If I’m not mistaken, there appears to be some sort of resolution to the HR Liaison issue that’s proven to be a difficult piece of policy-making for Renfrew Town Council.
It appears that Council is willing to move forward with the idea of an elected councillor being involved in the Stage 3 grievance protocol, meaning that when an employee grievance reaches that stage, a councillor will be present representing the town. In fact, it appears that Council as a whole actually put forward the idea of three councillors possibly being present as part of this process, which may well be a little bit of overkill, but if it’s staff accountability we’re trying to ensure here, then we’ll certainly get more of our money’s worth. What may elude a single councillor could not possibly get by three of them.
For the record, Stage 1 of the grievance process involves an employee attempting to reconcile the issue at hand with their immediate supervisor. Stage 2 involves filing a grievance and having the discussion over the issue elevated to include the Director of the department involved, along with the immediate supervisor. At Stage 2 there’s likely to be union representation in support of the employee involved. It’s Stage 3 where Council got hung up on who represents the town.
Both parties are fortunate enough to have access to the expertise offered by a Renfrew County HR Specialist, somebody well-versed and experienced in the fine art of grievance procedure and resolution. Certainly in any situation making it to this level, a member of senior staff has to be present, not by mandate, but out of an abundance of common sense. And the person best fitting that description is the Chief Administrative Officer, who sits atop the employee food chain and is the top staff member available. Other senior staff wouldn’t be entirely out of place, but in my mind, the CAO must be part of this process.
So we have at least two chairs filled with respect to town representation. A third chair, that set aside for a single councillor, would have been more than enough in my mind., but there was no way they were going to adopt a structure recommended by anyone other than themselves, and especially by me, so the single councillor idea never took its first complete and legitimate breath. So, I suppose to save some measure of face, they take a good idea and over-enhance it, so as to make it their own. Fair enough. Nobody gets a gold star here for the winning idea, and it’s not like I was going to insist on having my gold star cremated right along with the rest of me when that day comes. So by all means, give the star to somebody else, I’m just glad Council came together to seemingly put this thing to bed.
At last.
So, now I’m going to quibble, in that three councillors are too much.
The actual wording presented to Council was “no more than three” councillors, which definitely suggests that there need not necessarily be three, but three if necessary, which brings back fond memories of Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest-serving prime minister and more than a bit of a kook.
Does this mean it’s three, or two if three can’t make it, or one if the other two can’t make it? Does it mean “no less than one,” or does it leave an opening for no councillor involvement at all? Like, we’re all good so long as there’s “no more than three?” So we could have zero, and that’s okay?
That’s an awful lot of wiggle room they built themselves with that wording, and I’m not sure if they’re trying to be clever or just plain sloppy.
Under what conditions would it be determined if there were to be one, two, or three? And who would make that determination? If more than one meeting is required at the Stage 3 level, is it possible that there could be more or fewer councillors present at the second one?
Will everyone present need a program to identify the people at the table? Will the employee and union representatives be faced with three people across from them, or a full juggernaut of five staring them down?
Is it possible that one councillor be present at one meeting, and two different ones at another?
Will there be a councillor identified as the primary designate, with the other two potentially coming out of the bullpen should the first one lose heat off his fastball?
Councillor John McDonald wasn’t crazy about the idea of a trio of councillors, preferring instead a designated councillor and an alternate should the need arise, but with no concrete suggestion as to what a rising need would look like.
Councillor McDonald’s suggestion didn’t qualify as an amendment to the motion
presented as it was deemed to be changing substantially the spirit or intent of the original motion. So if Council was going to entertain McDonald’s idea, they would have to defeat the idea of the “no more than three” motion. And this they promptly did by a 6-1 margin, Reeve Emon being the only one to support the nebulous choice of wording.
It was starting to look like deja-vu all over again, to stick with the baseball metaphors.
But then it happened.
A new motion was put forward, proposing that the HR Committee tasked with representing the town would consist of the CAO, a councillor, and the County HR Specialist, with the proviso that a councillor be designated as an alternate should the HR Liaison (councillor) be unavailable.
This vote went down as a 5-2 win for Councillor McDonald and a 5-2 win for common sense and good government. The mayor and reeve were opposed, and now we don’t have to listen to the mayor pontificate on the reasons for his zero-councillor preference. I suppose by councillor we’re excluding the mayor from being either the HR Liaison or the alternate, something probably beneficial to the progress of effective labour relations within the corporation. His steadfast defence of senior staff management is noted, and likely entirely consistent with his viewpoint as a member of the previous Council where a staffer seemingly ran amok among the chickens (as per the Third Party Report) while being accorded this carte blanche confidence and lack of oversight, despite he, the current mayor, being the chair of the committee that oversaw that department director.
And so it’s over.
My props to Councillor Legris for being a steadfast defender of the idea of councillor involvement, and my props to Councillor McDonald for bringing his clear-headed solution to the table for acceptance and a resolution of this issue. The two together were instrumental in bringing this over the finish line.
As to the five votes of support, all Renfrew thanks you.
People watching on livestream broadcasts can now stop cursing at their tablets and computers, and their families no longer have to ask “What’s wrong with mom?”
NEWSMAGRENFREW 