2025-01-16 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board January 16, 2025 Reinstating him with an effective date of December 1st, also has some other consequences. While Mr. Turner is on TA to the position of Construction Equipment Repair Supervisor because he's a "Tier II" employee according —for ERS purposes that's the "Employee Retirement System" —his TA earnings are not counted towards his retirement calculation. So, when we talk about actions —corrective actions —in this case, I believe this is the Board's intent to take a corrective action. We talked about making an employee whole. And so, when we make an employee whole, we basically are undoing the action so that there's no adverse action —as if he had never been removed from the position. So, rather than reinstatement as of December 1st, I'm wondering if it was the Board's intent to return him to the position, as if my action in voiding his appointment, had never occurred. What would happen in that instance, it would be that Mr. Turner would be returned to the position as if he had never been removed from it, and the salary would —calculation —would be addressed through payroll, so that when that action was taken, he would be paid the salary of the Construction Equipment Repair Supervisor II position for the entire period, and that would resolve any difference in earnings. It also makes him whole, so that his full base salary is counted towards his Employee Retirement System contributions. And, so basically, it would be the Board just saying —reversing my action with no adverse action to Mr. Turner. So, just a couple of clarifications. In the Board's Order, the position title would also need to be corrected. I believe the —it says, "Construction Equipment Supervisor II"I think "Repair" was inadvertently omitted from the title. So, for clarification, we would need the title to be corrected and, if it is the Board's intent —as I described to restore him to the position as if my action had never taken place then the Board may want to consider re -wording to "return" him to the position and reverse the action that I took in voiding his appointment. That should address all the issues. We're not totally sure of the difference in earnings. The amount indicated on the paystub could be related to this, but it could be related to other things because it's a general line entry on the paystub and is not necessarily specifically associated with this. I will say because Mr. Turner was on TA there could actually be a possibility that he would have earned more in some months than he would have earned if he was in the position, because TA is based on —it's payment for actual hours worked, whereas our salaries are semi-monthly regardless of the number of days in a pay period. So, to make it as clear as possible, the Board may want to consider amending that wording. My one other note would be with regard to the probation period. I know the Board had indicated that when Mr. Turner would be returned to the position, that he would serve the remainder of the probation period —or I believe that that was said and that was the Board's intent —and there really isn't a way for us to apply that retroactively, right. So, if someone is in a position and for whatever reason during their new probationary period, if they leave that position and are returned to their former position —and then, for whatever reason, Page 8