- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals. In accordance with the holding of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Hill v. City of Winona, an employee may challenge the basis upon which the Chief or Assistant Chief relied in making the referral for the psychological evaluation before the employee shall be required to submit to a psychological fitness for duty evaluation pursuant to Section 23.02 (a). Such a dispute shall not be subject to the grievance procedures set forth in Article 5 of this Agreement, but instead shall be resolved by the procedure set forth herein. The dispute shall be referred to an appeal committee consisting of the President of the Union plus two persons designated by him/her and the Chief of the Department and two persons designated by him/her. The Committee shall review all the information available to the Chief regarding the referral for the evaluation for the purpose of determining whether the factual basis for the referral is accurate and whether the referral is necessary. The Committee may seek additional information or refer the matter back to the Chief for further investigation. The Committee shall have the authority to make a final determination regarding the underlying facts upon which the referral was based and regarding whether the referral is necessary. Decisions of the Committee shall be by consensus. The Committee may seek outside assistance in the event it is having difficulty reaching a consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of the underlying facts, the decision of the Union President, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of whether the fitness for duty exam is necessary, the decision of the Fire Chief, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding.
- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals. No psychological evaluations shall be required in the absence of a recommendation by the MPRB's examining physician or other licensed medical provider who has a reasonable basis for requiring the psychological evaluation. The MPRB shall inform the employee of such reasonable basis at the time he/she is ordered to report for the required psychological examination unless the examining physician or other licensed medical provider documents with reasonable specificity that disclosure of the information in the report is likely to cause harm to the employee or to others. In such cases, the information shall be handled and/or disclosed in a manner consistent with prevailing medical and/or legal authority. If the employee disagrees that a reasonable basis exists for the required psychological evaluation, the employee may file a grievance contesting the requirement that he/she submit to the examination. In such event, the employee shall not be required to report for the psychological evaluation until the grievance has been resolved under the expedited arbitration procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The MPRB may relieve the employee from duty without pay or reassign the employee to other duties during the pendency of the grievance resolution proceedings but shall not discipline or discharge the employee for refusing to submit to the psychological evaluation unless the employee refuses to undergo psychological evaluation after an arbitrator has determined, or the MPRB and the Federation agree, that a reasonable basis for the requirement exists. If an employee is relieved without pay, he/she may use available benefits in order to continue in paid status. If an employee is relieved without pay and it is subsequently determined that the MPRB lacked a reasonable basis to require a psychological evaluation, the MPRB shall make the employee whole by paying the employee for lost work days and/or restoring his/her benefit banks.
- Psychological Evaluations; Reasonable Basis; Appeals. In accordance with the holding of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Hill v. City of Winona, an employee may challenge the basis upon which the Chief or Assistant Chief relied in making the referral for the psychological evaluation before the employee shall be required to submit to a psychological fitness for duty evaluation pursuant to Section 24.02(a). Such a dispute shall not be subject to the grievance procedures set forth in Article 5 of this Agreement, but instead shall be resolved by the procedure set forth herein. The dispute shall be referred to an appeal committee consisting of the President of the Union plus two designees and the Chief of the Department plus two designees. The Committee shall review all the information available to the Chief regarding the referral for the evaluation for the purpose of determining whether the factual basis for the referral is accurate and whether the referral is necessary. The Committee may seek additional information or refer the matter back to the Chief for further investigation. The Committee shall have the authority to make a final determination regarding the underlying facts upon which the referral was based and regarding whether the referral is necessary. Decisions of the Committee shall be by consensus. The Committee may seek outside assistance in the event it is having difficulty reaching a consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of the underlying facts, the decision of the Union President, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding. If a consensus cannot be reached on the issue of whether the fitness for duty exam is necessary, the decision of the Fire Chief, after seeking and considering input from the Committee members, shall be final and binding.
