Near the very end of a long county board meeting held Tuesday, November 15, County Administrator Jeff Cadwell and Bill Lane, the president of the Cook County Employee’s Association (CCEA), exchanged some angry words concerning the county’s handling of labor negotiations.
After a county employee had been terminated, the CCEA filed a grievance against the county alleging the county violated Article 29 of the Cook County CCEA employment agreement.
“We listened to Jeff describe his interpretation of how that contract reads when we don’t have that contract, and I’ll tell you flat out, in the association, there is absolutely no trust between the employees and management,” Lane said.
For his part Administrator Cadwell argued he had done nothing wrong, and he had followed long-standing protocol.
Commissioner Frank Moe offered a more conciliatory tone, adding he was concerned that while Administrator Cadwell and the county board might have followed the letter of the law in making the termination, they hadn’t done enough to include the CCEA in their decision-making process.
Later in the meeting, when commissioners were taking a break but the camera was still recording, Cadwell came over to Moe and told Moe, “this is not helping.” He said he would appreciate board unity on the grievance matter. Cadwell said more, a lot more to Moe during the break, and these two issues resurfaced at the board’s November 22 meeting. Tuesday, November 22
Once again Bill Lane appeared in front of the commissioners as the CCEA president. Lane listened to a timeline of the procedures that were involved in eliminating an employee’s position due to a restructuring of a county department. Cook County Attorney Molly Hicken displayed Article 29 on the projector screen and explained the three most important points in the paragraph.
Administrator Cadwell said a review of the steps laid out in Article 29 would reinforce Management Rights as outlined in Article 4, which states, “The Employer retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions, policies and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of manpower and technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; select, assign, direct and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules and to perform any managerial function not to specifically limited by this Agreement. …”
Cadwell said he had not intended to cause harm to the CCEA or its union members in the termination process, and he noted the employee let go was rehired by the county and given a better job than the one that was eliminated.
After listening to the county board, Lane said the union’s opinion had not changed. He left the room momentarily and brought forth a document prepared by one of the CCEA employees that ran a counter argument based on their reading of Article 29. Board chair Heidi Doo-Kirk asked attorney Hicken for advice and Hicken responded that this was the commissioners’ call to make. As it stood at that moment, the union was ready to proceed with the grievance, both a costly and timely step for all parties involved.
Next Commissioner Moe and Commissioner Garry Gamble took turns speaking. Their points were essentially the same that the county board might have made a mistake in the process to eliminate an employee, but it was not intentional. They said the county board would not give up its power to terminate an employee, but both agreed the CCEA should have more input in the process.
Moe then read a motion that stated, “The Board will honor meet/confer language in Article 29 of the CCEA Agreement by allowing the meet/confer with CCEA prior to reorganization of a department when a lay-off has resulted from or results in reorganization of a department. Meet and confer is not a ‘veto,’ but is ‘the exchange of views and concerns between employers and their employees.’”
A roll call vote on the motion was unanimous, and the motion passed.
“We did not do this step when we restructured Land Services,” said Moe to Lane.
“I think this is the type of language we have been waiting to hear,” said Lane. “It’s not an admission of guilt, but it suggests that our grievance was valid.”
Next Heidi Doo-Kirk made a motion to acknowledge the lay-off in the assessor’s office and then to hire Rachel Espe for the open position in the Land Services Department.
In the second matter, Moe called for a panel of two county commissioners, the county attorney and the Human Resources Department head to meet with Administrator Cadwell and discuss the disagreement he had with Moe during the commissioners’ November 15 afternoon break.
Moe cited the employee handbook, page 14, that dealt with rude, uncooperative behavior to supervisors, co-workers, and the public.
“I respectfully ask the board to review the tape and comments and determine any proposed resolution and bring it back to the board for review,’ Moe said.
Commissioners Garry Gamble and Ginny Storlie agreed to be part of the panel.
When it was put to the vote Commissioner Heidi Doo-Kirk and Commissioner, Jan Sivertson voted against the hearing, but Moe’s motion to proceed passed 3-2 and a meeting will be held shortly with a resolution coming back to the board. Moe said he would not be part of the process.
Leave a Reply