COLUMBIA RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Management:    M. McGee, D. Thornton, T. Long, L. Humbert, J. Herman, B. DeMir, G. Smith

AFSCME: C. Bramlett, H. Green, J. Hernandez, S. Campbell, E. Mancino, G. Schneider

DISCUSSION:    The previous minutes were discussed. They will be amended as discussed the written corrections are attached to the June minutes. It was discussed that the minutes remain in draft form until the next meeting unless in agreement on wording.

ACTION:    Discuss immediate with Union Representative to resolve, If cannot resolve, discuss at next meeting.

DISCUSSION:    Mr. Long talked to Moore regarding 9th Circuit Court examples and set up a telephone conference call with Carl Bramlett. Carl indicated Moore would send copies within a week - have not heard anything further. Ted also followed-up later to express need for SIU to clear up issue regarding the practice of taping telephone interviews with employer. Ted has brought the issue to Les Dolecal on 6/17. Management has tried to be intermediary in this matter. Our policy is not to tape conversations with staff unless staff are notified. Most cases are being referred back to the institutions.

ACTION:    Greg Schneider will contact Les Dolecal and will ask for one week turnaround. Mike McGee will also talk to Les Dolecal .and will continue to remind SIU. L. Humbert suggests we provide L. Dolecal with a copy of the meeting minutes.

Remain on Agenda to say finalized and have answers.

Discussion:    Management has heard of no complaints on the new form. This is the end of the 60 day trail period. Union has heard no complaints.

Action:    Adopt form as it is and REMOVE from Agenda.

Discussion:    The procedure is the in process of review and draft being typed.

Action:    Ms. Humbert will provide union copy of the draft in new format with the suggested changes for the union to review. The draft will be provided to the union by June 25. Remain on Agenda for discussion at July 16, 1999 meeting.

Discussion:    L. Humbert distributed draft list from OIC's giving criteria in six (6) areas for evaluating employee performance during the next year. Ms. Humbert would like feedback from the union. The meaning of M E F scoring was discussed Greg Schneider - Has their been a summary describing intent on the manner in which the process should be applied. The union questions the section on sick leave usage. Questions definitions of excused sick leave. Additional questions involve the legal issues surround sick leave usage and what staff feel required to tell the employer. The Union also feels whatever CRCI does should be implemented on a statewide basis. Management - The expectation is it meets law and contract language. This is a work in progress. Need to take a look at the language. Humbert is asking for suggestions.

Action:    Scott refused to take it to the membership meetings. Discussion stopped at the request of the Union.

    Remain on Agenda.

Discussion:    Jonathan talked to Mark Hunt and reiterated his comments. Article 25 does not provide clear definition for the word "shift". Section 2 does not support contention that 4-10's would be viewed differently from 5-8's. Section 8 states employee shifts shall be posted hours and shifts numerated. Union wants this in writing. M. Hunt's office probably will not put in writing. Greg Schneider - Shutter Creek Correctional Institution has a different policy. 4-10's starts one hour early, therefore a different shift. The SCCI practice was imposed by the Superintendent. Management is open to looking at some of the options listed. The union is willing to discuss. H. Green - The problem is not shifts - problem is the bid process. The current process is not acceptable to the union. G. Schneider suggests we use the IBB process to try to achieve a workable solution to meet the needs..

Action:    Schedule a Meeting for July 1, 1999 to discuss and try to resolve. Julie Hernandez, Elizabeth Mancino, Carl Bramlett, Scott Campbell, will attend for the Union. M. McGee, T. Long, Lory Humbert, and Jonathan Herman will attend for Management. Memo the be provided to Union by next Labor/Management meeting. J. Herman will prepare memo of our response to shift definition.

Discussion:    J. Herman consulted with M. Hunt on intent of RFMS differential. He read his notes to the group The intent of the RFM differential was to reduce administrative workload. Nothing in the contract requires the use of RFM pay. Lt. Thornton will do an analysis of RFM's versus other differential costs. Union - Mark Hunt has not responded in writing. Is he going to respond? Can we know by the next meeting. Issue is to stop 4, 1-day turn arounds.

Action:    Management will give union a written response as to our problems by the next meeting based on (1) Advice from Mark Hunt, and (2) Cost analysis.

Remain on Agenda.

Discussion:    Draft procedure was not completed. Defer discussion until next meeting.

Action:    Remain on Agenda

Discussion:    G. Smith was unable to locate meeting minutes from a Superintendent's PPE meeting. He will contact Superintendent's office at SRCI/EOCI. G. Smith discussed his and the Safety Committees review/inspection of the work crew sites. W. Hensell says all PPE is subject case by case analysis.

Action:    G. Smith Will provide a copy of the PPE evaluation to the union before the next meeting. G. Smith to provide Union a copy of the statewide study (review) of work crews. G. Smith to provide a copy of the statewide Labor/Management minutes from Ontario, in 1998.

Remain on Agenda.

Agenda Item #10:    Personnel Files and Reference Cards.............................................Union

When items get added to the Official Personnel file in Sale, staff are to be provided a copy. Does this same provision apply to files kept locally? Do staff need to be made aware of anything added to their various files? To their reference cards in the OIC's office?

Discussion:    Union - Staff are concerned that information is put on the file cards in the OIC office they are not aware of. This is perceived as a "gotcha" if they aren't given opportunity to improve, and this impacts evaluations. S. Campbell requests specific answers to his E-mail questions, then can remove from agenda. Management - Cards are pulled one year after the last entry, then sent to ISM office for review. The intent is for staff to be informed about any performance concerns, but they will not automatically be notified when notes are made. Items written on cards and placed in files should not be secret. J. Herman - Do the OIC's (new) need any informal training as to the process?

Action:    Lory will respond in writing to E-Mail questions. Lory will make it an on-going training agenda item with the lieutenants.

A. Action items listed and reviewed for clarity, effective discussion, clear action items.