By Amira Van Leeuwen
KYLE — In a 3-2 vote, the Kyle City Council failed to pass a motion to add a Personal Improvement Plan (PIP) procedure to the personnel handbook and update the grievance process at its Aug. 22 meeting.
Council member Yvonne Flores-Cale brought forward the motion. In agreement, Daniela Parsley also voted in favor of the PIP proposal and to update the grievance process; however, council member Michael Tobias, Mayor Pro Tem Robert Rizo and Mayor Travis Mitchell voted in dissent. Council member Ashlee Bradshaw was absent and did not vote.
Flores-Cale voiced her concerns regarding employee retention. “The city’s practice of asking employees to quit or resign in lieu of termination has created a great cause of concern in retaining the employees,” Flores-Cale said. Additionally, she questioned if Section 7.03 of the city's personnel policy may have legality issues.
Section 7.03 states:
• Upon separation of employment with the City, each employee shall be eligible to receive a termination interview if deemed appropriate by the HR Director and/or appropriate Department Head. Said interview will be conducted to provide for the effective final exchange of information prior to termination of employment. The employee's termination interview and final paycheck will be received from the HR Director or appropriate Department Head. The final paycheck will be calculated and provided as part of the next ensuing payroll period.
According to the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), Section 61.014 “If an employee is laid off, discharged, fired, or otherwise involuntarily separated from employment, the final pay is due within six (6) calendar days of discharge.”
However, if an “employee quits, retires, resigns or otherwise leaves employment voluntarily, the final pay is due on the next regularly-scheduled payday following the effective date of resignation. Mutual agreement separations are generally regarded as involuntary, although that result is not inevitable and ultimately depends upon a close look at all the events and circumstances leading to the work separation.”
“Is there some reason that the city is exempt from the Texas Workforce Commission rules?” Flores-Cale asked.
Sandra Duran, director of human resources, said that anyone who is terminated gets paid within three to six days for their final paycheck. Flores-Cale asked if the city could update its policy to reflect that.
“We don’t need to cause it’s the law, but we could,” Duran said.
“Well, if it’s the law, then even more reason it should be in our policy,” Flores-Cale responded.
There was also confusion between Flores-Cale and Duran in the current policy on what termination means. Duran said termination means “separation of the city, not necessarily a termination in bad terms,” and said it was “HR vocabulary,” while Flores-Cale said that separation is different than termination and thought that the policy should also offer definitions.
“This is for the whole city and the employees, so I want to make sure that they understand that as well. I don’t want a policy with everyone in the city where it’s that department that understands it; I want it to be simple for everyone to understand,” Flores-Cale said.
According to Duran, the PIP policy is not a part of the personnel plan, but instead is a developmental plan or a plan that’s put in place to improve a person’s performance but Flores-Cale said she would like to see that included in the city’s personnel policy.
Additionally, Flores-Cale found Section 9.01 of the city’s grievance policy “especially upsetting.” She noted that directors don’t have the same number of steps in the grievance process as city employees.
In the current policy, city employees first report to an immediate supervisor. If the grievance is not resolved between the city employee and supervisor, the employee may request a separate hearing with the department head. If the employee is not satisfied with the department head’s decision, the employee may appeal the decision to the human resources director or the HR Director’s representative. After that, employees can further appeal the HR director’s decision to the city manager.
Flores-Cale said she would also like to see Section 9.05 include an additional option for department heads to grieve to city council. The policy currently says that grievances against the city manager will be made to the mayor or city attorney and all other grievances will be submitted to the city manager first. The policy states, “As, and when appropriate, such grievances will be reported to the city council.”
“I think this might be another way for the council to lay eyes on the termination or separation of a director,” Flores-Cale said.
“Well, I can get behind the idea of adding a PIP policy of some sort in the termination process. What I can’t get behind is the idea of having council play a role in the termination or not; that needs to stay with the city manager,” Mitchell said.
Rizo agreed, explaining “… I just wonder, where does council draw the line? I think there’s perceptions that are out in the public that maybe we are too involved. And I guess that’s what worries me right now.”
Tobias said he feared that employees would go to their favorite council member and let them plead their case for them.
“We don’t need to be the judge and the jury on the final [say],” Tobias said.
Tobias also thought that a longer process would discourage individuals from applying for city jobs.
“’Oh, by the way, here’s the employee listing. This is your job duty.’ ‘Oh, by the way, when you start getting in trouble, here’s this policy.’ ‘And after the fourth one, you’re gone’ You know what, if I see that, never mind, I’m not going to work here,” Tobias said.
“That’s every job,” Flores-Cale said. “I think we’re too involved with economic development, but I’m not sure we’re too involved with making sure policies and procedures are not only followed, but they’re also created to protect the people that run our city."
