CCP 02-24-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

------ .:<,. - Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 1-13-92 -, " Page 6 DISC. JOINT Mayor Sather suggested it may be appropriate to meet with . MEEI'ING WI'IH the newly appointed. Shoreview Councilmembers to discuss SHOREVIEW OFFICIAIS items of corrnnon interest and concern. Council directed the Clerk Administrator to contact the Manager from Shoreview to arrange some tentative dates in March. <XlUNCIL aM1ENI'S REroRl'; UNION Clerk Administrator Berger advised the Public Works REQUE'ST FOR employees Union Local #49 has r~ested the City select ARBITRATION an arbitrator relative to the grievance filed recently. Berger r~ested a determination as to whether = not the city wishes to proceed with arbitration at this time. 'Ihe Administrator explained the grievance relates to the counseling session for an employee regarding City policy for handling building security and a memorandum that was placed in the employee's file. Council1nember Malone recalled that there was discussion with the employee and that no loss of payor penalty was :ill!posed, only documentation of the counseling session. Berger reported the results of mediation on this matter; the mediator offered as a compromise that a memorandum be drafted by the City and attached to the counseling notes in the employee's file, indicating that in fact these notes were for counseling purposes and meant to provide training information for the . employee, not disciplinary in nature. He advised the mediator deemed this to be a fair solution for both parties. Berger advised he indicated the City would support the compromise, however, the Union representative r~ested all documentation be removed from the file. Council discussed the costs for arbitration of this matter. Berger advised the union contract provides that both parties equally share the costs of the arbitration hearing; approx:in1ate costs would be $600.00 per day, and may utilize three days. Malone moved, seconded by Hicks, that contingent upon the Union dismissal of the r~est to forward the grievance to binding arbitration, the Administrator be directed to remove the offending letter from the employee file. In discussion, eouncil1nembers con=ed that the expenditure does not appear to be warranted, since the memorandum referred only to counseling and no disciplinary action was taken. Mayor Sather stated his opposition to the motion based on the fact it is his opinion the principal of the !latter outweighs the cost; it does not appear that a statement within an employee's file, which indicates a situation was poorly handled and that the employee has been counseled on handling this type of situation in the future, is inappropriate. Council1nember Mahowald questioned if a policy relating to building security has . been adopted.