The meeting of the Civil Service Commission was opened by Civil Service Commission Chairperson Susan Grimes Munsell at 10:20 a.m., in Conference Room A, Lower Level, Capitol Commons Building, 400 S. Pine Street, Lansing, Michigan.

2.

On motion duly made and supported, the Commission approved the minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2003.

The Commission received the following report from Janet McClelland, Acting State Personnel Director.

Unclassified Position Report:  Civil Service Commission Rules require me to report on the establishment or abolition of positions in the unclassified service.  I received on January 7, 2004, a request from the Department of Labor and Economic Growth to establish an unclassified position to serve as the Special Assistant to the Director.  This request was approved on January 21, 2004.

I received on January 29, 2004, a request from the Department of Civil Rights to establish an unclassified position to serve as the Public Information Officer.  The position of Director of the Partnership Team has been abolished.This request was approved on January 29, 2004.

Regulations:  Since the last meeting no new regulations were issued or revised.

2.

David Fink addressed the Commission on the issue of equity for non-exclusively represented employees in the context of the concessions and the freeze on pay for performance.  At the last Civil Service Commission meeting, the Commission asked that the Office of State Employer look closely at the impact of the concessions package and the freeze on pay for performance for non-exclusively represented employees.  Mr. Fink indicated that he provided information to the Commissioner’s about the equity of the concessions and the extent that we could balance the fairness of the concession package between the non-exclusively represented employees and those that are represented.  Mr. Fink discussed those employees (Groups 2 and 3) who had previously received base-pay increases through step-increases and where they were comparable to employees who get step increases.  He stated that it did not appear to be equitable that their pay rates had been frozen because pay for performance had been frozen.

Mr. Fink also discussed actions to be taken and not to be taken in response to the Commission’s previous inquiries.  With respect to employees in Group 4, he stated that a close look was taken on the issue and recommended those employees should remain in pay for performance.  Many employees in Group 4 will not get pay increases unless they are promoted.  He indicated that it is hoped when the economy is stronger and we return to pay for performance awards, that it will be in the best interest of the State, and the best interest of those employees to have the opportunity to continue to participate in pay for performance.

With respect to employees in Group 2, with exceptions, but particularly in Information Technology, many of those employees are not being treated equitably compared to other employees who are similarly situated in the State because they have not been able to have base pay increases for quite some time.  Mr. Fink stated he consulted with the Director of Information Technology, Teri Takai, who requested that we put Groups 2 and 3 Information Technology employees back into the step system.  Those employees could be converted consistent with current Commission rules.  When the economy is stronger, those employees will not go back to pay for performance, but will remain in step increases. The State Employer will continue to work with the Commission on the creation of new pay steps.

Mr. Fink also discussed that there is a significant issue on pay for performance with State Police positions in pay for performance classifications.  He stated that State Police Director Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant felt that it is not equitable that some Group 3 employees within State Police are going without pay increases for an extended period of time.  Mr. Fink further stated that this is not an exception to the freeze in place. These employees will no longer be in pay for performance and a request will be submitted to move them to the step system.  Other employees, particularly in the Family Independence Agency and other agencies where there are some Group 3 employees who are in pay for performance, could also be converted to step increases if it is consistent with the department’s business plan.  Mr. Fink added that this is also being made available to the Office of Attorney General.

Gary Calkins, Association of State Employees in Management (ASEM), addressed the Commission on the issue of pay for performance.  Mr. Calkins noted that he sees little difference in those employees that are in Groups 3 and 4.  He stated that employees accepted managerial positions with the assumption that they would receive pay increases.  He discussed those employees who have not reached their fixed control point, where increases are based only on performance and a bonus.  He stressed that those employees should also be placed back in the step system.  Mr. Calkins commented on Mr.. Fink’s consideration to employees in Groups 2 and 3 and placing them back in the pay step system at the respective department director’s request.  He noted that employees in Group 4 are scattered over all departments and do not have a director to speak on their behalf.  Mr. Calkins also inquired into the issues he raised at the last meeting regarding the inequity of concessions.  He asked that the Commission give consideration to addressing this issue.

Draft Amendments to Civil Service Rules

Dan McLellan reported on the following proposed amendments:

Rule 8-3 (Technical Complaints) and Rule 9-1 (Definitions):  The amendments clarify that the Technical Qualification complaint process is also open to non-employees to file a technical complaint.

Rule 1-8 (Prohibited Discrimination) and Rule 9-1 (Definitions):  At the request of Governor Granholm in an executive directive adding “sexual orientation” to the list of prohibited bases of discrimination within State service and providing definition of “sexual orientation” which was not defined in the executive directive.

Rule 2-17 (Retirement) and New Rule 5-17 Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP):  The Legislature has proposed to permit eligible State Police Command Officers to remain on active duty and collect partial retirement benefits.  The legislation has passed in the House, but has not passed in the Senate.  The Office of the State Employer requests special compensation rules for DROP participants which permit early payoff of sick leave, annual leave and compensatory leave; eliminate new sick leave and longevity payments; and limit new annual leave accruals.  Mr. McLellan asks the Commission to table these provisions as the legislation has not been enacted and will bring it back to the Commission at such time when the Legislature has acted.

On motion duly made and supported, the Commission unanimously approved tabling the proposed amendment and new rule regarding the DROP proposal.

Brandon Zuk, Michigan Association of Governmental Employees (MAGE), requested to speak to the Commission on this proposal.  He stated that MAGE is asking the Senate to expand the proposal that has been passed by the House so that it will not only cover State Police Command Officers, but also other managers, supervisors, and confidential employees occupying what are considered covered positions for purposes of the State Employees Retirement Act.  If this proposal is successful with the Legislature, the Commission will be asked to adopt a correspondingly expanded version of the proposal that is before the Commission and is now being tabled.

Dan McLellan presented information on the Letter of Understanding amending the “no layoff guarantee” between OSE and the UAW.

This interim approval clarifies the procedures related to possible suspension in the event of layoffs and the reduction of hours.

On motion duly made and supported, the Commission unanimously approved the Letter of Understanding regarding the “no layoff guarantee.”

In closed session on February 20, 2004, the Commission considered 14 decisions of the Employment Relations Board.  Copies of the Review Sheets indicating the Commission's actions on these decisions are on file in the Department of Civil Service.

David Fink requested to address the Commission to comment on the rescission of Civil Service Rule 6-7.5 (Dues & Fees – Annual Notice Rights).  Mr. Fink indicated he hopes after hearing the administration’s perspective that the Commission would consider placing this on their agenda as a future item.

Mr. Fink explained the premise of the Civil Service Commission as a neutral arbiter of labor management relations for the State of Michigan.  The Constitution also gives the Commission plenary authority over all rights of State employees.  Mr. Fink stated the concern of the administration regarding this rule, whereas, a special notice is sent advising exclusively represented employees of their rights to join a bargaining unit or not join.  The notice is not sent to employees who are not exclusively represented.  He further commented that a letter is sent every year to exclusively represented employees telling them that Commission rules prohibit political activity while on the job, yet that same notice is not sent to non-exclusively represented employees.  He noted that the bias is clear in that it demonstrates a difference between exclusively and non-exclusively represented employees.  He stated that the rule tells our lower-paid employees that they cannot participate in political activity while on the job, but higher paid employees are not advised that they cannot participate in political activity.

Mr. Fink also stated that the notices contain negative information about participating in a union.  The notice also informs employees of their rights if they choose not to be in the union.  They are also told that the federal law will protect them.   He stated that what employees are not told in the notice is why they should belong to a union.  Mr. Fink indicated that notices are not sent to employees regarding discrimination, specifically the amendment regarding sexual orientation, military leave, rights to file grievances and unfair labor practices.  Mr. Fink stated that these are more of a fundamental right to employees. 

Mr. Fink suggested that the Commission review the practices of other organizations, such as General Motors, who would have unfair labor practice charges if they sent out this type of notice.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and MERC do not send notices, nor does the United States Congress who passes laws that affect employees’ rights.  He stated there are ways to get this type of information to employees through a provision in another rule which has posting requirements that can be seen by all employees, and is also on the web-site.  Mr. Fink stated that this policy makes this Commission appear to be anti-union or anti-labor.  Mr. Fink asked the Commission to consider at a future meeting the rescission of this rule as it is inconsistent with the intent and the policies of the Commission.

Mary Ellen Gurewitz, Sachs, Waldman Law Firm, also addressed the Commission on Rule 6-7.5.  She stated she was involved in 1998 when the rule was first adopted.  She provided information regarding the history of the rule, which was introduced at the request of former Commissioner Robert Hunter.  She stated Mr. Hunter was particularly interested in what is called Beck rights.  She informed the Commission that the NLRB has required that private sector unions give notice to their employees regarding their rights to join or not join the union.  She indicated there has been a great deal of litigation on how that information is to be conveyed.  The Supreme Court held that private sector employees have the right to not be union members as do public sector employees.  Most public sector unions send notices to their members on an annual basis about membership and the ability to pay service fees.  The unions that represent State employees were doing that prior to the adoption of this rule.  Civil Service Commission Rules already advise employees that they have the right not to be members but service fee payers, and the rules have a fair amount of information about the rights of service fee payers. 

Ms. Gurewitz also stated the collective bargaining agreements, which the Commission approves, inform employees that they can pay a service fee rather than be a member of the union.  She further indicated that there is no evidence that employees are not aware of their rights, or that there is an increase in service fee payers as a result of this notice being sent.   Ms. Gurewitz indicated she concurs with Mr. Fink on the issues he raised and that this notice is not just unnecessary, but also unfair and discriminatory.  She asks the Commission to consider rescinding this rule as it requires the wasteful, limited government resources to tell employees what they already know. 

Susan Grimes Munsell stated she would like to defer the issue of rescinding Rule 6-7.5 until the next meeting.  She noted that Mr. Fink laid out some excellent commentary regarding things employees are not notified about. 

Mr. Calkins readdressed the Commission regarding concessions.  He asked whether the Commission would take any further action on concessions as was indicated in the last Commission meeting.  Chairperson Susan Grimes Munsell, with the support of the full Commission, commented that the Commission is very committed to the issue of concessions and equity.  She stated that the Commission had the opportunity to review David Fink’s numbers in detail in terms of the value of the various packages of concessions.  She indicated the Commission is convinced that they are as close as possible in terms of equity for this fiscal year.  The Commission does not anticipate any changes.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m.