Lincoln County Personnel Rules 2019 (from https://www.co.lincoln.or.us)
LCEA Policies and
Procedures Manual
LCEA Articles of Incorporation
LCEA Conflict of Interest Policy
The Lincoln County Employees Association is the collective bargaining unit for employees of Lincoln County, Oregon. We represent Lincoln County employees except for the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office and the Lincoln County Parole and Probation Department who are represented by the Lincoln County Deputies Association and the Federation of Parole and Probation Officers, respectively
We are an Oregon 501 (c) 5 nonprofit (Oregon Registry Number 1457624-98) governed by our Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), LCEA Bylaws and our Policies and Procedures Manual.
Additionally, contract bargaining concerning HHS after hours Behavioral Crisis coverage and compensation was deferred by mutual agreement to allow the HHS Department to implement a new, better coverage scheme that decreases after hours standby and improves compensation.
Links to the MOUs can be seen at the left. These are the unsigned final drafts. The signed and executed copies will be posted when available.
The Janus decision overturned the law known as "fair share". Under the fair share law, people weren't required to join the union but were required to pay dues used to support the union (contract negotiation costs and overhead) but not the portion of the dues used to support political action by the union.
Under the new law, people will not be required to join the union or pay dues but will still benefit from the hard won pay and benefits made possible by your hard work, solidarity and commitment to the LCEA and collective bargaining. It is not clear if the LCEA will be required to represent the non-members for disciplinary matters or matters relating to contract violations.
The eventual meaning and required actions of the situation are still not completely known but we we will, of course, comply with the law.
So far, the County has notified the five former fair share members that dues will no longer be taken from their pay checks. One member who expressed a desire to opt out has been directed to the personnel office.
For the immediate future, we are in good shape. We are a non-political union with no stated positions for or against any political agenda, candidate or office holder. Our dues are very low and we have a low overhead. Almost all of the dues go toward LCEA support for bargaining and representation for discipline/contract defense. A small amount goes to overhead - email services and web hosting being the biggest chunk. All of the directors and stewards are volunteers and receive no compensation beyond occasional meals paid for by the LCEA when we are conducting LCEA business during our lunch hour. We are a completely local association and have no national office to answer to.
Our long term future will depend on how many people we can keep over time as new employees come into the county. Because our costs are so low we can provide the same essential union services for a long time. If it becomes necessary we can look toward cost restructuring for a little relief and possibly toward fund raising activities beyond union dues. Mostly it will depend on the union providing services that the memberships sees as desirable and worth the effort to continue. The members are the union. It exists for our collective benefit. As long as the majority of eligible members continue to feel this way, we will be fine.
As always, we encourage participation in union activities. We always want feedback. Our stewards and directors are available for feedback or questions. Ideas about things we should be doing and the direction we should heading are more than welcome.
Thank you all for your steadfastness and solidarity!
By Kevin Keaney, Attorney at Law
In a recent case involving a labor relations director and an Oregon community college, the Oregon Court of Appeals defined whistleblower protections in a manner that should provide additional protection for public employees.
The case involved a labor relations director who was terminated by the community college for which she worked. The director brought suit against the college, claiming she had been discharged in violation of Oregon's whistleblower statute. The director argued that, because she had disclosed legal violations to the college, the college fired her.
Under the whistleblower statute, it is illegal for an Oregon public employer to discharge an employee because the employee has reported or disclosed what the employee reasonably believes is evidence of violations of federal, state, or local laws or �mismanagement [or] gross waste of funds.� The labor relations director had reported what she considered to be legal violations to higher college management in the course of her job duties. The college argued that, because these reports were required as part of the director's job, she was not protected by the whistleblower statute. The Oregon appeals court disagreed.
The court concluded there is no exception for employees who report violations.
Regardless of whether the reporting of violations is part of their jobs, employees are protected under the whistleblower statute if adverse job actions such as termination are taken against them. The ruling is good news for all public employees, but most of all for public employees who may come across and report violations simply as a function of what they do on the job.
________________________________________________
During an investigatory interview The Weingarten Decision holds that three rules must be followed:
Rule 1: The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The employee cannot be punished for making this request.
Rule 2: After the employee makes the request, the employer must choose from among three options:
For more information contact the LCEA at pres@lcea-oregon.org
________________________________________________
Highlights of New Oregon Sick Leave Law
-Effective 1 January 2016
-Oregon joins three (3) other states and District of Columbia with paid sick leave
-Employers outside Portland with at least ten (10) employees must provide up to forty (40) hours of paid sick leave per year
-Employers outside Portland with fewer than ten (10) employees must provide unpaid sick leave
-Portland employers with at least six (6) employees must provide up to forty (40) hours of paid sick leave per year
-Employees must accrue sick leave at rate of one hour for every thirty (30) hours worked
-Alternatively employers may front load
forty (40) hours per employee at start of year or employment
-New employees may start using accrued paid leave after 90th calendar day of employment
-Employees employed as of 1 January 2016 may start taking leave in one-hour increments as it is accrued
-A paid time off
policy that combines sick and vacation leave may meet the law's requirements if the employer front loads forty (40) hours of PTO
per employee at the start of the year
-Sick leave may be used to care for employee's own or family member's health condition and for such other purposes as domestic violence or bereavement
-Employers must provide written notice of available sick leave on quarterly basis
-Administrative and civil relief available for violations
(6) An eligible employee taking leave under ORS 659A.159(1)(e) and OAR 839-009-0230(5} to deal with
the death of a family member is entitled to take up to a total of two weeks of OFLA leave for that purpose.
(a) An eligible employee is entitled to take up to two weeks of OFLA leave upon the death of each family
member of the employee within any one-year period, except that the leave taken to deal with the deaths
of family members may not exceed the total in ORS 659A.159(1) and subsection (1) of this rule.
(b) A covered employer may not require an eligible employee to take multiple leave periods concurrently if
more than one family member of the employee dies during the one year period. If multiple family
members of an eligible employee die concurrently, an eligible employee may take up to two weeks of
leave for the death of each family member.
(c) AII leave taken under ORS 659A.159 (1}(e) and OAR 839-009-0230(5) shall be counted toward the
total period of OFLA leave authorized in ORS 659A.159(1) and subsection (1) of this rule,
(d) All leave taken for the death of a family member must be completed within 60 days of the date on
which the eligible employee receives notice of the death of the family member. Notice of the death of a
family member may be by any means and from any source.
________________________________________________
LEGAL BRIEF
1 May 2015
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCESS BY EMPLOYERS
In Oregon (as in other states such as Washington), it is unlawful for an employer to require a job applicant or employee to provide access to a personal social-media account. Social media is broadly defined. It encompasses sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram. An applicant’s or employee’s personal email account is included.
Under the law, an employer cannot compel disclosure of passwords, user names, or other means of authentication required to access personal social-media accounts. An employer cannot require addition as a “friend” or require that a personal account be displayed so the employer may view it. Retaliation for refusal to allow access to personal social media is forbidden.
Note, however, an employer is not prohibited from investigating reports of misconduct related to work. An employer may investigate a report that an employee‘s social-media account has been or is being used in connection with work-related misconduct. For instance, a hospital might investigate a report that a nurse discussed confidential patient information on Facebook, or a college might investigate a report that an office worker bragged about misusing a college-issued credit card on Twitter. Even when there is a good faith report of employee misconduct in connection with a social-media account, however, the employer still may not compel disclosure of information allowing access to the account.
An employer may freely access information or content posted by or about an employee when the information or content is publicly available.
Finally, the employer may compel access to social media accounts provided by the employer to be used in connection with work.
In short, the law protects employee privacy in social media. It reinforces the principle that private life is separate from employment. It does not immunize employees, however, from potential repercussions occasioned by misuse of social media to further actions that are illegal or constitute misconduct.
KEVIN KEANEY
Attorney at Law
office: (503) 232-9280 | fax: (503) 296-2836 | web: www.keaneylaw.com
mailing address: 1631 NE Broadway, #540, Portland, OR 97232
________________________________________________
LEGAL BRIEF
Kevin Keaney
1 January 2015
Recording—Risky Business
Recording a conversation is easier than ever. Almost all smartphones have the capability to
record conversations, and many people assume they can record without concern for the consequences.
Employees, particularly when they feel threatened or believe they are being picked on or harassed,
resort to recording conversations with their supervisors or managers. The practice is understandable—
but risky.
In Oregon, the rule is simple. You may record a conversation if you have the permission of the
person or persons you are recording. There is an exception—you may record your own telephone or cell
phone conversation without permission. These rules apply whether you are inside or outside the
workplace, on or off duty.
Thus, “going undercover” with a cell phone or wearing a “wire,” so to speak, to catch
conversations or exchanges with supervisors or managers is per se illegal unless you have permission
from the person or persons you are recording. There are no exceptions, and violations are considered
misdemeanors under Oregon law, i.e., criminal. It is not acceptable to have permission only from one
person in a group of several persons. You must have the permission of everyone being recorded. Nor is
it acceptable to “presume” permission to record. Although someone might reasonably and correctly
infer, from all the circumstances, that permission was granted to record a particular conversation,
presumptions and assumptions are thin reeds upon which to hang compliance with the law. Simply
putting your cell phone on the table in plain sight while talking to your supervisor is probably not
enough, in itself, to gain “permission to record.” You should ask for permission if you want to record.
An exception is telephone or cell phone conversations. You do not need to ask permission to
record these conversations. But consider the following: Whether it is a telephone or personal
conversation, what does it say about the relationship that you feel the need to record? What impact
will you create if and when the fact of the recording is disclosed? Is it really necessary to record the
conversation? There may be situations in which recording is necessary, but you should think through
the need and weigh the costs and benefits before doing so.
KEVIN KEANEY
Attorney at Law
Office: (503) 232-9280 | Fax: (503) 296-2836 | www.keaneylaw.com
Mailing Address: 1631 NE Broadway, #540, Portland, OR 97232
________________________________________________
“CONTRACT SHORT”
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
November 1, 2013
Kevin Keaney
There is no definition of a “hostile work environment” that fits all work situations. Like many things in life that depend upon perception, a work environment perceived as “hostile” by one employee may not be perceived as “hostile” by another employee.
To compound the issue, there is no particular legal significance to a work environment that is “hostile.” A work environment may be “hostile” and perfectly legal at the same time. The boss may be rude, mean, boorish, or a “jerk,” and there may be nothing you can do about it in terms of legal action. This is a surprising concept for many employees.
The law gets involved when a “hostile work environment” creates an adverse employment situation for a particular employee or group of employees for reasons the law considers out of bounds. In other words, the law gets involved when the “hostility” becomes so bad that it negatively affects how an employee is able to do his or her work or impacts the way in which he or she is evaluated, compensated, promoted, or otherwise able to obtain a benefit from the job. If this adverse treatment is on account of characteristics the law protects from discrimination—such as age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, disability, whistleblowing, or sexual orientation—then the adverse treatment, i.e., the “hostile work environment,” becomes illegal.
Typically, discrimination claims for “hostile work environment” based on one of the foregoing categories must be brought to the human-resources department and then in a state agency such as BOLI, the federal EEOC, or court. A “hostile work environment” due to union participation or affiliation may be grieved under many contracts or submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or, for Oregon public employees, to the Employment Relations Board (ERB). “Hostile work environment” claims based on discrimination may be handled by a private attorney.
KEVIN KEANEY
Attorney at Law
Office: (503) 232-9280 | Fax: (503) 296-2836 | www.keaneylaw.com
Mailing Address: 1631 NE Broadway, #540, Portland, OR 97232
Office Address: 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1155, Portland, OR 97232
________________________________________________
CONTRACT SHORT
Kevin Keaney
1 October 2014
PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Under federal law, reasonable accommodations may be required for employees with pregnancy-related disabilities or work restrictions. The federal agency charged with enforcing the law in this area, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has guidelines on how employers may ensure they are in compliance. The federal laws at issue are the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.
The EEOC’s recommendations include the following:
Ensure a process is in place to resolve requests for reasonable accommodation for pregnancy-related disabilities (this recommendation would apply to any disability).
Inform employees that pregnancy-related disabilities will be accommodated.
Widely disseminate in-house procedures that are available for requesting reasonable accommodations.
Train managers in the law.
Ensure that managers and supervisors know that the definition of “disability” is a broad one.
Communicate with employees once they make requests for reasonable accommodation.
Respond to pregnancy-discrimination complaints efficiently and effectively, investigate promptly, and take corrective action.
Protect employees from retaliation.
There are many ways in which an employer may accommodate a pregnancy-related disability, such as temporary reassignment to light duty. The new guidelines are an attempt to ensure employers adhere to the law.
KEVIN KEANEY
Attorney at Law
Office: (503) 232-9280 | Fax: (503) 296-2836 | www.keaneylaw.com
Mailing Address: 1631 NE Broadway, #540, Portland, OR 97232
Office Address: 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1155, Portland, OR 97232