SEIU 1199/OOD APC SEIU Offices (1395 Dublin Road-Main Building) March 10, 2016 from 1-3 PM MINUTES

Transcription

1 SEIU 1199/OOD APC SEIU Offices (1395 Dublin Road-Main Building) March 10, 2016 from 1-3 PM MINUTES Attendees for Union: Amanda Schulte, Ronna Woods, Sequoyah Williams, Alana A. Evans, Larry Fritz, Raenell May Attendees for Employer: Darin McCoy, Curt Morman, Cornell Hale A. RANDOM DRUG TESTING Details: There have been questions from the field that are currently being answered by . Will there be an FAQ distributed statewide to address the concerns of the field? Sample Questions: Accuracy of urine testing for detecting alcohol. Is it testing for EtG and EtS or some other markers? Is a breathalyzer typically used for testing alcohol toxicity since this is more accurate? Is the agency concerned about testing for an impairment versus a presence in one s system? Is there any room for a second test if there is a false positive from a urine test or is guilt assumed? If a test yields a positive result for drugs/alcohol is staff subject to six screens for five years, as well as, treatment at one s own expense? Would the agency or the treatment provider dictate the amount of treatment? (please note some of these questions have been answered individually by HR) Is more information going to be provided to address myths vs. facts of drug testing, such as: 1- Substances typically yielding a false positives for alcohol tests (e.g. mouthwash, hand sanitizer [use on hands not ingesting], cough syrup), 2- The average period of time alcohol can remain in one s system, 3- Foods yielding false positives for drugs (e.g. poppy seeds). Meeting Discussion: Lots of questions came from a recent go-to meeting, so management developed a fact sheet with all those questions and the questions brought up on the APC agenda. The fact sheet will be posted on the intranet under labor relations, and an will go out with the link. One question- if someone is on a prescription, do they need to take it with them to the test? Not required to. B. IN-HOUSE COUNSELING THEORIES CLASS 1 P a g e Details: While meeting to discuss Agency Specific contract language in January, HR requested this topic to be brought up at APC. The union has information about previous practices of the agency when offering the class in-house to contribute to a planning discussion. Meeting Discussion: Asked if Union had more information to provide? Agency has information from the past, but right now they will consider anything. Anything agency absolutely won t consider? Not sure, Union should just make proposals. Asked if agency would consider fronting money rather than employees having to wait for reimbursement. Clarified that right now we re only targeting the new hires

2 that come in and need this as a condition of employment beyond one year. Agency intended to work on hiring more people who weren t lacking this requirement, but Delegates explained that there just aren t enough people in the field that have it. Delegates decided to schedule a go-to meeting to put together information on this to provide the agency. C. SUPPORT AND RESOURCES FOR COUNSELORS REGARDING SUBPOENAS Details: Being subpoenaed to court is an anxiety provoking and the guidance provided is not meeting the need of counselors including a request for additional support in the courtroom. In what scenarios will legal accompany a staff member? What does it really mean to stay within VRC scope? Are there any consequences if staff accidently speak on something that is out of VRC scope? Are there resources to support the VRC in determining what to ask Legal in preparation of a court appearance (e.g. How does one know what one does not know to ask)? Can a supervisor accompany a staff member if a member of legal is not available? Ethical dilemmas not currently covered by agency training can be encountered for the first time, where can more information be sought on what to do? Meeting Discussion: There is a policy that walks through what to expect and what to do with a subpoena. If anyone has any particular concerns or is nervous, that person should talk to his/her supervisor because each situation is different. Suggested that if you don t get adequate answers to your questions, ask again. What about someone from legal going with? Maybe, but it would have to be a situation out of the ordinary, e.g. not for a custody hearing. D. PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REFERRALS Details: Are there plans to return to requesting psychological tests based on pre-determined batteries of testing instead of having a staff determine the individual tests to request? Meeting Discussion: There have been some discussions over this to see if it would make sense. Wouldn t preclude a la carte ordering, so to speak. Nothing will happen immediately, but it is something the agency is looking at. This would also help to streamline or create consistency throughout the offices. Not sure what this would look like- probably not a $1 authorization for whatever tests person needs. In the meantime, everyone should continue to use their best judgement. If questions you can always go to your supervisor. E. POSSIBLE COUNTIES COVERED BY NEW HIRES ARE NOT BEING COMMUNICATED Details: Possible coverage areas continue to be undisclosed during interviews and/or after a CA/VRC has accepted a position. A new staff member assumes that he/she will be covering the county associated with the headquartered location listed on the posting and are still not being told the possibility that multiple counties may be required for coverage. (This has happened in the last month) Meeting Discussion: This has come up from Union multiple times before. Agency said that now the job postings list the potential counties of coverage. Pulled up a posting during meeting that just said job location: Mansfield and subject to change within county. Management will go back and make sure the 2 P a g e

3 potential counties will be added to job postings. Possible that posting pulled during meeting was not representative of all postings. Update Post-Meeting: After consulting with the Selections Manager and the HR Director, it was discovered that the VRC job postings will include the following language OOD VRC employees regularly travel within the state to provide services to individuals with disabilities. The hiring supervisors may also share during the interview, which counties the selected candidate may cover with the understanding the counties they cover are subject to change. *The Union does not necessarily agree with this, but the parties are including it in the minutes in order to provide everyone with as much information as possible. F. ROLES OF CASELOAD ASSISTANT Details: The support provided to VRCs by CAs varies by office. Lack of communication to VRCs of what CAs are allowed to do and what tasks they are allowed to complete in support of VRCs in the office. VRCs are also not aware of who can support them with when a CA leaves their position (e.g. Can OA/AE2s help with scanning?) Meeting Discussion: Basically just want to know what the job of each CA is so the VRC knows what to expect or what they can ask of each CA. The CAs should be doing all duties within the DAS class guidelines. (For scanning, everyone has to do this). But if a CA is telling you your request is outside of their job duties, you need to go to supervisor about it. All these questions of what each CA is supposed to do or permitted to do- ask supervisor because management sets the business model for each office. Suggestion for this to be put on next agendas for team or office meetings, so management can go through this in detail at the same time for everyone so everyone hears the same thing. It is not up to VRCs to tell CAs what they can/cannot or should/should not do. That is the supervisor s job, which is why the supervisors need to know what is happening. G. THE NEW BILLING PROCESS IS NOT EFFICIENT Details: The new Billing Process is very slow and causing a major delay in eligibilities, IPEs, etc. (Records in queue for 14-Days causing this delay. We are not to contact vendors either to inquire if sent.) Are there any plans to fix the problem? Meeting Discussion: Example of 5-7 day delay in the NE because they re behind in the queue. There were unexpected issues that came up that created a spike at one time, but right now they re all within one day. Last rolling 30-day average was 24 days for eligibility; fiscal year at 26 days. So agency is keeping an eye on this, but it doesn t appear to be an issue now. There will always be occasional spikes, but overall the current numbers are within a satisfactory range. One issue that adds to the delay is when the denied bill doesn t go back to the same AE, so the new AE has to research it. Ends up with too many people touching it. Supervisors need to know of specific issues like this to see if it s something that warrants a conversation. Also need to start requiring vendors to give us what they should- oversight for supervisor. 3 P a g e

4 Can this message be delivered to supervisors because it seems to be happening often? Yes this can be done. Just make sure that these types of things are raised with supervisors so they can bring them up with they meet with upper management. The way it works now allows for more oversight and consistency instead of the same AE working with the same provider every time. Agency will always look at improving the payables process. Looking at having the denied payments go back to the original denier is something it could review in the future if need be H. GUIDANCE REGARDING CLOSING CASES Details: Once a person meets the maximum number of days in a status, VRCs are strongly encouraged to close cases regardless of any mitigating circumstances. Meeting Discussion: At least one delegate had even seen disciplinary action allegedly for not doing this. To VRCs it feels like we ve done everything we can for this person, and now we re just cutting them off. Not rehab. Agency has an expectation for how long things should take, and it will always have that. That being said, there will always be those cases that remain open as long as it s justifiable. But eventually a point will come when it s not justifiable. No one is being forced to close cases, nor should they be. Just need to always consider what else can we do for this person? If you re being ordered to close a case just because it s beyond the 270-day period, and there s no other reason, after discussing it with supervisor let them know you re going to discuss it with area manager and do that. If the consumer is job-ready, VR may not be able to do more. Can t always fix all circumstances. Need to focus on what we have control over. If the case is still open because the person can t find a job, then we re not doing anything for them at that point. The timelines on dashboard are guides, but sometimes have to make difficult decisions. What about an open case when agency isn t actually paying anything? If it s just open to keep it open, it doesn t make sense for the VRC or the agency. What s the point? Example of someone being in school. If this is a job goal, then that s one thing. Where did the 270 days come from (as opposed to 365)? It was a job-related services determination, but believe the thought process behind this was likely that when someone is in job status, the quicker we place the person, the quicker we get a result. So broke it down into 3, 6, and 9 months. What if we close a case and person re-applies. We don t ask or aren t asking what s changed anymore like did in the past. Sometimes supervisors meet with these consumers. Also helps to lay out some guidelines when closing the case to help when it re-opens for the new case to be successful. VRCs, you are definitely permitted to ask what has changed since last time, what else can we do to help you, etc. In these instances recommended that you talk with the consumer and your supervisor. Also seems to be an issue of consistency between procedures and guidance. Keep in mind supervisors can go outside of the policies and procedures. 4 P a g e

5 I. UPDATING UNION CONTACT INFORMATION Details: Who is responsible for updating APC minutes (e.g. the last minutes are from June 2015)? How are names updated on the OOD1199 group (e.g. see VRS name)? Process for updating the delegate list on the intranet (e.g. posted list dated 6/12)? Meeting Discussion: Assigned to new LRO David Lundberg. Any changes to information like new delegates should go to David. Can also send him records requests. J. RELEASE TIME FOR UNION ACTIVITY Details: Supervisors have not been consistently approving union leave. At times is not clear if the requested leave requires a notice of approval from OCB or HR. Please note: Delegate elections are forthcoming and could increase the number of new supervisors providing approval for release time. The provision of guidance for supervisors (shared with delegates) regarding the approval process could make this process consistent statewide. Meeting Discussion: Often this is just because the newer supervisors aren t aware of what they re supposed to approve and when. Concern is that it s holding up schedules. K. FOLLOW UP FROM PREVIOUS APC 1. Status update: Availability of a repository that includes guidance provided to staff from management regarding the completion of VR work that is not currently maintained within a policy or procedure (e.g. s from management providing additional guidance about the medical fee schedule). a. Meeting Discussion: Still looking at how best to do this. Trying to cut down on having to send out guidance in the middle of effective period for policies. In the meantime if there s something you re missing like you know there s guidance or there was an , you should ask supervisor, and if they don t have it Policy & Procedure department. L. NEXT APC DATE: Wednesday, June 15, P a g e