Information Alert: FY2013 Salary Planning Key Dates

To contact us Click HERE
By Roseanda Police Hall
Date(s)           Event DescriptionJune 28---------Creation of FINAL Scenarios (AC, OR, UA, CS)July 17----------Salary Planner training materials available onlineJuly 17----------Salary Planner available for units to begin editsJuly 18----------Salary Planner Webinar / Lab (2:30 – 3:30 pm)August 3--------Lockout date for Academic (AC) and Open Range (OR) scenariosAugust 21-------MN 9 HRFE transaction deadline                 -------All Graduate Assistant Reappointments applied by unitsAugust 24-------BW 19 HRFE transaction deadlineAugust 27-------Upload Academic (AC) Salary Planner recordsAugust 30-------Upload Open Range (OR) Salary Planner records                -------Lockout date for Unpaid (UA) scenariosAugust 31-------Upload Unpaid (UA) Salary Planner recordsSeptember 3----Labor DaySeptember 5----BW 19 Payroll Calc (8/19 – 9/1)September 9---Revised MN 9 Payroll Calc (8/16 – 9/15)September 12---BW 19 Pay DateSeptember 14---MN 9 Pay Date
Notes:BW – Bi-Weekly pay cycles include: Civil Service, Acad/Grad Hourly, EH, StudentMN – Monthly pay cycles include Faculty, AP, Post Doc, Grad Assist, and Resident
Questions
General Salary Planner questions – UICHR Help Desk, uichrhelpdesk@uillinois.edu, 312-413-4848Academic Professional, Graduate Assistant, and Civil Service questions – HR Service Center, uichrahr@uillinois.edu, 312-413-3490 Faculty questions – Faculty Affairs HR, facultysp@uic.edu, 312-355-2412Appointments within the Hospital and Health Sciences System – Teri Blain, terilynb@uillinois.edu, 312-413-1476

Information Alert: FY2013 Appointment Reminders

To contact us Click HERE
by Roseanda Police Hall

FY2013 Appointment Reminders 

•       Graduate reappointments are applied at college level•       Hospital Graduate appointments are processed by Hospital Human Resources•       Graduate appointment “Factors” should be 9•       Don’t forget offer letters for all new appointments, add a job & reappointments•       Be sure offer letter dates & salary match HRFE Transaction•       AP & Acad Hourly appointments require an approved PAPE or job description attached for new hire, reappointments and add a job transactions •       For new hire and group changes, be sure degree information is included in NESSIE•       For all appointments please be sure to check visa end dates•       For separation & group changes that require vacation & compensable sick payout, answer “Yes” to payout question.•       Process separation transactions and adjustments (if necessary) as soon as separation is confirmed, including those grads who have graduated.•       Post Doc Research Associate - can only hold this title for 5 years•       Be sure to use appropriate “document type” for each individual HRFE transaction attachment– please do not lump into one doc type.  “RAHA goes under “Provost Approval”•       Remember the I-9s are centrally processed in Tracker by Recruitment & Staffing for civil service employees and Student Employment for undergrad student appointments.Questions
General Salary Planner questions – UICHR Help Desk, uichrhelpdesk@uillinois.edu, 312-413-4848Academic Professional, Graduate Assistant, and Civil Service questions – HR Service Center, uichrahr@uillinois.edu, 312-413-3490 Faculty questions – Faculty Affairs HR, facultysp@uic.edu, 312-355-2412Appointments within the Hospital and Health Sciences System – Teri Blain, terilynb@uillinois.edu, 312-413-1476

Information Alert: Academic Vacation and Sick Leave (AVSL) Reporting Fall 2012

To contact us Click HERE
Roseanda Police Hall, Associate Director, HR Service CenterAngela Yudt, Director, Faculty Affairs HR
As a reminder, University policy requires that AVSL be reported twice a year, in May and in August.
Units may begin entering AVSL usage into the Banner form PEALEAV starting 8/16/12 however must be entered into the system no later than September 8, 2012. The balances will appear the October/November earning statements for academic professional and faculty.
Mass communications will NOT be sent to affected employees.  Therefore, if you have not already begun to collect the information, you may wish to share the information below with your affected academic employees.
An overview AVSL PowerPoint training presentation and additional resource materials are available at: http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/support/AVSL/index.shtmlIf you have questions after viewing the AVSL training presentation and materials you can register for an AVSL Q & A Webinar Session to be held on August 30, 2012 at 10:00 am. at the following link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/888902120

This reporting period is to record amounts used May 16, 2012 through August 15, 2012. But remember that leave usage entered in Banner during this reporting period should be the cumulative usage for the period August 16, 2011 through August 15, 2012.
As a reminder, employees should not be entering their own leave usage in Banner. If one individual enters usage for all Academics in that unit, department, and/or college, a different individual must be identified to enter usage for that person. There are no exceptions to this process.
Remember that your employees should report any leave taken in hours, keeping in mind that one full-time day equals eight hours. For example, if your full-time employee used 10 vacation days and 2 sick days, you would report 80 hours of vacation leave used and 16 hours of sick leave used. As a reminder, Academic employees who are not eligible for overtime should be reporting absences in half- and full-day increments only (except when leave is taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act). Absences in increments less than half- or full-days should not be charged against vacation or sick leave balances. Part-time and alternative schedule employees report absences as appropriate based on their schedule. Generally speaking, the employee reports either half-day or a full-day based on their scheduled hours for the day.
Please note: When an employee separates from the University, departments are requested to use the same process in order to bring leave balances current for payout purposes.
An AVSL PEALEAV balances report is available http://www.hr.uillinois.edu/reporting_portal/hr_reports. Select UHR Reports on this page and then select PEALEAV Academic Vacation/Sick Leave Balances under Operational Reporting/General Reports.  You can only access information for your organization. If you cannot access the report, have your Unit Security Contact (USC) request access for you by sending an email to the AITS Help Desk at helpdesk2@uillinois.edu with the following information:

1. First and Last name of the user
2. Enterprise ID
3. Org Code(s) requesting access to
4. Report ID: HRRESLVBL
5. Report Name: PEALEAV Academic Vacation/Sick Leave Balance

If you do not know who your USC is, access the USC List at http://www.aits.uillinois.edu/live/Site.xml?document=UscList.xml&focu by selecting your campus and entering your Enterprise ID and password.If you have any questions, please contact:

• HR Service Center, (312) 413-3490 or uichrahr@uillinois.edu
• Faculty Affairs Human Resources, (312) 355-2412 or fahr@uic.edu
• UICHR Help Desk (312) 413-4848 or uichrhelpdesk@uillinois.edu

Meet Rebecca Fortier

To contact us Click HERE
Rebecca Fortier is the Special Events Facilitator for UIC-HR Special Programs.  Her role is to plan and manage campus events for UIC staff and faculty. These include the Employee Recognition Award Program, Campus Charitable Fund Drive, Retirement Luncheon, and the Retirement Planning Conference.Rebecca, “the new kid on the block”, joined us in mid-July, is new to the University and new to this role.
Prior to coming to UIC, she spent six and a half years at Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in the Office of Undergraduate Admission where she planned and managed all of the undergraduate recruitment events like open houses, overnight weekends, and receptions.
Before that, for about nine years, she worked for The Walt Disney Company in their theme parks in Orlando, FL and Tokyo, Japan. Beginning on The Walt Disney World College Program as an Attractions Hostess, then working in the Entertainment Division where she served in various capacities as a trainer, theme park guest service coordinator, and a dancer/performer.
In her position here on campus, she is currently working on being acquainted with the University and all of her contacts, but most importantly, she is working on our first two events of the year, the Campus Charitable Fund Drive and the Employee Recognition Awards Program. Rebecca says, “I’ve enjoyed being an event planner for many reasons. I love the creativity and detailed thought process that goes into putting a project together. I also enjoy the fact that I get to work with so many different kinds of offices and people to put an event together. It really does take a village for an event to be a success.”
Outside of her UIC life, Rebecca is a dancer and performer in community theater musicals in the north and northwest suburbs. She has been performing since she was young and after leaving The Walt Disney Company, did not want to give that up. There is a wonderful community theater base to compliment the regional and national theater one here in the Chicago area. Currently, she is rehearsing for the tap dancing filled “42^nd Street” up in the north suburb of Highland Park. Rebecca attended Western Illinois University in Macomb, IL and has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Communications and Human Relations.

10 Questions with Joanne Neris

To contact us Click HERE
1.    What is your name, title, and department? a.    My name is Joanne Neris, Human Resource Manager at UIC Human Resources.2.    What is your role in Campus Human Resources?  a.    Advise, counsel and support campus hiring managers, employees and applicants on employment procedures and practices that include the State Universities Civil Service Rules and University Policy and Rules.3.    How long have you been in this role? a.    I have been in this role a little over a year.4.    How long have you been at UIC? a.    I have been with UIC for 18 years now.5.    Tell us about your job positions prior to your current role?a.    I joined UIC in 1995 as a Personnel Assistant II in Testing Services.  In this position, I was responsible for administering and grading Civil Service examinations.  Five years later, I was promoted to a Personnel Assistant III within Temporary Services where I placed new hires into temporary assignment, processed Criminal Background Checks, submitted payroll, and electronic billing. Shortly after that, I moved into the Human Resource Officer role.   While overseeing the Testing Services functions including the supervision of two staff members, I also worked with departmental staff to fill Civil Service positions. In 2005, I was promoted to an Assistant HR Manager. In this role, I continued to oversee the   overall operation of the Testing division, trained new staff on the Civil Service Hiring Process, and related HR Systems.6.    What do you enjoy most about your role? a.    One of the things that I enjoy most in my role is building relationships and trust with my customers.7.    Who are the primary customers you serve? a.    My primary customers are employees, department representatives and applicants.8.    What projects are you working on right now?  a.    I am not working on any projects at the moment, but recently was involved in the bi-annual Civil Service Audit that was just completed in June.9.    What services do you provide to customers at UIC? a.    Knowledge, guidance, support, and counseling during the hiring and application process which can seem complex at times and customer service.  I believe that providing more than what is expected by the customer demonstrates how valuable our customers are.10.  What do you wish more employees knew about the services you provide in this role at UIC?  a.    I would really wish that employees knew that we do understand their needs and that we are here to help in any way possible.11.  Bonus question: What do you do for fun and relaxation?  a.    For fun, I love taking my kids to the movies and for relaxation, I enjoy practicing hot yoga.

Supervisor who is terminated for asking subordinates for a loan is not entitled to unemployment compensation

In Weingard v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No.: 2729 C.D. 2010 (Pa. Cmwlth. 8/10/2011), the Commonwealth Court held, in a matter of first impression, that a supervisor who is fired for requesting a substantial loan from a subordinate is not entitled to receive unemployment compensation, even if the employer does not have a specific rule prohibiting the solicitation of loans in the workplace. The Court held that such a request constitutes a disregard of the standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect from its employees.

In this case, Weingard learned that a co-worker was selling a motorcycle for $1,000.00 and he wanted to buy it. But, due to his poor credit history, Weingard knew that he would be unable to obtain a loan from a bank. So, Weingard asked his supervisor for a $1,000.00 loan and was turned down. Weingard then asked five other employees - at least one of whom was Weingard's subordinate - if he could borrow the $1,000.00 and was similarly rejected. One of the employees who was supervised by Weingard complained to Weingard's supervisor about Weingard's request to borrow money, indicating that it made her uncomfortable. The employer conducted a three-week investigation into the matter, after which it terminated Weingard for his requests to borrow money, deeming such an action to be "coercive."

The employer's handbook did not contain any specific rules regarding the lending or borrowing of money between supervisors and subordinates, but did prohibit employees from "operating or acting in any manner that is contrary to the best interests of Employer."

Weingard then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. The Unemployment Compensation Referee granted benefits to Weingard, finding that the employer had failed to meet its burden to establish the existence of a rule regarding the lending or borrowing of money between supervisors and subordinates, and that a violation of that rule could result in termination.

On appeal, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed, holding that the employer had in fact established the existence of a policy that prohibited Weingard from acting in a manner that was contrary to the employer's best interests. The Board thus denied Weingard unemployment compensation benefits.

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the Board that denied Weingard unemployment compensation benefits, but did so on different grounds. The Court found that employer's general policy that prohibited employees from "operating or acting in any manner that is contrary to the best interests of Employer," was "so general as to be meaningless to this appeal." The Court held that the Board committed error when it found that Weingard had knowingly violated this vague standard because "[Weingard] testified that he did not know there was a policy prohibiting him from soliciting loans from co-workers, and he did not believe that asking another employee for a loan harmed Employer's interest in any way. Employer provided no evidence to the contrary." Thus, the Court found the Board's conclusion that Weingard had committed willful misconduct by knowingly violating a work rule, was erroneous.

The Court nevertheless determined that Weingard was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Examining for the first time whether a supervisor's request of a substantial loan from a subordinate constitutes willful misconduct, the Court found that in asking to borrow $1,000.00 from a subordinate, "[Weingard] used his position of authority in an unseemly way. He may not have used overt threats or direct coercion, but that fact is not dispositive of the issue. [Weingard] held the upper hand in the relationship with the employees he supervised. . . There is an unspoken, and implicit, coercion when a boss makes a request for a significant loan of an employee under his supervision." Therefore, the Court concluded that while Weingard may not have violated a specific written rule of his employer regarding money-lending between employees, his conduct "violated the standards of behavior his Employer had a right to expect," from its employees, which constituted willful misconduct that disqualified him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

The moral of the story? If you need a loan, go to a bank.

You can read the WeingardCourt's full opinion here: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2726CD10_8-10-11.pdf

In Title VII Cases, Sometimes It's All About the Numbers. . .

On September 28, 2011, in the case of Meditz v. City of Newark the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the trial court had improperly dismissed a lawsuit against the City of Newark, which alleged that the City's residency requirement for its non-uniformed employees was unlawful under Title VII because it created an employment bias against white, non-Hispanic applicants. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate and consider the weight of the statistical evidence that had been presented by the plaintiff. In April of 2007, Gregory Meditz, a white male who resided in neighboring Rutherford, New Jersey, applied for a non-uniformed job with the City of Newark. Meditz was turned down for the job because he did not live in the City of Newark, and thus did not qualify for employment under a City Ordinance that required all non-uniformed City personnel to live within the City limits. Meditz sued, claiming that the City's residency requirement for its non-uniformed employees was discriminatory and unlawfully barred him from qualifying for a non-uniformed job with the City. Specifically, Meditz argued that the residency requirement worked a disparate impact on white, non-Hispanic job applicants because the racial make-up of the population of Newark did not reflect the racial make-up of the surrounding labor market. In support of his claims, Meditz produced statistical data that he gathered from publicly available sources, which revealed that in 2007, only 9.4% of the non-uniformed employees of the City of Newark were white, non-Hispanic, while 28.31% of the City's uniformed employees (who are not subject to a residency requirement) were white, non-Hispanics. Meditz also compared the statistics of the racial composition of the City's non-uniformed employees with the racial composition of the non-uniformed employees from the County of Essex, which maintained its County seat within the City of Newark. This comparison showed that 42.96% of the non-uniformed employees who worked for the County were white, non-Hispanics. Meditz also introduced evidence that in 2005, the percentage of white, non-Hispanics that constituted the non-uniformed employees of Essex County and 5 neighboring counties, ranged from 48.09% to 86.49%, with the percentages of white, non-Hispanics employed in the private labor force in those same counties being only slightly lower. The trial court, however, granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and tossed Meditz's lawsuit, concluding that "these statistics, standing alone, do not constitute sufficient evidence of a significantly discriminatory hiring pattern."On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding that the trial court had misapplied the law and had failed to lend the appropriate weight to Meditz's statistical evidence. Specifically, the Court held that "Meditz offered statistical evidence showing that the percentage of white, non-Hispanics employed by Newark was lower than the population of white, non-Hispanics in the general population of Newark. Meditz also offered statistics showing the percentage of white, non-Hispanics in surrounding areas both for the general population and for the private and government work forces. Finally, Meditz offered evidence of the percentage of white, non-Hispanics employed by the Essex County government in Newark. Out of all these percentages, the lowest was the percentage of white, non-Hispanics employed by the City of Newark. This compilation of statistics supported Meditz's claim that white, non-Hispanics were under-represented in Newark's non-uniformed work force." This case provides an excellent illustration of how a disparate impact theory of discrimination under Title VII can be invaluable tool for an individual who believes he or she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination, because in these cases, evidence of discriminatory intent or bias on behalf of the employer is not required. All that a plaintiff needs in order to be successful is to establish a differential employment outcome or treatment that is based upon race, sex, religion, or national origin, which can be proven through statistical analysis and statistical deviations. After all, the numbers don't lie. You can read the Third Circuit's full opinion in Meditz v. City of Newark here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/102442p.pdf