Source: http://www.lbl.gov/LBL-Work/RPM/R2.05.html
Timestamp: 2014-04-19 09:26:29
Document Index: 269771890

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2']

RPM §2.05. Employee Relations (Rev. 03/13)
NOTE: The policies and procedures contained in Sections 2.05(E), (J), and (K) are reproduced exactly as they appear in the corresponding University of California Policies and Procedures and, consequently, use the UC numbering system. Areas of Responsibility Responsibilities of Managers/Supervisors Responsibilities of Employees Early Problem Resolution Employees and Supervisors Labor Employee Relations Corrective Action and Dismissal
Policy Documentation Authority to Take Corrective Action Investigatory Leave Written Warnings Corrective Action
Other Than Written Warnings and Dismissals Dismissal of Nonprobationary Career and Term Employees Employee Complaint Resolution Policy Scope Eligibility Time Limits Informal Review Formal Review
University of California Procedures for Responding to Reports of Sexual Harassment Local Sexual Harassment Resources
CORRECTIVE ACTION AND DISMISSAL 1. Policy
A corrective action may be initiated when an employee fails to
meet employment-related standards of conduct or performance including,
but not limited to, inattention to duty; failure to follow directions;
unsatisfactory performance; insubordination; absenteeism; tardiness;
violation of law or Laboratory/University regulations; dishonesty,
theft, or misappropriation of public funds or property; timecard
falsification; fighting on the job; acts endangering others; gambling;
or possession of firearms or explosives. Corrective action can take
the form of a written warning, salary decrease, demotion, suspension
without pay, or dismissal. Oral warnings, Performance Improvement Plans (PIP), and counseling
memos are not considered corrective actions. In addition,
they are not subject to the provisions of Paragraph
(D) (Employee Complaint Resolution), below. When corrective action is contemplated for a member of the Professional
Research Staff, RPM §2.07 should
be reviewed to determine if additional procedures are required. 2. Documentation Documentation of corrective action should be entered in the employee's
personnel file, and copies of such records should be sent to Human Resources–Labor
Employee Relations (HR-LER). At the written request of the employee,
records of a written warning will be removed from the employee's personnel
file if, after two consecutive years, there has been no further conduct
or performance of the same or a similar nature. 3. Authority to Take Corrective Action
Responsible Managers Responsible managers are operations department heads, deputy division
directors, and division directors and above (RPM §2.01(F)(3)
(Laboratory Management)). Responsible
managers, after consultation with HR-LER, may take or authorize corrective
action, including dismissal, in accordance with this policy. Supervisors
are authorized to issue written warnings. Authorization
to take or authorize all other corrective action or dismissal lies exclusively
with the responsible manager in consultation with HR-LER. Supervisor Authority Written warnings may be issued by a supervisor
after consultation with HR-LER. A supervisor may immediately place an employee
on investigatory leave only in those cases where it is desirable
and appropriate to have the employee leave the worksite immediately.
Appropriate circumstances include, but are not limited to the following:
continued presence on the job may result in the disruption of operations,
may impair the investigation, may result in attempted destruction
or sabotage, or may be considered a threat to others or him/herself;
or the employee appears visibly impaired as to not being able to
continue to perform satisfactorily. (See RPM
2.05(C)(4) (Investigatory Leave)).
A supervisor may not take any other corrective action
without prior approval of the responsible manager and consultation with
HR-LER.
4. Investigatory Leave An employee may be placed on investigatory leave with pay, usually
for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days, while a review or investigation
is conducted based on alleged actions including, but not limited to,
the employee’s continued presence on the job may result in disruption
of operations, may impair the investigation, may result in attempted
destruction or sabotage, may be considered a threat to others or his/her
self, or the employee appears visibly impaired as to not be able to continue
to perform satisfactorily. Except as stated in Paragraph (C)(3)(b)(ii) (Supervisor
Authority) above,
a decision to place an employee on investigatory leave may only be made
by a responsible manager and after consultation with HR-LER. The leave
must be confirmed in writing to the employee, normally no later than
five calendar days after the effective date of the leave. The notice
must include the reasons for the leave and its expected duration. The decision to place an employee on investigatory leave is not a
corrective action. In addition, it is not subject
to the provisions of Paragraph
(D) (Employee Complaint Resolution). 5. Written Warnings A written warning is the first step of corrective action. At least one
written warning should normally precede any further corrective action,
except when corrective action is the result of performance or conduct
that an employee knows or reasonably should have known was unsatisfactory.
Written warnings must describe: (a) the nature of the offense or deficiency;
(b) the method or methods of correction; (c) the probable action to be
taken if the offense is repeated or the deficiency persists; and (d)
the employee’s right to appeal the written warning under Paragraph
(D) (Employee Complaint Resolution).
6. Corrective Action Other Than Written Warnings
and Dismissals Written Notice of Intent to Take Corrective Action
Other Than Written Warnings and Dismissals
For corrective action other than written warnings and dismissals,
the responsible manager must provide the employee with written notice
of intent to take such action before the effective date. This notice
must (a) state the intended corrective action, its reason, and the
proposed effective date; (b) include a copy of the charges and materials
on which the corrective action is based; and (c) state that the employee
has the right to respond either orally or in writing within ten calendar
days from the date of issuance; and (d) specify to whom the response
Written Notice of Corrective Action Other Than Written Warnings
After the employee's response or 10 calendar days from the date of
issuance (whichever comes first), the employee must be notified in
writing of the responsible manager's decision. If the responsible manager
determines that corrective action is not appropriate, the responsible
manager must inform the employee of this fact and state what other
action, if any, will be taken. If the responsible manager determines
that the corrective action, or a modification thereof, is appropriate,
the employee will be notified of the action, the effective date, and
advised of his/her right to appeal the action. 7. Dismissal of Nonprobationary Career and Term Employees
Nonprobationary career and term employees may be dismissed for reasons
(C)(1)(a) (Corrective Action and Dismissal/Policy). See RPM §2.21(C) for
dismissal of non-career employees. Dismissal is normally preceded by
some form of corrective action unless the unsatisfactory performance
or misconduct is so serious as to warrant immediate dismissal. Written Notice of Intent to Dismiss
A written notice of the intent to dismiss must be given to the employee
by a responsible manager, and must (1) state the reason for the intended
dismissal; (2) include a copy of the charges and materials on which
the intent to dismiss is based; (3) state that the employee has the
right to respond either orally or in writing within 10 calendar days
from date of issuance; (4) specify to whom the response must be made;
and (5) specify the proposed effective date of the dismissal, which
must be at least 10 calendar
days from the date of the notice of intent to dismiss.
After the employee's response or 10 calendar days from date of
issuance (whichever comes first), the employee must
be notified in writing by the responsible manager of his or her decision.
If the responsible manager determines that dismissal is not appropriate,
he or she must inform the employee of this fact and state what other
that dismissal is appropriate, the employee will be so notified. The
notice must (1) specify the effective date of dismissal, (2) state the
reason for dismissal, and (3) state the employee’s right to appeal.
If an employee was absent from work without approval during the 10 calendar
days for response to the notice of intent or any subsequent days up to
and including the day of dismissal, the days absent are without pay. D.
EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT RESOLUTION 1. Policy It is the policy of the Laboratory to encourage and facilitate the resolution
of employee complaints in a prompt and equitable manner. An employee
should first attempt to resolve a complaint with his/her
immediate supervisor. An employee may also attempt to resolve a complaint
with the assistance of the Ombudsman
Program. Efforts
to resolve the matter informally, however, do not extend the deadline
for filing a written request for formal review.
A formal complaint is defined as: A claim by an individual employee regarding a specific management
act that is alleged to have adversely affected the employee's existing
terms and conditions of employment, or A claim by an individual employee that he/she has been adversely
affected by a management action in violation of a provision of the
Laboratory's Regulations
and Procedures Manual (RPM)
(LBNL/PUB-201).
No formal complaint filed under this Employee Complaint
Resolution policy may raise or contest any of the following actions or
Classification of a position, salary ranges, or the
percent change in the employee’s salary as a result of the annual
salary review process or a reclassification.
Management actions that are within the scope and
authority of management responsibilities and rights including, but not
limited to, hiring decisions or other similar employment-related actions,
temporary work deferment
and temporary reduction in time decisions, decisions
to reorganize and reassign work, funding or not funding projects, or
decisions to support a particular research effort.
An employee’s performance evaluation unless the
overall rating is less than “Acceptable,” as defined in
the then-current performance review process.
As otherwise set forth in the RPM as not being subject
to this Employee Complaint Resolution Policy.
Concerns or inquiries regarding these issues may be submitted to the
Head of Human Resources for consideration.
The Head of Human Resources will determine
whether a complaint is within the scope of this Complaint Resolution Policy.
An employee may appeal this decision to the University of California, Office
of the President, Office of Employee Relations, which has the final responsibility
for determining whether a complaint is within the scope of this policy. An
appeal to the Office of the President shall include copies of the original
grievance and related documents, and shall be received within 20 calendar days
of the date of the local decision.
3. Eligibility The right to submit a formal complaint
under this policy is provided to all career and term employees
covered by the RPM from the beginning of employment, with the following
exceptions: Employees required to serve a probationary period cannot submit a
complaint concerning release during their probationary period. Senior managers whose appointments are "at will" cannot
submit a complaint concerning termination of the appointment. See RPM §2.01(F)(3)
(Laboratory Management). Employees in term appointments cannot submit a complaint concerning
termination at the end of their appointment.
Employees who are not eligible to file a formal complaint may
raise allegations of discrimination and/or allegations of retaliation
for participating in the complaint resolution process up to Step II
of the formal process.
4. Time Limits Time limitations set forth below are expressed in calendar days unless
otherwise noted. The Laboratory's annual winter holiday shutdown period
automatically extends the time limit by the length of the shutdown. If
the employee complaint is not appealed to the next step of the procedure
within the applicable time limits, and an extension has not been agreed
to in advance, the complaint will be considered resolved on the basis
of the last Laboratory management response and shall be considered ineligible
Issues regarding timeliness of the initial filing of the complaint
and any response/action required by the employee or management will
be determined by the Head of Human Resources. An employee may appeal
this decision to the University of California, Office of the President,
Office of Employee Relations, which has the final responsibility for
determining whether a complaint is within the time limits of this policy.
An appeal to the UC Office of the President shall include copies of
the original grievance and related documents, and shall be received
within 20 calendar days of the date of the local decision.
5. Informal Review An employee who has a complaint should discuss it with his or her immediate
supervisor or the next higher level of management in
order to provide a reasonable opportunity to resolve the complaint informally.
Various problem-solving options might be used to facilitate informal
resolution. HR-LER can assist employees and supervisors in their efforts
to informally resolve problems. Efforts to resolve the dispute informally
do not extend the required 30-calendar-day filing date. However, if an
informal solution is actively being pursued and it appears that such
a solution may resolve the dispute, the time period for appeal to Step
I of the Formal Review Process may be extended for an additional 30 calendar
days if approved in writing by the Head of Human Resources.
An employee who has a question concerning the interpretation or application
of Laboratory or University personnel policies, including those related
to employee rights, nondiscrimination, working conditions, or other personnel
matters, is encouraged to consult with his or her supervisor, responsible
manager, the HR Center, or HR-LER, and in the case of the Laboratory
policy on nondiscrimination (RPM §2.01(B)
(Nondiscrimination
and Affirmative Action)), the Manager, Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative
Action (EEO/AA).
6. Formal Review General Provisions
Representation. An employee may
be self-represented or represented by another person at any stage of
the formal review of a complaint. The responsible manager may be represented
by Laboratory Counsel, the University of California Office of the General
Counsel, or otherwise as the Laboratory Counsel deems
Retaliation. No employee shall
be subject to retaliation for using or participating in the complaint
Time Limits. It is the intent
of the Laboratory to complete the complaint resolution process in a
timely manner. However, when circumstances warrant, the time limits
may be extended by the Head of Human Resources. It is the intent that
the process be completed through Step II within 60 calendar days, and
the appeal be completed through Step III within the time frame stated
below. The process to select the Hearing Officer in Step III should
be accomplished within 30 calendar days of the appeal to Step III.
The Laboratory and the employee or the employee's representative should
secure the earliest practicable hearing date from the Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer will be requested to issue his/her decision or
report within 30 calendar days of the close of the hearing. When the
report is advisory to the Director, the Director should issue the final
decision within 30 calendar days of receipt of the report and recommendation
(see Paragraph (D)(6)(d) (Step III:
Hearing)), below.
As stated above, once a complaint has been filed on a timely basis,
the Head of Human Resources may extend any subsequent time limit in
the complaint resolution process. Such extension(s) must (1) be in
writing, (2) include the reason for the extension, and (3) be given
to the employee and the responsible manager.
Computation of Time Limits. Any time limit, including
the original filing time limit that expires on a Saturday, Sunday,
administrative holiday, or other nonworking day observed by the Laboratory
will be extended to the next scheduled working day.
Pay Status for Time Spent in Complaint Resolution. The
responsible manager will approve requests for reasonable time off with
pay during scheduled working hours for an
employee and/or an employee's representative (if the representative is
a Laboratory employee, and such representation is not paid for by the
employee filing the complaint or by others) for time spent in informal
resolution of a complaint, investigating a complaint, and presenting
a grievance complaint at a formal hearing. Time spent by the employee
or the representative in the above activities outside scheduled working
hours is without pay. Time spent by an employee and/or an employee’s
representative in preparing for the various steps of the complaint resolution
procedure (e.g., preparation of documents, preparing testimony, investigation)
is unpaid. An employee who serves as a witness
will be on pay status while testifying at a hearing. In addition, the
responsible manager must grant reasonable time off with pay during scheduled
working hours to an employee-witness for other meetings related to resolution
of an employee complaint; however, an employee-witness's time spent outside
of scheduled working hours, other than testifying at a hearing, will
be without pay.
Informal Resolution. Informal resolution
of a complaint may be agreed to by the employee and responsible manager
at any stage of the complaint resolution process.
Review and Appeal. All complaints that are
within the scope of this policy are eligible for review through Steps
I and II. Only those complaints listed in Paragraph
(D)(6)(d)(ii), below,
can be appealed to Step III.
Termination of Complaint Resolution Procedure. If
the employee resigns prior to the completion of the complaint resolution
procedure, the process ends regardless of the stage. If one or
more employees in a complaint resolution procedure terminates voluntarily
or resigns prior to the end of the procedure, the process continues only
Step I: Appeal to the Responsible Manager
Complaints that are within the scope of Paragraph
(D) (Employee Complaint Resolution) must be submitted in
writing to the Manager, HR-LER, for transmittal to the responsible manager.
The complaint must be filed within 30 calendar days of the date on which
the employee knew or could reasonably be expected to have known of the
event or action that gave rise to the complaint, or within 30 calendar
days after the last day of employment, whichever occurs first. A former
employee separated by layoff who is eligible for recall or preference
for reemployment as provided in RPM §2.21(B)(9)
from Layoff) may file a complaint alleging violations of the recall
or preference for reemployment provisions within 30 calendar days after
the date on which the employee knew or could be reasonably expected to
know of the alleged violation.
When a complaint alleges sexual harassment, the
complainant may elect to substitute the University of California Procedures
for Responding to Complaints of Sexual Harassment (Paragraph
E) to attempt
to resolve the issue. The complaint is considered to be filed in a timely
manner if it is filed within 30 calendar days after the alleged incident
or action occurred. If the attempt to resolve the complaint is unsuccessful,
the complainant may proceed to Step II of this procedure.
The written complaint must describe the specific actions
that are requested for review, the specific provisions of the RPM alleged
to have been violated, the manner in which it was violated, how the
employee was adversely affected, and the specific remedy requested.
The responsible manager must provide a written decision
to the employee within 21 calendar days unless the deadline is extended
by the Head of Human Resources under the conditions stated in Paragraph
(D)(6)(a)(iii), above.
If the responsible manager does not respond within the
stated deadline or extension thereof, or the employee does not agree
with the decision, the employee has the right to appeal to Step
the Complaint Resolution Policy.
Step II: Appeal to the Associate Laboratory
If the employee elects to appeal the responsible
manager's decision, the employee must submit a written appeal to the
Manager, HR-LER, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the responsible
manager's decision or the date the decision was due. The appeal must
specify the aspects of the complaint that have not been resolved by the
decision of the responsible manager, and specifically state the issues
that are being appealed in Step II.
If the issues under review are not eligible for
appeal to Step III, the Associate Laboratory Director
for Operations (ALDO) or the employee may request an Independent Party
Reviewer (IPR). The
IPR will conduct fact-finding and, if asked by the ALDO,
make recommendations regarding the complaint and requested remedies.
The IPR is selected by the ALDO. The employee and the
management representative shall have an opportunity
to meet with and present information directly to the IPR. The IPR may
engage in further review and investigation as he/she deems necessary
and appropriate. After the conclusion of the IPR review, the IPR will
submit his/her report to the ALDO. The ALDO will consider the report
of the IPR and other relevant information, and will issue a written decision
to the employee and the responsible manager. The decision of the
ALDO is final for all complaints that are ineligible for Step
An employee may elect to have an IPR review his/her complaint even
though it is eligible for appeal to Step III. If
this occurs, the decision of the ALDO is final, and the complaint cannot
be appealed to Step III, as set forth in Paragraph
(D)(6)(d)(ii), below.
If a complaint filed under this section involves an action
initiated by the ALDO, the Deputy Director will have the authority for
the Step II process and any required appointments or decisions. If
the complaint involves an action taken by the Laboratory Director, it
will be forwarded to the University of California, Office of the President,
Step III: Appeal to a Hearing
If the employee elects to appeal the ALDO’s
decision for matters that are eligible for appeal to Step III, the
employee shall submit a written appeal to the Manager, HR-LER, within
15 calendar days of receipt of the ALDO’s decision. The appeal
shall specify the aspects of the complaint that have not been resolved
by the ALDO, and specifically state the issues that are being appealed
in Step III of this process.
Complaints not satisfactorily resolved at Step
II that allege specific violations of personnel policies listed below
may be appealed in writing to the Step III hearing process. The
appeal will be heard by a Hearing Officer.
(a) Final and Binding Hearing. The
Hearing Officer will render a final and binding decision when the issue
reviewed under this policy alleges violations of the following policies:
(1) Discriminatory practices as listed in RPM §2.01(B)
and Affirmative Action) pertaining only to an alleged discriminatory
application of a personnel policy listed below in this section. (2) Hours of work
(4) Shift and weekend differential
(6) Vacation (except the scheduling of a vacation)
(7) Sick leave
(8) Leave of absence
(9) Corrective action and dismissal as defined
in Paragraph (C) (Corrective
Action and Dismissal Policy), and the employee had nonprobationary
career or term status at the time the complaint was filed. (10) Medical separation (11) Layoff or reduction in time for career employees pertaining
only to the notice, order of layoff, recall, or preference for reemployment
provisions in RPM §2.21(B).
The management decision to implement a layoff or reduction in time
is not subject to any provisions of this complaint resolution policy.
(12) Retaliation for utilizing the complaint resolution
process. (b) Advisory Hearings. The Hearing
Officer will render an advisory decision and recommendation to the Laboratory
Director, who will render a final and binding decision for the following
(1) Harassment as defined in
RPM §2.01(B)(1),
the University of California Policy on Sexual
Harassment (Anti-Harassment
(2) Retaliation for filing
an allegation of improper government activity (whistleblower), filing
an allegation of discrimination or harassment, or
filing an allegation of scientific misconduct. See also RPM
§2.05(K) (Protection of Whistleblowers
from Retaliation, and Guidelines for Reviewing Complaints (Whistleblower
Protection Policy)).
(a) Selection of the Hearing Officer (1) The Laboratory will maintain a list of professional non-University
hearing officers. These hearing officers will hear all Step III appeals.
The cost of these Laboratory/University hearing officers will be
borne by the Laboratory. The responsible manager and the employee
or their representative(s) will select a hearing officer by striking
names of available members on the list until a hearing officer is
selected. The determination of who strikes first will be determined
by the toss of a coin. (2) As an alternative to the procedures set forth directly above,
the employee may elect, in writing, that the hearing be heard by
a non-University hearing officer selected from a list other than
that maintained by the Laboratory. The Laboratory shall obtain a
list of five names of prospective non-University hearing officers
from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) who (1)
are National Academy of Arbitrators (NAA) members and (2) reside
in or geographically serve the Berkeley Lab locale. Using
this list, the responsible manager and the employee or their representative(s)
will select a hearing officer by striking names
of available members on the list until a hearing officer is selected.
The determination of who strikes first will be determined
by the toss of a coin. The election of this alternative non-University hearing
officer selection procedure may result in a cost to the employee.
If the issue is one in which the decision of the hearing officer
is final and binding, the fees will be borne equally by the Laboratory
and the employee. If the issue is one in which the hearing officer
makes a recommendation to the Laboratory Director: The fees and costs of the hearing officer will be borne equally
by the Laboratory and the employee if the Laboratory Director accepts
the recommended decision of the hearing officer. If the Laboratory Director rejects or substantively changes a
recommended decision of a hearing officer under this section, the
fee will be borne by the Laboratory. (b) The hearing process provides an opportunity
for the employee and the responsible manager or their representatives to
examine witnesses and submit relevant evidence. See Paragraph
(D)(6)(a)(i) (Representation) above. Each party will provide
the other with the documents and other materials that it intends to use
at the hearing, and the names of all witnesses who are to be called to
testify at the hearing. This material-and-witness list should
be provided at least 14 calendar days before the hearing.
(c) The hearing will be closed to nonparticipants. (d) The hearing will be recorded unless a stenographic record is prepared.
A copy of the recording tapes will be given to the employee. Either party
may make provisions for a stenographic record of the hearing, subject
to payment of the cost, or the parties may agree in advance to share
the expense of a stenographic record. Responsibility and Authority of the Hearing
Officer (a) The Hearing Officer will:
(1) Identify the issues submitted in the original written
complaint for hearing. (2) Conduct a hearing to determine the facts and whether the
management action that resulted in the complaint was in violation
of Laboratory policies or procedures, or if the complaint involves
corrective action or dismissal, and whether the management action
was reasonable under the circumstances. (3) Submit a written hearing report. If the nature
of the decision is advisory, the report will be provided to the Laboratory
Director. If the decision is final and binding, the report
will be provided to the employee filing the complaint, the manager,
HR-LER, and the Responsible Manager. (b) The hearing report will include a description of the following:
(1) Each incident or management action that resulted in the
complaint. (2) Each issue under submission. (3) The positions of the parties. (4) The findings of fact and any policy violations. Findings
of fact must be supported by the evidence, and the decision, whether
final and binding or recommended, must be supported by the findings. (c) The Hearing Officer will have authority to issue a final and
binding decision for complaints related to issues listed in Paragraph
(D)(6)(d)(ii)(a) above. For all other complaints, the Hearing
Officer will have authority to issue an advisory recommendation only.
The advisory recommendation will be made to the Laboratory Director.
(d) The Hearing Officer shall have no authority to depart from,
or otherwise modify, Laboratory or University personnel policies. (e) If the management action under review is determined to be in
violation of Laboratory policy or if the corrective action or dismissal
is determined not to be reasonable under the circumstances, the remedy
shall not exceed restoring to the employee the pay, benefits, or rights
lost as a result of the action, less any income earned from any other
source or any other employment.
(f) Except by mutual agreement of both parties, no new issues may be
added to a complaint or introduced at a hearing that were not included
in the original written complaint. (g) The resolution of an employee complaint must be in accordance
with Laboratory policies. Any decision, whether recommended or final
and binding, that involves an exception to Laboratory or University policy
requires the prior approval of the Office of the President of the University
of California. Decision of the Laboratory Director
A recommended decision of a hearing officer will be accepted, rejected,
or modified by the Laboratory Director within 15 calendar days after
receipt. The decision of the Laboratory Director is final and binding
for those issues as identified in Paragraph
(D)(6)(d)(ii)((b). The decision will be made in writing and forwarded
to the parties with a copy of the hearing officer’s report.
(a) Similar Complaints. When agreed upon by the employees
and Laboratory before the hearing, individual complaints of two or
more employees may be included in one hearing when the complaints were
caused by the same action. All complaints from one employee that relate
to a single incident or issue must be included in one hearing. (b) Jurisdiction. An employee is subject to the hearing
procedures of the campus or facility where the action that resulted in
the complaint occurred, or as approved by the University of California,
Office of the President, Office of Employee Relations. (c) Facilities. HR-LER will be responsible for making
all physical arrangements, including tape recording of the hearing, providing
staff and clerical assistance to the hearing officer as required, ensuring
that all parties are advised of procedural requirements, and keeping
the calendar record of the complaint process. (d) HR-LER will receive copies of all reports and documents pertaining
to the complaint and will be the official custodian of the complete files