Personnel Policy Board Minutes September 20, 2010 Bismarck, ND
Members Present: Hon. M. Richard Geiger, Chair; Jerrold Arneson; Hon. Gail Hagerty; Hon.
Carol Ronning Kapsner; Kari Landsem; Ross Munns; Rod Olson; and Ted
Members Absent: Hon. John T. Paulson
Others Present: Sally Holewa, ex officio Amy Klein, staff Larry Zubke, guest Renee Barnaby, minutes
Chair Geiger called the special meeting to order at 8:00 a.m., and welcomed guest, Larry Zubke,
Director of Technology. The special meeting was called to consider the comments received
regarding the proposed On-Call policy.
Amy Klein stated a few comments were received. She said that we need to clarify whether or not
we intend to pay on-call pay if an employee who is on-call has to respond to a call. The
originally proposed policy allowed payment but the current proposal does not. Chair Geiger asked Mr. Zubke if he had any comments.
Larry Zubke thanked the Board for allowing him to attend the meeting. He said there are a
couple reasons why a policy is needed. A few years ago, we had a handful of servers and a very
small hardware operation that did not require any special air conditioning or power. Since rolling
out Odyssey, we have approximately 80 virtual and physical servers located in a very large
storage cabinet. Under the UCIS system, we always had the paper documents in court. Odyssey
is a paper-on-demand system wherein we image those documents and then destroy the paper
documents almost immediately. Therefore, if the system is not operating, it is almost impossible
to hold court, which is the number one reason why this policy is so important. The number two
reason is the fact that the equipment requires a lot of special air conditioning. Steps are being
taken to fix that by moving the equipment to the Department of Transportation building.
Mr. Zubke said with respect to the comment asking if we should continue to pay an individual
on-call pay after he is working, he stated if there are problems, the calls have to be addressed. It
is not uncommon to be working on a problem and be called by someone else for a completely
different problem. He suggested the person on-call should be paid. He commented that while
working for a previous employer, employees were always paid around the clock whether we were
working on one call or another.
Mr. Zubke stated with regard to paragraph B4, he suggested the word “available” be replaced
with the word “earned.”
Chair Geiger questioned if the one for six pay was standard in the industry. Mr. Zubke
responded it is. He said it is also standard to be paid for a 24-hour block of time whether you did
or did not report to work.
In response to a question from Ted Smith asking if anyone else in the Court System would be
using this policy besides the technology department, Ms. Holewa responded no. She said inquiry
was made with the juvenile court, but the court officers are not on-call. If something arises, law
enforcement will call, but they continue calling down the list until they find someone available.
Ms. Klein stated in order for an employee to receive compensatory time, an employee has to
physically work over 40. On-call pay is like holiday pay wherein you cannot receive overtime on
it. You just get paid straight time for it. You cannot use it to accumulate hours to get overtime
or comp time. It is considered straight time.
Justice Kapsner questioned if we comply with the wage and hour provisions if an employee
works 50 hours a week and the last 10 hours as comp time. Ms. Klein responded according to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, we are in compliance. Sally said on-call hours are not actually
hours worked, it is hours available to work.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Judge Hagerty, to delete the following phrase
from the last sentence in D3: “if the employee is not required to respond to a call.” A roll
call vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to adopt Jeanne Walstad’s
editorial changes, with the exception of the word “preferably” under section B1.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Ross Munns, to amend section B5, line 2, to
read “the policy relating to substance abuse” rather than “Policy 117". The motion
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Kari Landsem, to amend section B4, line 3,
to read “Compensatory time is earned” rather than “Compensatory time is available”. The
The motion carried unanimously to adopt Jeanne Walstad’s editorial changes as amended.
In response to a question from Mr. Zubke asking what kind of pay an individual receives if they
are on-call on a holiday, Ms. Klein responded employees would receive their holiday pay, which
is their regular rate of pay, plus their on-call pay during the holiday. Ms. Holewa suggested
including language in the policy so it is specific.
[Rod Olson left the meeting.]
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to add a new section B5 to
read as follows: “A non-exempt employee who is required to be on-call on a holiday will be
compensated as provided in sections B3 and B4.” The subsequent sections will be
renumbered accordingly. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to forward the on-call
policy as modified to the Supreme Court for consideration. A roll call vote was taken, and
the motion carried unanimously.