My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-05-21 Merit Appeals Board Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Human Resources
>
Merit Appeals Board
>
Minutes
>
2014
>
2014-05-21 Merit Appeals Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2016 10:21:57 AM
Creation date
9/19/2014 1:42:49 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Merit Board of Appeals <br />May 21, 2014 <br />Ms. Noda further stated that one of the options for the Board to consider would <br />be for the Department, prior to the actual hearing date, file a motion to dismiss <br />the appeal because the Merit Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction. If that is the only <br />motion considered and the Merit Appeals Board dismisses the appeal, the <br />Appellant or the Department wouldn't need to prepare for the hearing. <br />Mr. Nahuina stated that the fact that HGEA has decided to go forward with the <br />grievance that the Merit Appeals Board wouldn't have jurisdiction. <br />Ms. Rabago agreed and stated that's what she's hearing Ms. Noda say that the <br />Board would need to formally ask for an opinion before the Board could discuss it <br />further. <br />Ms. Noda wondered whether Mr. Maeda's response to the Appellant on the <br />Step 1 Grievance was included in the exhibit. Ms. Rabago replied that nothing <br />was provided concerning the grievance, only the response to the internal <br />complaint procedure from Mr. Maeda and another party. <br />Ms. Noda believes that Mr. Maeda's response concerning the grievance was that <br />the proper avenue was their internal complaint procedure, but didn't believe it <br />was made part of the submissions. Ms. Rabago replied that she received the <br />April 1, 2014 letter, and it outlined the procedures of the internal complaint <br />process, but she doesn't see a specific statement saying that it's the correct <br />process (SEE ATT. C, which is a part of the Appellant's submittal in <br />Communication No. 14-01). <br />Ms. Rabago suggested that in spite of Council Chair J Yoshimoto's Step 2 internal <br />complaint decision (SEE ATT. D, which is a part of the Appellant's submittal in <br />Communication No. 14-01), that the Board inquire with the Attorney General's <br />Office for an opinion. <br />Chair Kuewa asked Ms. Toriano and Mr. Hermes their opinion of what process <br />Ms. Torres is in now, and what normally would be the next step. <br />Ms. Toriano replied that she, too, questioned the jurisdiction for the Merit <br />Appeals Board hearing this appeal. In an open recruitment, our past practice has <br />been that an employee may file an appeal with the Merit Appeals Board, which <br />has been entertained by the Board. There is a dual tract of addressing the same <br />complaint and so it raises the serious question of the jurisdiction. <br />Ms. Toriano informed the Board that they would be revisiting the internal <br />complaint procedure. All of the County department's internal complaint <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.