Laserfiche WebLink
Merit Board of Appeals May 21, 2014 <br />Ms. Rabago said that she strongly believes there are certain things that a civil <br />service employee can appear before this Board and certain things that the proper <br />path would be the grievance procedure. <br />Chair Kuewa stated that based on what he's heard this was an open <br />announcement open to the public as well as to the current employees. The <br />process for challenging a decision by the individual depends upon the status of <br />the person filing an objection or a complaint. So, for current civil service <br />employees, under this announcement, have this process. Does a non -civil service <br />employee have a different process? Was it a rule, policy, or regulation rather <br />than just a practice? <br />Ms. Toriano replied that the current internal complaint procedure is silent in <br />distinguishing a civil servant from a non -civil servant. If you go back to what is the <br />deciding factor to access the Merit Appeals Board, it has to do with how the <br />position was announced and recruited for, and not the status of the applicant. <br />Chair Kuewa commented this was announced to the public and anyone who filed <br />an objection, such as this appellant, would go through the internal complaint <br />procedure and, ultimately, to the Merit Appeals Board. It appears that the Merit <br />Appeals Board has jurisdiction once the individual finishes the internal complaint <br />procedures. <br />Ms. Toriano replied that they may access the Merit Appeals Board because our <br />procedures are silent, and it doesn't disallow it. <br />Ms. Noda stated that they're aware that the Appellant had filed in both tracks. <br />Process -wise, the Appellant may have input or an opinion. She would possibly <br />represent the department (Office of the County Clerk), if the jurisdiction issue is <br />contested and argued. Probably someone from the Office of the Corporation <br />Counsel would be giving a legal opinion and as part of the contested case for the <br />appellant, an attorney from the Attorney General's Office would represent this <br />Board. <br />Ms. Rabago inquired if this Board hears this case and makes a decision and the <br />grievance goes forward and a decision is made—and are different—what would <br />be the decision. <br />Ms. Noda replied that if there isn't a motion to dismiss for lack of Merit Appeals <br />Board jurisdiction, there would be a motion in the grievance tract for lack of <br />arbitrability because that would not be the proper venue. Ms. Rabago <br />commented that the arbitrator could rule either way. <br />Page 5 <br />