Three different sets of layoff rules were applicable to the DDES RIF process. Layoffs for represented employees were governed by either the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 17 or Public Safety Employees Local 519 collective bargaining agreements; and the King County Administrative Guidelines for the Career Service governed the layoffs for all nonrepresented employees. Represented employees were laid off according to classification and seniority as required by the collective bargaining agreements, and nonrepresented employees were laid off by classification and merit as required by the Administrative Guidelines.

However, violations of both the Local 17 and Local 519 collective bargaining agreements occurred when employees were recalled. The Local 17 violation occurred when the layoff of the most senior employee in a classification was not rescinded when a less senior employee was recalled due to a need for the less senior employee's specialized skills. The Local 519 violation occurred when a less senior employee was recalled on a temporary basis in the Fire Marshal's Office while other employees who had bumped into the unit were being trained. This violation occurred primarily because the bumping clause in the Local 519 collective bargaining agreement was inadequate to ensure that DDES could remain fully functional after a RIF. The Local 519 violation was corrected while the study was being conducted.

The study recommended that DDES management take action to eliminate the violation of the Local 17 collective bargaining agreement. The study also recommended that consideration be given to clarifying the bumping clauses and layoffs-by-seniority clauses in the Local 17 and Local 519 collective bargaining agreements, as well as in other agreements applicable to King County employees, as the agreements come due for renegotiation.

Finding II-B. Violations of the collective bargaining agreements also occurred during the reassignment of duties of laid-off employees.

After the RIF, the duties of a supervisor who was laid off from the Fire Marshal's Office were reassigned to a supervisor in another unit in DDES. Because the laid-off supervisor was represented by Local 519 and the supervisor in the other unit was represented by Local 17, violations of both collective bargaining agreements occurred as a result of the reassignment of duties. The Local 519 violation was "bargaining unit skimming," which includes reassigning the duties of an employee who is represented by one union to a nonrepresented employee or to an employee who is represented by another union. The assignment of the duties to a Local 17 employee resulted in a change in working conditions that was not negotiated as required by the maintenance of standards clause in the collective bargaining agreement. Such violations could form the basis for unfair labor practice actions.

The study recommended that supervisors and managers at all levels review and become familiar with the provisions of collective bargaining agreements applicable to their subordinates to prevent future violations from occurring. The study also recommended that consideration be given to clarifying the layoff clauses in both agreements, when they become due for renegotiation, to address reassignment of duties after a layoff.

Finding II-C. Women and/or minorities were not disproportionately affected by the layoffs.

Since most of the positions eliminated in the RIF were represented positions, the majority of the DDES employees who were laid off were those with the least seniority. Current management literature cites layoffs-by-seniority as the method most likely to have a disproportionate impact on women and minorities. However, after analyzing the demographics of employees affected by the layoffs, including gender, race, and age, audit staff concluded that the DDES RIF did not disproportionately affect either women or minorities.

Finding II-D. Lack of a layoff implementation plan, ambiguous language in the collective bargaining agreements, and inadequate communication impaired the effectiveness of implementing the layoffs.

Prior to the DDES layoffs, OHRM distributed RIF guidelines annually, but they had not developed specific procedures for implementing a RIF. After the DDES layoffs, OHRM staff did prepare a layoff implementation plan.

The lack of a layoff plan meant that responsibility for specific tasks was not assigned to designated staff during the course of implementing the DDES layoffs, resulted in delays in obtaining answers to the numerous questions that arose and in obtaining interpretations of the layoff clauses in the collective bargaining agreements, and left many of the employees affected by or involved in implementing the layoffs wondering who was responsible for what during the RIF process. Additionally, there was a consensus by both DDES management and the employees affected by the RIF that communication with OHRM staff could have been improved and that information was not provided in an effective manner.

Employees cited several examples of inadequate communication during the job placement process, including insufficient information regarding vacant positions, inadequate procedures for notifying employees if they qualified to bump other employees, and insufficient information regarding the job interviewing process.

The study recommended that responsibility for specific tasks be assigned, modifications be made to the employee layoff packet to include information previously provided only verbally, employee layoff orientations be conducted prior to implementing layoffs, and seniority lists for represented employees be maintained on an ongoing basis.

Finding II-F. Only 6% of the positions eliminated were management positions.

Of the 87 positions eliminated during the RIF, three were manager positions, one was a supervisor position, and one was a lead position. These five positions represented only 6% of the total positions eliminated. DDES staff expressed concern that the majority of positions eliminated were those that generated revenue, while many of those retained, especially management positions, did not generate revenue. DDES management stated that the reason few manager, supervisor, and lead positions were eliminated was that several had been eliminated during the reorganization that had previously occurred. The RIF resulted in a decrease in the average span of control from 5.8 before layoffs to 5.5 after layoffs. However, DDES subsequently identified a supervisory and lead position for elimination during the 1994 budget process. They also reported that they had implemented a policy to review all lead positions annually to determine if sufficient justification existed to retain the positions at the lead level.

The study recommended that DDES perform a review of its management positions to determine whether there is sufficient justification to retain the positions at the current level or whether they should be converted to nonmanagement positions, and that the review initially focus on those management positions with fewer than three direct subordinates.

Finding III-A. There was a consensus that the performance appraisal system was an inadequate basis for determining the order of layoffs.

Performance appraisal scores for the last three years that an employee has worked within a given classification are averaged to determine the order of layoffs for nonrepresented employees. However, several issues cause the validity of this process to be questioned. There is a strong perception that some supervisors are easy raters while others are strict raters. When a layoff occurs, the employees who were rated by an easy rater have a better chance of avoiding a layoff when employees from different merit groups, but in the same job classification, are ranked against each other. There was also concern that guidance provided to DDES supervisors prior to conducting the 1992 performance appraisals resulted in lower overall performance appraisal scores, and that employees who changed classifications lost the benefit of the higher 1991 scores. At least one employee whose position was reclassified lost the benefit of a higher 1991 performance appraisal score, although the appraisal actually covered work the employee performed at the higher classification. There were also inadequate procedures to ensure that all employees who were eligible to receive a performance appraisal actually received one. This deficiency resulted in at least one employee being laid off who may not have been laid off if performance appraisal scores had been available.

The study recommended that OHRM management provide training to supervisors to increase the consistency with which performance appraisals are conducted, develop a policy regarding the use of performance appraisal scores when positions are reclassified, and establish procedures to follow up on all performance appraisals not submitted.

Updated: 06/24/02

Auditor's Home | Audit Reports | Contact Us | Links to Audit Related Sites

King County | News | Services | Comments | Search