By Bruce McIntyre | The Eganville Ledger
“It just doesn’t make sense to me.”
That was the opinion of Renfrew Councillor Jason Legris when the issue of having a member of council appointed as a liaison to a Human Resources (HR) panel was discussed at three consecutive council meetings, with council spending a considerable amount of time debating an administrative issue.
Prior to the March 11 meeting, council in the Ontario community debated and voted on various options at the February 11 and 25th meetings and no resolution was put forward. During those meetings two options on whether to appoint a member, or members of council to the hearing stage had been put forward and defeated, meaning they could no longer be considered as stipulated within the town’s procedural by-laws.
The reason for debate on whether an elected member should be appointed as an HR liaison when a town employee is engaged in the grievance process is because the former HR committee no longer exists.
It was dissolved by the implementation of the Committee of the Whole Structure (COW), however, the town’s CUPE Local 121 union contract requires that a Committee of Council or their designate to be involved in Stage Three grievances. Therefore, council needs to formally establish the “designate” for the HR Committee of Council that no longer exists.
Each councillor has brought forward their opinions over the last three meetings and the main point of contention is, if and how many, councillors would be ideal to sit on any panel hearing. The core group would include the town’s CAO, the manager or director of the employee filing a grievance and the County of Renfrew HR specialist.
CAO Gloria Rayburn told council it has the option to involve up to three council members, and in that case it would be publicized as an open meeting, then go into closed to avoid identifying an employee. Once the hearing is completed, the committee would come out of closed session to record its findings. Another option was to have no council involvement and leave the matter up to senior staff with the assistance of the county HR specialist.
Council Input
Coun. Legris argued the easiest of the options would be to have a single councillor present. He said an employee would likely welcome an elected member so their side of the story could be told and if there were any financial costs, the elected member would have a say in the matter and then report back to his colleagues.
“I am a little in awe that this is the third meeting, and we are still discussing this,” Coun. Legris said. “There is no cost to this, it has been working very smoothly, and I don’t understand why some on council do not want a council member sitting in on these meetings.”
He reminded council he asked both Mayor Tom Sidney and Councillor Andrew Dick for reasons why they originally opposed this model.
Mayor Sidney said an employee could be intimidated if they came to a meeting and a member of council was present. He added any major staffing issue would be brought to council regardless if it involved termination or financial issues and it is not the role of council to be involved in an administrative issue. He said if he was an employee involved in a minor disciplinary issue that does not warrant being brought to council, the last thing he would want is a council member present.
“I don’t feel a member of council should be sitting in on a disciplinary meeting for something that might not even come to council,” he said. “An elected member of council is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the town and that is the CAO’s role. The CAO manages the staff and the county HR rep, that is their role…that is their specialty and if it’s important it comes to council anyway.”
Coun. Dick asked the CAO who is initially involved in a hearing if both a verbal or written warning is issued, and she replied it is only the director or CAO. She reminded council the motion on the floor was related to a grievance, and on occasion disciplinary issues are relevant. Council involvement is only required if it gets to Stage Three as mandated by the CUPE agreement.
He said because there could be a financial component, three councillors should act as HR liaison.
“I don’t feel it is in the best interest of the public that we should have only one councillor involved and having those conversations and then bringing it back to council,” he said. “Am I okay having three councilllors in there? Absolutely. Because then we have three councillors bouncing ideas off with the CAO.”
Coun. Legris said the hearings are often quickly assembled and it could prove very difficult to have three councillors suddenly attend a meeting.
Clerk Carolyn Everett said if three members are appointed and a meeting was quickly called and if not all councillors are present and a quorum was not met, then the meeting could not proceed. She also reminded council that neither the mayor nor reeve are eligible to sit on this committee because of their removal from all committee assignments due to a majority of council sanctioning them due to their involvement in the Ma-te-Way project.
Council members eventually voted in favour of establishing the terms of reference for an HR Committee of Council with no more than three members of council appointed. Because the motion was passed at the COR level, a formal decision will be made at the March 25th meeting. At the end of the nearly 40-minute debate, Mayor Sidney called for a five minute recess before addressing the next agenda item.
