a ct 10 g r i e van ce p r oce d u r e s 2 0 12 2 0 13 h
play

A CT 10 G R I E VAN CE P R OCE D U R E S 2 0 12 / 2 0 13 H E - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 01, 2023 •152 likes •430 views

A CT 10 G R I E VAN CE P R OCE D U R E S 2 0 12 / 2 0 13 H E ALTH I N S U R AN CE C H AN GE S N ON -U N I ON W AGE E QU I TY I N CR E AS E 2 0 12 N ON -U N I ON W AGE I N CR E AS E Sept. 20, 2011 Grievance

  1.  A CT 10 G R I E VAN CE P R OCE D U R E S   2 0 12 / 2 0 13 H E ALTH I N S U R AN CE C H AN GE S   N ON -U N I ON W AGE E QU I TY I N CR E AS E   2 0 12 N ON -U N I ON W AGE I N CR E AS E  Sept. 20, 2011

  2. Grievance Procedure S TA TU TO R Y R E Q U I R E M E N TS & P O LI CY H I G H LI G H TS Sept. 20, 2011

  3.  Employers Must Establish A Grievance Procedure(s) That Addresses:  Employee Discipline  Employee Terminations  Workplace Safety.  The Grievance Procedure Must:  Be A Written Document  Specify The Process That A Grievant And Employer Must Follow  Provide For A Hearing Before An Impartial Hearing Officer  Provide For An Appeal To The Governing Body Of The Local Governmental Unit  Applies to ALL Employees (Including Non-Union Employees)  Statutory/ Contractual Exceptions Sept. 20, 2011

  4.  Act 10 Leaves Room For Interpretation And Discretion:  Parties/ Persons Responsible for Grievance Process  The Specific Process and Steps to be Followed  Definition of Disciplinary Actions That May Be Grieved  Identification/ Selection of the Impartial Hearing Officer  Identification of the Legal Standards That Apply Clear and Beyond a Preponderance Convincing Reasonable of the Evidence Evidence Doubt Sept. 20, 2011

  5. Event Causing Written Administrative Grievance Grievance Review Hearing Before Request for Administrative Impartial Hearing Response Hearing Officer Final Decision Impartial Appeal to County Hearing Officer’s Board of of the County Written Decision Supervisors Board Sept. 20, 2011

  6.  No Formal Pre ‐ hearing Discovery.  Witness Lists, Documents, and Exhibits to be Used at Hearing Must Be Shared.  Written Pre-Hearing Statement Allowed.  Employee Presents Case First Followed By The County.  “Rules Of Evidence” Aren’t Required, But May Be Applied At The Discretion Of The Impartial Hearing Officer.  The Impartial Hearing Officer May Not Base Any Finding or Conclusion Based Solely On Hearsay Evidence  Hearing Closed After the Parties Have Finished Introducing Evidence.  No Post-hearing Briefs or Position Statements Allowed. Sept. 20, 2011

  7.  Impartial Hearing Officer may NOT consider:  Other Employees’ Situations  Standards Between Departments  Consistency Of Past Enforcement  Prior Policies Or Practices; Etc.  Impartial Hearing Officer may not use “progressive discipline” or “just cause” as part of their decision.  Impartial Hearing Officer must recognize all County policies, rules, procedures and regulations. Sept. 20, 2011

  8. Back Pay ( ≤75 Days) Reinstatement COBRA Suspension in Lieu of Termination Sustain Grievance Hearing Reduction of Officer Suspension Decision Deny Grievance Other Lesser Discipline Sept. 20, 2011

  9.  Appeal heard during the next regular meeting of the Board or within sixty (60) business days, at the Chair’s discretion.  The Board shall not take testimony, accept additional evidence, accept briefing, accept oral argument or otherwise conduct a hearing of any sort in relation to an appeal.  The Board may … Review the Written Decision of the Impartial Hearing Officer.  Listen To Any Portion of the Audio Recording of the Hearing Before the Impartial Hearing  Officer. Confer with the Impartial Hearing Officer Regarding the Hearing Record and the Basis of  the Impartial Hearing Officer’s Decision.  “ The Board shall not overturn or otherw ise m odify the Im partial Hearing Officer’s decision unless the decision of the Im partial Hearing Officer is found to be arbitrary, capricious, oppressive or unreasonable or represented the Im partial Hearing Officer’s w ill and not judgm ent. ”  Remedies Are The Same As Impartial Hearing Officer’s. Sept. 20, 2011

  10.  Wis. Admin. Code Chapter Comm 32  Report Of An Unsafe Condition  County Review & Response  Determination That The Condition Does Not Constitute A Workplace Safety Violation.  Statement That County Is Taking Corrective Action In Accordance With Law  Referral The Condition To The Loss Control Committee  Grievance Cannot Be Moved Forward During Pendency Of Corrective Action Or Committee Review  Grievance Can Be Moved Forward If Employee Believes A Workplace Safety Still Exists After Corrective Action Or Committee Decision  Must File A New Report Of An Unsafe Condition Sept. 20, 2011

  11. 2012/ 2013 Health Insurance Changes H E A LTH I N S U R A N CE CH A N G E S & W E LLN E S S P R O G R A M E N H A N CE M E N TS Sept. 20, 2011

  12. Sept. 20, 2011

  13. Sept. 20, 2011

  14.  American Heart Association Start! Fit Friendly Company – Gold Award (2008 & 2009)  Governor's Worksite Wellness Award – Gold Level (2011)  TBA Sept. 20, 2011

  15. 20 12 20 12 Current Plan Proposed Status Quo 20 11 Rates HRA/ HSA Renewal Stacked Plan 2012 Medical Premium $2,154,392 $2,348,290 $1,818,053 (Employer Contribution) $454,588 $454,588 $454,588 HSA Contribution HRA Contribution $0 $0 $327,303 (Estimated Exposure) HRA Administrative Fees $0 $0 $10,761 ($4.25 / ee / mo.) Total Health Benefit Costs $2,608,979 $2,802,878 $2,610,704 Percent Increase Over 2011 Costs n/ a 7.4% 0.7% Dollar Increase Over 2011 Costs n/ a $19,3898 $1,724 Sept. 20, 2011

  16.  Budget Repair Bill and Biennial Budget Provided Opportunities to Design the Health Plan  Employer’s are prohibited from bargaining over the “ d esign and selection of health care coverage plans ” for public safety employees.  “ … benefit levels, deductibles, copayment and coinsurance requirements, exclusions, and limitations under the plan … ” [Wis. Stat. § 149.14(4) ]  The specific benefits design you select … level of the deductible … copay amounts … lifetime medical coverage … maximum out-of- pocket limit … other health coverage … prescription drug benefits … ” [Office of the Commissioner of Insurance - Finding the Right Coverage] Sept. 20, 2011

  17.  Employees who contribute greater than or equal to fifty-percent ( ≥50%) of the actuarially determined WRS Rate for General employees.  All non-union employees, including that are currently part of the Courthouse, Highway, Human Services Professionals, and Sheriff’s CCC bargaining units; AND  Newly hired or promoted deputies who immediately be required to contribute to the WRS Sept. 20, 2011

  18. $6 ,0 0 0 $5,0 0 0 $4 ,0 0 0 $3,0 0 0 $2,0 0 0 $1,0 0 0 $0 Single Plan Fam ily Plan Em ployee Deductible HSA Contribution HRA Liability Sept. 20, 2011

  19.  Employees who contribute less than fifty-percent (<50%) of the actuarially determined WRS Rate for General employees.  All public safety employees (i.e. sworn Sheriff’s Department employees, including management) EXCEPT those required to contribute to the WRS; OR  Public safety employees who voluntarily contribute to the WRS Sept. 20, 2011

  20. $10 ,0 0 0 $9 ,0 0 0 $8 ,0 0 0 $7,0 0 0 $6 ,0 0 0 $5,0 0 0 $4 ,0 0 0 $3,0 0 0 $2,0 0 0 $1,0 0 0 $0 Single Plan (W) Fam ily Plan (W) Single Plan Fam ily Plan Em ployee Deductible HSA Contribution HRA Liability Sept. 20, 2011

  21.  We Can’t Manage Health Costs Without Managing Health.  Knowledge Isn’t Always Power HRA’s Provide The Data Information, But Do Little To Actually Improve Health …   Focus Needs to be Shifted to “Feet, Forks, & Fingers”  A Wellness-Based Health Plan (aka Biometric Health Plan, etc.) Makes It Harder For Employees To Make Bad Health Related Decisions Provide Substantial Incentives To Improve.  Leave It To The Employee’s Free Will To Make Choices And Opt Out Of Undesirable  Arrangements Should They Want To Do So  Integration Of Incentives Into Health Plan Design Has Proven to be Most Effective  If We’re Asking Employees To Be Actively Engaged In This Process, It Doesn’t Make Sense To Shift Costs. Premium Contribution Rates to be held steady—for now—but the rate of the incentive has  grown from 5% to 10%. Sept. 20, 2011

  22. Wellness Scorecard Professional [20 13] Wellness Services [20 11] Annual Physical [20 0 8 ] High Deductible Health Plan w/ HSA & Tobacco Health Risk Cessation Assessm ent + Em ployee [20 0 7] Discount [20 0 6 ] Sept. 20, 2011

  23. Category Qualifying Standards ≤ 139 mmHg Systolic Blood Pressure ≤ 89 mmHg Diastolic Blood Pressure ≤ 30.9 Body Mass Index ≤ 159 LDL Cholesterol ≥ 36 HDL Cholesterol Non-Smoker ≥6 mos Tobacco Use [Employee] Participants failing to meet biometric targets are allowed to earn the incentive by satisfying an alternative standard (such as coaching) that will lead to improved results in the future. Sept. 20, 2011

  24. 2011 Non-Union Wage Equity Increase Sept. 20, 2011

  25. Non-Union Em ployees Union Em ployees  Contributing 5.8% to WRS  No WRS Contribution Since Sept. 2, 2011 Until Jan. 1, 2012  10% Health Insurance  7.5% Health Insurance Contribution Contribution  2% Wage Lift for 2011  2.5% Wage Lift for 2011 Sept. 20, 2011

  26. 2012 Non-Union Wage Increase Sept. 20, 2011

Recommend

More recommend