If a custodian/maintenance worker does not satisfy all areas determined to be unacceptable within one year of remediation, dismissal proceedings will be recommended which they may challenge in the grievance arbitration procedure or at the Civil ServiceCommission. APPEAL PROCESS AND PROCEDURES The right to appeal is an important element of the Custodian/Maintenance Worker Performance Process.
(c) If a custodian/maintenance worker does not satisfy all areas determined to be unacceptable within one year of remediation, dismissal proceedings will be recommended which they may challenge in the grievance arbitration procedure or at the Civil ServiceCommission. APPEAL PROCESS AND PROCEDURES The right to appeal is an important element of the Custodian/Maintenance Worker Performance Process.
Any matter, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission, shall not be a subject of erievance or arbitration under this Agreement. The provisions of this Article shall only apply to those members of the union who are civil service employees.
Should any provisions of this Agreement be found to be in violation of any Federal or State Law or Civil ServiceCommission rule by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other provisions of this Agreement shal] remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement. ARTICLE IU EMPLOYER RIGHTS SECTION A. 1.
Section 12,3 - Board Hearings If an employee is required to attend a hearing before the Civil ServiceCommission or the Industrial Accident Board during normal working hours, and the subject or such hearing concerns the employee compensated at his/her regular rate for the hours lost from work. himself/herself, the employee shall be This provision shall not apply to court or other appellate proceedings.
Section 5 Exclusions: Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement any matter which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission or any Retirement Board established by Law or where the employee otherwise has statutory appeal rights, or any dispute relative to statutory wages shall not be the subject of arbitration under this Agreement.
Section 5: Exclusions: Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, any matter which is subjec t to the jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission or any Retirement Board established by Law or where the employee otherwise has statutory appeal rights or any dispute relative to statutory wages shall not be the subject of arbitration under this agreement.
Section 5: Exclusions from Arbitration: Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, any matter which is subject to a verbal and written discipline related to a violation of Article 17, Sick Leave, to the jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission or any Retirement Board established by Law or where the employee otherwise has statutory appeal rights or any dispute relative to statutory wages shall not be the subject of arbitration under this
The arbitrator shall only interpret such items and determine such issues as may be submitted to him/her by the written agreement of the parties. 5.03.02 Grievances may be settled without precedent at any stage of the procedure until the issuance of a formal award by the arbitrator. 5.04 Exceptions Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any matter which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission, any Retirement
As the Hearing Officer correctly points out, the Civil ServiceCommission, in Puza, engages in no discussion of collective bargaining and fitness for duty examinations. Decision at 7 Arguably, what is required of an employee returning from leave is a mandatory subject of bargaining separate from requiring on duty officers to undergo fitness for duty evaluations.
The Civil ServiceCommission also adopted the standard set forth by the Supreme Judicial Court in Nolan v. Police Commr of Boston, 383 Mass. 625, (1981). In Puza v. Westfield Police Commission, D-12- 318, p. 23 (2014), the Commission held: An appointing authority, such as a Police Department, may require an employee to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation.
The Civil ServiceCommission also adopted the standard set forth by the Supreme Judicial Court in Nolan v. Police Commr of Boston, 383 Mass. 625, (1981). In Puza v. Westfield Police Commission, D-12- 318, p. 23 (2014), the Commission held: An appointing authority, such as a Police Department, may require an employee to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation.
First, the Civil ServiceCommission has expressly ruled: An appointing authority, such as a Police Department, may require an employee to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. In fact, the Supreme Judicial Court has found that a Police Commissioner has a public duty to oversee the performance of police officers. Nolan v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 383 Mass. 625, 630 (1981); see also City of Boston v.
Accordingly, the 21 Citys argument fails. 25 This City also cites a Civil ServiceCommission case, Puza v. Westfield Police Commission, D1-12-318, p. 23 (2004).