Can a City gov't employer eliminate a position & reassign the work?

[SFcityworker]

Can a City employer eliminate a full time position and reallocate the work/duties to other employees on a rotation basis? The management claims the city does not need a dedicated maintenance person, esp. since the system upgrade is already completed. Now, my job will be eliminated, I will be reclassified to a different job title. Meanwhile, the responsibilities that I used to perform will be reallocated or reassigned to other city employees on a rotation basis. Is this legal? Can the City claim it no longer needs the position, but the work is still being performed? Can I ask the union representatives to fight for my position?

 

[KatDini]

You would do better to ask your union representative these questions in the first place.

 

[army judge]

Can a City employer eliminate a full time position and reallocate the work/duties to other employees on a rotation basis? The management claims the city does not need a dedicated maintenance person, esp. since the system upgrade is already completed. Now, my job will be eliminated, I will be reclassified to a different job title. Meanwhile, the responsibilities that I used to perform will be reallocated or reassigned to other city employees on a rotation basis. Is this legal? Can the City claim it no longer needs the position, but the work is still being performed? Can I ask the union representatives to fight for my position?

If you are covered by a CBA, of course you ask your union representatives about this (as well as MOST other concerns).

As a member of any union, you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, as in ALWAYS start with the people you've elected (and your union dues go to supporting) your shop steward or local union officials.


Happy Holidays, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and a very Happy, Healthy New Year! ​

 

[SFcityworker]

I am not getting the answer. The rep is telling me that the management is pushing to have the position eliminated. I am posting here to see if the city government can do that.

 

[army judge]

I am not getting the answer. The rep is telling me that the management is pushing to have the position eliminated. I am posting here to see if the city government can do that.

Yes, they can do it.
But, if it violates your union contract, that's when your union MUST get involved.
Otherwise, if the union isn't concerned, more than likely the city is well within their rights to do so.

 

[SFcityworker]

I did ask the rep, but since the rep is not a legal-trained person or a lawyer (meaning, a union coordinator who is also a city employee), I do not know if the city can eliminate my job and reallocate the work duties I should be doing. Can someone please let me know so I know what I need to do next?

 

[SFcityworker]

Army Judge, I have downloaded a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the city and the union. It does not have any stipulation about job displacement. It does have one section about Transfer (an employee may be transferred from one position to another position in the same or comparable classification upon approval of the affected dept heads.). It also discussed aobut layoff and recall. And resignation. Would the city be able to eliminate my position under the guise of Transfer?

 

[cbg]

Unless your union contract expressly forbids it, yes, the city can eliminate your job and reallocate the work duties you should be doing.

 

[army judge]

Army Judge, I have downloaded a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the city and the union. It does not have any stipulation about job displacement. It does have one section about Transfer (an employee may be transferred from one position to another position in the same or comparable classification upon approval of the affected dept heads.). It also discussed aobut layoff and recall. And resignation. Would the city be able to eliminate my position under the guise of Transfer?

No, the city wouldn't need to use guile or trickeration to eliminate any position.
The city can eliminate positions because they can't pay people, or they must do what Joe and Judy Sixpack do, tighten their belts, cut costs.
The city has the power and authority to do many things.

These are very difficult economic times for everyone.
Your state is especially hard pressed these days.
The taxpayers are tapped out, and businesses are fleeing your state in droves daily.
That said, be grateful you will still have a job and paycheck.

No one is guaranteed employment for life.
Again, I suggest you take this up with someone in your union.
That's what you pay them to do.

Or, you can seek advice from a local attorney.
Many will meet with you for free during the initial consultation, otherwise, it'll run about $500 to $2,000 for an hour of most attorney's time.

 

[Betty3]

If it is not in the contract that they can't do this, then yes they can.

 

[CdwJava]

Unless the position or positions, or such a reclassification is covered in your contract with the city, yes, the city CAN eliminate the position. Unless you can show that this action is somehow punitive against you for some protected activity, then you have little recourse except to accept or reject an offer to be reclassified.

Sorry, but if the position s not covered in the MOU then they can get rid of it.

 

[ElleMD]

It would be highly unusual for a CBA to stipulate what positions must exist or who must perform which duties. This goes double in the public sector. What might be in your CBA, is what happens to an employee who is displaced. It is not uncommon to offer transfer, right of first refusal on vacancies or have recall rights or some other sort of arrangement for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Those things are not required but they are not uncommon in CBAs.

 

[disagreeable]

Not in larger companies. There are clear descriptions of the duties performed by each classification of employee. They may even vary by geographical location. If you perform the duties of an employee in another classification, an employee from that classification who was working at the time can file a grievance requesting he be paid the same amount of time you were paid for doing his work. Once one becomes familiar with the particular work classifications, one learns who gets angry when you do even simply things in their classification, without seeking their permission first. If you have the permission of anyone in the classification active on duty, that negates the ability for anyone of them to file a grievance for the time paid. Further, a union member who routinely breaks classification rules can have a complaint filed against them to the union, because they are violating the pledge they took as a union member.

It would be highly unusual for a CBA to stipulate what positions must exist or who must perform which duties. This goes double in the public sector. What might be in your CBA, is what happens to an employee who is displaced. It is not uncommon to offer transfer, right of first refusal on vacancies or have recall rights or some other sort of arrangement for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Those things are not required but they are not uncommon in CBAs.

 

[ElleMD]

In the public sector, this is much, much less common. Even still, it would not require that there always be someone in position X.

 

[CdwJava]

In the public sector, this is much, much less common. Even still, it would not require that there always be someone in position X.

But, if it were in the agreement they might be bound to have it filled. Out here, unless the position is covered by the MOU or there is a contractual obligation to address the elimination and/or transfer of a person from that position, the administration can decide to eliminate a position as they will. I know people in positions of supervision from law enforcement to public works that had their specific positions eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

 

[ElleMD]

Agree. Eliminating positions in the public sector is far from uncommon and I can't imagine any jurisdiction would agree to a CBA or MOU that bound them to always have a certain position. Such things would not go over well with the taxpayers. Higher level and leadership positions may be required per municipal regulations (such as having a mayor, town counsel made up of 5 individuals, etc.) but I've never seen such things with regard to rank and file workers.

 

[CdwJava]

Agree. Eliminating positions in the public sector is far from uncommon and I can't imagine any jurisdiction would agree to a CBA or MOU that bound them to always have a certain position. Such things would not go over well with the taxpayers. Higher level and leadership positions may be required per municipal regulations (such as having a mayor, town counsel made up of 5 individuals, etc.) but I've never seen such things with regard to rank and file workers.

I actually have seen specific positions covered under MOUs, but rather than prohibiting their elimination, they become meet-and-confer issues (which means that the city can meet, say it's gone, and it's done). More than likely if it is addressed at all, the MOU or personnel rules will cover how an employee can be transferred or re-classified out of the position - sometimes for no loss in wages, provided a comparable position is available and the employee is qualified or can be trained up to the position. Some cities (like mine) has made the mistake of leaving all such issues to city administrative rules ... that means that they can CHANGE the rules to suit their needs whenever there is a conflict. This makes for a rather helpless employee position in a great many situations. (I have learned over the past dozen years just how weak public employee organizations actually are ... but, I digress.)

In the past few years a great number of municipal and county government positions have been eliminated by administrative fiat. Unfortunately, the trend by the state (at least in CA) to push more and more responsibilities for social services and public safety into the laps of the cities and counties without compensating them to permit the additional personnel needed to address it is a recipe for a disaster, and the citizens at least in my state will see the end result of this error in the next couple of years.