County keeps personnel policy revisions on the drawing board

Revisions to the county’s personnel policies regarding travel pay, harassment and the complaint procedure remain on the drawing board.

On November 10, human resources director Nicole Hager presented members of the Taylor County Finance and Personnel Committee with new language for the personnel policies after having them reviewed by the county’s labor attorney.

The first dealt with section 3.6 regarding pay for travel. County board members had expressed concern that with lengthy airport delays becoming routine, the county could be on the hook for paying someone overtime if their flight was delayed while traveling out of state.

Hager noted that state and federal laws differ on what the standard should be for payment of travel time and so she ran it by the Department of Workforce Development who instructed her that the time due to flight delays was “generally compensable under Wisconsin law.”

She said she talked with the board member who had raised the question about it. “He wasn’t super happy with it, but that is what Wisconsin law has us do,” she said.

Another part of the policy regarding exempt employees was also questioned regarding payment of overtime hours. Committee member Ray Soper noted the policy says overtime is anything over 40 hours per week and asked how the 35-hour per week employees are handled if they work more than their scheduled week.

The time and a half does not begin until the employees work more than 40 hours. It is straight time for employees working between 35 and 40 hours per week. Hager said she would bring the policy back with revisions to clarify that.

Soper also questioned a portion about exempt employees, those who by federal job classification are exempt from being paid overtime, and how a few paragraphs later the policy talks about accruing overtime for exempt employees.

“In one paragraph it said you can’t get it and another said you may be eligible,” Soper said.

Committee members tabled the entire section to have it all looked over. Hager noted the attorney at the firm the county has worked with in the past is leaving that firm and she will be meeting with his replacement. Hager said the previous attorney had worked with the county in the past to develop the policy. She said having someone else look at the policies will be a good thing.

“It will be good to have a different set of eyes look at it,” she said.

Hager also asked the committee to review the discrimination policy. She explained that the outside investigation regarding potential discrimination indicated a need for a more defined complaint procedure.

Committee chairman Chuck Zenner noted that he felt the county should notify the person who filed a complaint that it is over and that they had done something to address the complaint.

Soper raised concern about who the policy applies to. He noted it makes reference to protected groups. “All employees are not in a protective class,” he said.

“This whole document is skewed to protected classes . . . I don’t see any reference to general employees,” he said.

“From what I can tell you are correct,” Hager replied. “That is probably another one we should table,” said committee member Jim Gebauer.

Soper also raised concerns with the definition of sexual harassment noting that it defines it not by what the individual’s intent was but by how it is viewed.

“It is giving the so-called victim the ability to define it any way they want. If they say it is sexual harassment, it is sexual harassment,” Soper said.

It was noted that it refers to what a reasonable person would interpret to be harassment.

“The county has history with people who were once perceived as being reasonable,” Soper said.

Committee member Lester Lewis defended the definition in the policy noting that it is language that has been decided in the courts. “This has been arbitrated in the courts,” he said.

“There is a pretty big hole in who and what is reasonable,” Soper said.

The complaint procedure was tabled for further review.

Committee members decided to keep as is, a county policy regarding number of days off. A question was raised by an employee who works four 10-hour days per week if a paid day off is for eight hours or 10 hours. Historically a benefit day is considered to be eight hours. Hager said they would format the chart in the employee handbook to show the number of hours for years of service versus having it in days.

Lewis noted this has been discussed in the past and that he knows 10-hour employees feel they should get 10-hour vacation days. However he said the county bases it on eight-hour days. “Our policy has been to keep it at eight-hour days for vacation,” he said.

Committee member Jim Gebauer noted that the 10hour days work schedule is at the employees’ or department head request.

In other business, committee members:

  Approved new job descriptions for health department staff members. These are not new positions, but the last time they were updated was in 2007 and there have been changes since that time.

  Approved filling a legal assistant position in the district attorney’s office. District attorney Kristi Tlusty said they have two paralegals in her office who fulfill those functions and one of them, Jill Scheithauer, was recently elected as the clerk of court. Tlusty sought permission to fill the position so someone is ready when Scheithauer takes her new office the first Tuesday in January. “Could you possibly get along without that position?” Mildbrand asked.

“I don’t see how you could do away with it and not have a significant impact on cases,” Tlusty responded. “One legal assistant can’t possibly take care of the workload in the office,” she said. While the position is currently 40 hours a week, it will be filled as a 35-hour per week position.