Wilcox statement concerning past practice.

Barbara Fortin, President of AFSCME Local 1552, said she understood the contract was made retroactive to 
January 1. She told the Committee that the Circuit Court AFSCME Unit and Probate Court AFSCME Unit
each filed similar grievances with their respective Judges.  Ms. Fortin said she was advised by the Union's 
legal counsel to file the grievance as a class action.

County Controller Tim Dolehanty reviewed sick time accumulation rates under the terms of the prior
contract, and the current contract. He stated an oversight in the final contract document cited only the 4.62-
hour rate for all employees and, despite the understanding reached at the negotiation table, the County was 
bound by the terms of the contract.

Controller Dolehanty said he denied the grievance at the previous step based on the language of Article 46
that clearly and unambiguously states the Agreement "shall become effective on the date executed." He said 
signature copies of the contract were provided to Union representatives on August 12, but were subsequently 
lost by the Union.  Mr. Dolehanty produced a copy of his letter transmitting executed copies of the contract to 
the Union on September 26, 2002.

The Controller told the Committee that the actual execution date could not be definitively stated because dates 
were not included on the signature page, but it is certain that execution did not occur before September 26, 
Therefore, Mr. Dolehanty concluded the 4.62-hour calculation should not take effect until September 26, according 
to Article 46.

Controller Dolehanty reviewed other flaws he believes are fatal to the grievance.  He referenced the grievance
procedure detailed in the contract that requires all grievances to be commenced within ten (10) working days 
after the grievance has become known, or should reasonably have been known by the employee.  To be 
consistent with contract requirements, the grievance should have been filed on or before September 9, which
is 10 working days after the first 21 paychecks showing sick leave calculations were distributed to Union
members.  Mr. Dolehanty noted one Union member's telephone call to his office questioning the calculation
after a review of her check stub information.

The Controller then reviewed the section of the grievance procedure that requires employees to first 
discuss grievances with a supervisor. He said the Union failed to abide by this first step when the Union 
Steward, Ron Cross, submitted the grievance directly to the Controller.  Mr. Dolehanty also noted the 
grievance was filed as a "class action," thereby failing to identify an aggrieved employee as required in 
the contract.  The Controller reminded the Committee that that any grievance not conforming to the 
provisions of the grievance procedure should be automatically defined as not constituting a valid 
grievance under the terms of the contract.

In response to the Union's position on past practices, Controller Dolehanty summarized Article 43 in 
which the Union and County agreed that the contract language would supersede all prior agreements or
understanding, oral or written, expressed or implied.

Ms. Fortin informed the Committee that Judge Lambros granted the grievance for the Circuit Court Unit. 
Controller Dolehanty explained that, as an employer separate and distinct from the County, it was within
the authority of the Judge to grant the grievance.  Mr. Dolehanty said he was unsuccessful in his attempts 
to contact the Judge before the grievance time limits expired, but has since spoken to the Judge about the 
contract limitations.  In response to questions concerning the Probate Court Unit, Mr. Dolehanty stated 
the grievance was denied at step 1 and he was not certain if it was advanced to the next step.

Ms. Fortin next referred to dates shown on the cover of the Union contract.  She suggested the January 1,
2002 date on the cover was sufficient to grant the Union grievance.  Controller Dolehanty referred the 
Committee to Article 39 of the agreement that states such captions are for identification purposes only 
and are not a substantive part of the Agreement.

Chairman Hopper stated past retroactive compensation referred to wages only.  He said he felt badly for 
the Union because all units should adhere to the same rules, adding that no special circumstances were 
presented to grant the grievance.

Commissioner Postula asked if a decision had to be made at this meeting.  The Controller referenced the 
time limits of the grievance process, stating the grievance had to be resolved by November 27 in order to 
be timely under the terms of the contract.

It was moved by Commissioner Postula, supported by Chairman Hopper, to deny the grievance 
filed by the Union because the County was acting within the terms of the collective bargaining 
agreement.  On a voice vote, the motion was CARRIED, 2-1.

Commissioner LaJoie stated it is a problem when a Judge can grant approval of a grievance without 
approval of the Board of Commissioners.

Committee Comments
There were no additional committee comments.  

Chairperson's Comments
Chairman Hopper had no additional comments.

Adjourn
It was moved by Commissioner LaJoie, supported by Commissioner Postula, to adjourn the 
meeting.  On a voice vote, the motion was CARRIED.

Chairman Hopper declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.














__________________________________	__________________________________
Timothy J. Dolehanty, AICP, Recorder	Aaron Hopper, Committee Chairman