April 2017 Labor Rep Report Recap
Vote of No Confidence (Update)
Department: Recreation & Parks (RAP) Aquatic
Case: As mentioned in last month’s Labor Rep Report, EAA had successfully filed a UERP with the LA City Employee Relations Board (ERB) for a campaign of retaliatory employment practices in RAP Aquatics Division by the Director of Aquatics. A vote of “no confidence” was taken by the Aquatics Facility Mangers (AFM) at RAP Aquatics expressing their concerns over the actions of the Director of Aquatics.
Outcome: What is most distributing to the AFMs and to EAA is that, although these continual problems have been raised time and time again over the past several years, and that EAA has prevailed in every grievance at Arbitration on behalf of the AFMs, and that 78% signed the petition, RAP HR and General Manger have taken no action to address the concerns expressed by such a large population within a division within a LA City Department. Rather the issues continue to and are addressed with the filing of more grievances and UERPs. Shame on them!!!
Department: Los Angeles Fire Department
Case: A member employee of the Los Angeles Fire Department had requested several partial vacation days that were denied.
Outcome: EAA was able to negotiate a resolution that allowed for the employee to take several of the partial vacation days that had originally been denied. Additionally, EAA was able to have management clarify their vacation policy so that the employee will not have trouble in the future getting partial vacation days approved.
Department: City Attorneys Office
Case: EAA negotiated a grievance settlement for member employee of the City Attorneys Office (CA) for working out of classification. After EAA concluded negotiations on the current MOU, the CA attempted to recover a portion of the monies paid in the settlement. The CA cited a modification agreed to in the negotiations and ask the member to complete paperwork to accomplish the same. EAA advised the member “do not” sign the paperwork and contacted the CA informing them of the same.
Outcome: In all discussions with the CA Office, EAA remained steadfast that the settlement been agreed to prior to the negotiated changes to the MOU. Therefore, the changes were not applicable to the member. Furthermore, any attempt or action taken by the CA to have the member return monies would be subjected to legal challenge by EAA on behalf of the member. The member has not paid back any monies.
Department: Public Works (Bureau of Sanitation)
Case: A member employee of PW Sanitation was injured on the job and was placed off work for two (2) weeks with permanent restrictions. The restrictions were sent to all appropriate authorities in the Department. The employee did not receive a copy as they were sent directly from the AME to the City. The employee eventually received a letter from Workers Comp stating he will not receive any permanent disability payments as his employer has accommodated him in his regular position. Months later, the employee had two relapses. The department sent the member home from work on the member’s own time stating that they could not accommodate the member’s work restrictions (keep in mind, they received them 7 months prior and let the member work in violation of work restrictions).
Outcome: A Reasonable accommodation assessment was scheduled. EAA was present at the meeting. EAA insisted that the Department act in good faith and either return back to a light duty position or pay him while at home, pointing out that it was neglect on their part that allowed an employee to work for 7 months in violation of work restrictions and that it was their failure in not responding to Work Comp that resulted in the cancellation of permanent disability payments. The Department argued their cause. EAA presented them with a copy of their own policy that they were violating. The Department claimed the policy was outdated (it wasn’t). The meeting ended and days later the employee was informed, per the City Attorney, that he will be paid from the date he was sent home and was being returned to a light duty position. Back pay was collected and the employee is now earning his regular pay in a light duty position.