1993 AGN MAY 18 I21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

TO: FROM: SUBJECT: / � CITY OF COLTON AGENDA REPORT For Council Meeting of Ma� 18, 1993 .c,t�. �potoor�tb , ..�._.. 188? ..�,. ,�6 I pS4 HONORABLE MAY4R AND TTY COUNCIL DATE: May 5, 1993 GORI)ON R. JOHNSON � P�rsornnel Director ,� II�EW APPEAL OF ARBITRATOR'S DECISION IN DENTAL INSURANCE GRIEVANCE BACKGROiTN� Article VI, Section 7C5 of the IBEW MOU provides for the selection of a 3-person arbitration panel to hear appeals of grievances where the employee or Union are not satisfied with the decision of the City Manager. Such a panel connpos�d of neutral arbitrator I.ouis M. Zigman, employee representative Tom Iasher and City representative G�ordon Johnson held a hearing on February 1, 1993, on Grievance'#92-3-157. Bill Flvyd of BB&K presented the City's Gase. IBEW representative Hank Colt presenfied the Union's case. In a letter dated March 29, 1993 (Attachment A), Mr. Zigman issued the award as a majority opinion from himself and the City's panel mernber denying the grievance. In accordance with A�rticle VI, Section 7C6 of the IBEW MOU, either party may appeal the arbitrator's decision. 1n a l.etter dated ;April 9, 1993 (Attachment B), IBEW Business Representative Bob Villalobos appealed the dec:ision to the City Council. Mr: Villalobos disputes the arbitrator's determination that the grievance was ti�me-barred. The appeal is based on IBEW's contention that the issue of timeliness was never raised by the Cit.y during discussions nar during the grievance procedure. � The City contends th�t the timeliness of the grievanee was an issue throughout the grievance procedure. The timeliness issue was addressed in the letter from Mark Lewis to Bob Villalobos dated September 23, I992 (Attachment C) denying the grievance. The iirst reason he listed as grounds for the denial was that the grievance was ui�timely. The timeliness issue �uvas raised repeatedly by the City in the grievance arbitration hearing as noted on pages 2, 6, 8, 12 and 13 of Mr. Zigman's March 14, 1993, letter containing a draft Arbitration Decision and Award (Attachment D). In that same letter, Mr. Zigman endorsed the City's contention that the grievance was time- barred' as noted c�n pages 15; 16 and 18. On pages 1-6 oi� a l�etter from Bill Floyd to Mr. Zigman dated March 3, 1993 (At.t.achment E), written arguments were submitted from the City regarding the issue of timeliness. Also attached is a letter faxed to Mr. Zigman frorn Tom Lasher on March 29, 1993 (Att.�chment F� raising the issue of timeliness. All of the above referenced oral and written arguments were considered by Mr. Zigman before he issued his final decision (At:t.ach.ment A). In that letter, he stated that Mr. Lasher had not raised any new issues and his �� e'� 1 _ r , , -:. � ,_ r x � , . ,_ .s , �_ �.�� , rF .� ,-3 , � .-�__ s:.--� .,� -- , _-_ w— � . _ , , . � _. � _