Loudermill Requirements

brown

I am new to the municipal employment arena and need to terminate an employee. Can anyone give me the low down on "Loudermill" requirements? Also, if anyone has sample "Loudermill" letter, that would be appreciated as well.

Hunter1

The basics of the Loudermill hearing are that public sector employees have the right to due process if the employer intends to take away any 'property rights', ie pay, employment, etc. The employee needs to be advised of the employer's intent to take away the property rights, a brief explanation of the evidence against him/her, and a chance to respond. The employee should be given some advance warning of the meeting (maybe 24 hours) to get their thoughts together, but does not have the right to cross examine witnesses, or the right to an attorney. This can be a pretty informal hearing depending on the circumstances. There's pretty good info from both the ER and EE side of the situation on the net; do a Google search on Loudermill.

Shawn

Your "hearing officer" does not have to be completely neutral. We use a manger from another department who is not in the employee's chain of command. The hearing officer & employee simply have to hear a brief explanation of the charges and evidence and give the employee a chance to respond. The hearing officer then decides 2 things. 1) Is it reasonable to believe the employee did or didn't do whatever he/she was supposed to have done or avoided and 2) Is the proposed penalty reasonable.

System

We're a local government in Maryland. I issue a letter of "intent to term" which tells the employee of our intention to terminate their employment. When the letter goes out, the decision to terminate has already been made. The employee must schedule a meeting with me and has the opportunity to make a final plea or present any last-ditch information as to why we should not end their employment. They are not entitled to bring a representative with them - Weingarten rights do not apply. We are "at-will" but the employee is still entitled to this "due process."

"Sam"

Don D

I assume the reason you do not allow them to bring another person with them is because the decision has already been made, as opposed to a meeting from which disciplinary action 'may' result. (?)

brown

"Sam" said - "Weingarten rights do not apply."

I need to ask...what are "Weingarten" rights?

Don D

Those are 'rights' afforded under the National Labor Relations Act; that allow an employee (even in non-union environments) to have with them another employee at any conference or meeting which may result in disciplinary action. Recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board have extended (imposed) these same rights to employees where there is no union. This does not allow them to bring a wife or a lawyer or John Doe off the street - another employee. Nor does that extra person have a right to converse or interrupt or represent or manipulate the meeting. A fly on the wall as a witness, if you will. Meetings called where a decision to discipline or terminate has ALREADY BEEN MADE does not qualify.

brown

My understanding of "Loudermill" is that the decision cannot be made until AFTER the "Loudermill" hearing - again this is in a municipal employee citizen. Further, I understood that the employee has a right a Union representative or lawyer during the "Loudermill" hearing - though I can not tell you from where I received that information.

System

Correct, Don.

The reason the employee cannot bring a co-worker is because the decision has already been made. We have decided to terminate. The hearing will not lead to any disciplinary action. Up to this point, the employee had already exercised their right to dispute any other disciplines or issues. Now that the decision has been made, the employee is afforded a "last ditch effort" to offer any other facts that may pursuade the employer to change the decision.

This exit conference is the employee's right under "due process."

"Sam"

sonny

I'm getting off the subject a bit, but has that "last ditch effort" ever changed your mind?

System

Sonny,

No, so far I have never changed my mind. I carefully look into issues of discrimination, harassment, and check documentation first. In that "hearing" I'm looking for any information that somehow may not have been discovered before.

On two occassions when the department head recommended termination, the employee was spared because the department head did not properly document. In another case, I was not convinced that the department head was applying discipline fairly and the employee was spared.

The key is to be extremely thorough before that hearing. I carefully scrutinize facts before the letter of intent is issued. That doesn't mean that I would never change the decision. I've just never had anyone reveal any facts to me that were undiscovered before.

"Sam"

Shadowfax

Geez... go away for a few days and you guys gonuts. What the heck is Loudermill? Federal law? I've never heard of it. If not federal, have several sates signed on? I've worked for several munis in Mi and never run accross it. Can anyone point me to it? Thankz

Shadowfax

Thanks Hunter - I found it!

brown

Alright - I've scheduled the Loudermill hearing and now the Union attorney has asked for all documents, etc. which support the disciplinary action. We conducted investigations and have signed statements from various employees. The Union attorney wants these documents prior to the hearing...is he entitled to them? I want to avoid disclosing the witness names if possible.