pages: CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CivilServiceBoard | 2014-10-27 | 4 | City of Alameda Page 4 Civil Service Board Minutes Regular Meeting October 27, 2014 is fine. The job description can be a little stronger. When she looks at it she does not feel that it is clearly exempt. Member Santos stated that under California it is a quantitative test. There is no percentage in the wage orders. The test is primarily engaged in over 50% and we do not have percentages. This may be okay but when she looks at something right above the non-exempt line she feels it is worth a revisit. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that as a Charter City, Alameda is exempt from almost all of the provisions of the State Wage Orders, with the exception of minimum wage. Member Santos stated that she feels that the job description is not that strong in qualifying for administrative or professional exemption and that it could be better. Member Malloy asked Senior Human Resources Analyst Low if the Board could see the job description which is below the Senior Utility Accountant. This may help the Board to have a better sense of the description. The description covers the bare bones of the job. Senior Human Resources Analyst Low stated that the Board could find the job description on the City's website. He invited the Board to look at the redlined version of the description in the packet, which indicates this job description was last approved in 1988. The Utility Accountant is going to have similar vintage text. It is not worded as strongly as the Board would prefer as far as the level of description. Member Santos stated that you could flush out more of the analysis to highlight the independent judgment piece. Administrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra asked if Member Santos was actually pointing out a violation of the FLSA duties. Member Santos stated no, this is the kind of job description that would typically get red flagged as something to look into under the FLSA. Maybe there is less risk as a Charter City. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that this classification could be on the cusp of qualifying for exception. The majority of duties happen to be of the exempt nature and perhaps that can be better reflected in the job specification. Member Santos stated that when she looks at "coordinate" it is a more non-exempt status, when you look at an audit you are following a certain set of procedures so there is not so much discretion in independent judgment, preparation of general ledger is more on the non-exempt side. Without knowing what the job is, she would like to see more of the exempt duties if staff feels this is truly exempt. Administrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated maybe we need a legal opinion on this description. Michael Roush, Attorney-Civil Service Board Legal Counsel, stated he thinks that in order to do that, perhaps understanding the percentage of time that this particular job is intended to do these things would help understand if it is exempt or non-exempt. If preparation is done 5% of the time and 50% of the time is spent doing typically more exempt functions, then we would be more comfortable with this description. Without having gone through that process we can take a look at it. Unless there is a timing issue, we can bring the information back to the Board. Or, at least come back with better definitions to make it more clear on whether it is an exempt or non-exempt position. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that if the Board directs, staff can review the duties to make sure they meet the standards of exemption. President Horikoshi requested that staff take a look at this item and bring it back to the Board for review again. Vice President Bachelor asked regarding the Police Maintenance Technician, if there was just one position for this job description. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that right now there G:\Personnel\CSB\Al Minutes/201 Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final | CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf |