Mr. Viken
My reply here will only deal with the issue of recordings. Your grievances and other concerns are or would appropriately be handled in other venues.
First, I meant that the grievance hearing would be in person to avoid any misunderstanding that you will not record the meeting, and the manager holding the meeting will end the meeting if you insist on recording.
On the broader issue of recordings, all the recordings you list below are records of TriMet’s day to day operations and are used to determine what happened at a particular time. The recordings are critical to establish the facts of an incident when disputes arise about TriMet’s operations and/or employee behavior. When employees are doing their jobs appropriately, those recordings are protection for the employee and the agency against allegations made or accidents that happen. Additionally, the recordings in public can be used to identify persons engaged in criminal conduct.
On the question of why not to record discipline and grievance hearings:
I have worked in labor relations for more than 30 years; mostly for large public sector agencies. During that time I’ve only had one employer who regularly recorded investigatory interviews and grievance hearings. That agency was Portland Public Schools and the policy had developed due to all the legal requirements around providing education to children and the potential for criminal allegations to arise. In the remainder of my experience, only the occasional extraordinary investigatory process warranted recording. When I came to TriMet a little over two years ago, I found the same situation here; including the fact that ATU was supportive of not recording these meetings.
I would say there are three main reasons for generally not recording grievance hearings and investigatory interviews.
1. The logistics of creating, maintaining, and referencing audio recordings is enormous; there are hundreds of these meetings every year. The agency must have official recording devices for all those conducting the meetings to record, and a process for uploading, cataloging, maintaining and responding to information requests for those audio records. Recording meetings with employees and others who often don’t want to be recorded, tends to disrupt meetings and lengthens them as people manage the recording process. Additionally, the process of going back to reference audio when subsequent documents are being written is time consuming; way beyond the capabilities of the staffing levels of public sector organizations.
2. For that cost, there’s virtually no benefit to having a recording of a disciplinary or grievance hearing compared to notetaking. Though a recording can provide the specific words used in an interview, the outcomes from investigatory and grievance meetings rarely hinge on the specific words said in the meeting.
a. In the investigatory process, the evidence about the incident is the basis of any disciplinary action. The investigatory interview allows the employee to provide their recollection of the events and explain their side of the situation. The interview is the employee’s best recollection, and isn’t necessarily a perfect retelling of the circumstances. The agency will make its determination based on the total record; usually not any specific phrases within an interview.
Occasionally, employees are dishonest about their conduct in an investigatory interview. However, disciplinary action for dishonesty rarely turns on the specific words an employee used. The dishonesty has to be clear and evident, so the recollections and notes of the management representatives in the meeting is usually sufficient.
b. In the grievance setting, a verbatim record is even less important. The grievance procedure is for union/employees to dispute a management action and seek a resolution. The facts related to the grievance all occurred in the past at time of the events that led to the management action being grieved. The discussion in the hearing between management and the grievant/union is about resolution of the grievance. A recording will only record the positions and opinions of the parties at the grievance hearing and these remarks tend to be repeated at each step. So there is no benefit of a verbatim recording and recordings might even have a chilling effect on the discussion due to the possibility of later arbitration.
3. A recording of meetings creates another area for disputes that has very little to do with purpose of the processes. Except in the rare instances where a person’s behavior in such a meeting is misconduct, what is said in the meetings isn’t the issue, the facts regarding the incident being investigated, or the discipline or alleged contract violation are what is at issue. Focusing on the specific words said in a meeting takes away from the purpose of the process. In your case, recording of the grievance hearing is not necessary for you to present your appeal. Recording is just a distraction from the facts associated with your discipline. The grievance hearing is for you to present your grievance; please use it as such.
Laird Cusack | CusackL@trimet.org
Director Labor & Employee Relations
Tri Met | 4012 SE 17th Ave, Portland, OR 97202
No comments:
Post a Comment