2014-04-09 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

Each collective bargaining agreement specifically spells out the process in which an employee has the right through their exclusive union representative to contest any employment action that they’re dissatisfied with. There’s also a second avenue that an employee could contest an employment decision and that’s through each Department’s internal complaint procedures. Mr. Durtar had complained that the grievance process does not give him a neutral fact finder and that is incorrect, because each step of the agreed upon contract language provides for, to meet with a supervisor, the Department Head, the employer, which is the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee, and if there still is a contested issue about the employment or disciplinary action then it goes to a neutral arbitrator. And so, that final step in the grievance process is Mr. Drutar’s right to receive and seek a neutral decision. As Ms. Leithead-Todd had pointed out the Employer, the Department has the obligation to fulfill the requirements in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to give the employee a fair, thorough investigation and decision. She had cited that if there was a complaint brought to her notice that there’s a potential violation she would assign an investigator and the matter would be investigated. She could choose, the Department Head could choose to suspend the employee during the pendency of the investigation on leave without pay for up to 30 days. If the Department Head decides that it’s prudent and wisest for the employee to remain away from work, from the thirty first day on, it would have to be leave with pay. If there’s a finding of no violation after the investigation is concluded, the Department would have to pay the employee for that with no pay time period. To the benefit and agreed upon for the both the Employer, Department, and the employee that any potential disciplinary investigation be done thoroughly, and fairly, and quickly because if it takes, if it drags on and on, right, it creates a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for the employer and the employee, and that it become punitive to the employee. If the Department has to come before this Board for every single ethical issue, even though the Department is confident and certain that they can make the call on it, it would probably require this Board to convene and consider possibly a larger number of petitions and would have to convene more frequently. On the downside for the Department and the Employer, if we do not process the investigation and meet out the disciplinary action, if there’s any, in a timely manner we potentially subject ourselves to the union bringing up prohibited practice against the County before the State of Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board for, you know, dragging our feet and causing a lot of uncertainty and distress to the employee under investigation. Ms. Leithead-Todd had also given the hypothetical of an employee using the County gasoline and filling their personal vehicles. As she had pointed out there are a lot of situations where there are potential violations of both the Code of Ethics and other criminal laws or State laws or other County policies. But the Department Head has the ability to require thorough and complete investigation and then make a decision based on that. To address Mr. Adams’ concern about, I’m sorry I had left for a few minutes because I had a coughing attack, you had asked, said that you know like for the Court system there are specific, whether or not something comes before the Court they’ll have exclusive jurisdiction, I believe was your statement. Mr. Adams: That they have subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Noda: Right. The reason is that in State law, Hawaii Revised Statutes, there are specific provisions, the Family Court or the District Court or the Circuit Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over these specific things right. Family Court for adoptions, juvenile proceedings or divorces and what not, and it specifies in State law that there’s exclusive 15