PG&E – IBEW
Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee Report
2010
The members of the Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee as identified below jointly prepared this
report.
Company
Kathy Price – Co-Chair
Michelle Lee – Labor Relations
Steve Rayburn – Labor Relations
Frances Wilder-Davis – Labor Relations
Francine Speer – Human Resources
Juanita Elliott – Energy Delivery
Gary Gaither – Customer Operations
Ina German – Customer Operations
Nick Glero – Customer Operations
Ontario Johnson – Energy Delivery
Mary Pimentel-Wheeler – Shared Services
Ben Shaffer – Accounts Payable/Payroll
IBEW
Debbie Mazzanti – Co-Chair
Dorothy Fortier – Asst. Business Manager
Arlene Edwards – Business Representative
Elieen Purcell – IBEW Staff
Donna Ambeau – Member
Lorenso Arciniega – Member
Anna Bayless-Martinez – Member
Cecelia De La Torre – Member
Adrianne Franks – Member
Jennifer Gray – Member
Gracie Nunez – Member
Tim Ramirez – Member
Diane Tatu – Member
Objective: A Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee was established in an effort to:
1. Define non-productive time.
2. Review current non-productive time trends as well as including the impact of such time to
employees and the Company.
3. Review the PG&E-IBEW Agreement and other PG&E policies on non-productive time.
4. Identify any additional ways to meet the needs of employees’ time off as well as the
operational needs of the Company.
Subcommittee meetings were held on:


January 19, 2010
February 18, 2010


March 1, 2010
March 15, 2010
1. Non-Productive Time
The Company defines non-productive time off as any time an employee is off the premises
during their regularly scheduled work hours. This includes but is not limited to: sick leave,
scheduled and unanticipated vacation, any type of leave, T-Time (time off with
permission/without pay), funeral leave, etc. The Union does not agree that vacation time
should be included in the “non-productive time” calculations as this is an “earned” benefit.
2. Types of Leaves
The Subcommittee reviewed the Types of Leaves Comparison Chart (Attachment 1) and the
provisions of each type of leave. The different types of leaves include:


Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 and California Family Rights Act
(CFRA) of 1991
Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL)
PG&E – IBEW













Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee Report 2010
Company Medical Leave
FMLA/CFRA Child Bonding Leave
Company Child Care/Child Bonding Leave
Military Leave
Personal Leave
Victims of Domestic Violence Act (VDVA) Labor Code 230.1
Victims of Crime Act (Labor code 230.2)
Family School Partnership Act (FSPA) of 1994
Emergency Firefighter
Company Sick Leave
Family Sick Leave (California Labor Code)
Paid Family Leave (PFL)
State Disability Insurance (SDI)
Some of the leaves are provided by federal or state law and some are provided via the
Agreement between the Company and Union.
The Company noted that when someone is off on a Family Medical Leave Act
(FMLA)/California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave for their own health condition, sick leave
runs concurrently with the FMLA/CFRA. The exception is under Pregnancy Disability Leave
where use of sick leave is optional. Sick Relative runs concurrently when time off is taken for a
family member under FMLA/CFRA.
The Types of Leaves Comparison Chart can be accessed by clicking on “chart” under the
“Types of Leaves Chart” heading on the HR intranet site at:
http://www/HR/PlansPolicies/TimeOffAndLOA.shtml#LeavesofAbsenceLOA
3. Leave of Absence Data
The Company reviewed the Executive Dashboard – Long Term Disability and Leave of
Absence report for the 2nd Quarter 2009 (Attachment 2) and the Absence and Accommodation
Solutions Report for 2009 (Attachment 3) with the Subcommittee. The reports provided Leave
and LTD absence information for all departments and employees at PG&E. The Executive
Dashboard identified organizations in one of three categories: greater than 10% of Company
average; equal to or within 10% of Company average; or less than Company average. For
leaves of absence, the Customer Care organization was identified as being greater than 10% of
the Company average. All other organizations were identified as less than the Company
average.
PG&E’s Monthly Leave of Absence Report for Customer Care illustrated the following:
o
o
o
o
40% of IBEW Clerical employees were on a Leave of Absence in 2009.
Customer Care had 892 Active Claims for Continuous Leave (e.g., Company
Medical).
1,037 Active Claims for Intermittent Leave (e.g., FMLA).
This equates to lost hours for continuous claims of 301,344 (equivalent of 145
FTE’s) and 75,773 lost hours for intermittent claims (equivalent to 36 FTEs).
It was also illustrated that although the Customer Care Unit was identified as being greater than
10% of the Company average in the Executive Dashboard, based on the data provided, the
2009 average had shown improvement as compared to 2008. The Absence and
2
PG&E – IBEW
Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee Report 2010
Accommodation Solutions report provided by the Company indicated:
o
In 2009, active claims for intermittent leave was documented as 1,037 with a
high of 543 claims in the month of April. From April to December, the number
had decreased by 15% to 459 claims.
o
Active claims for continuous claims had also declined from a high in October of
280 to 198 claims in December, a decrease of 29%.
4. Strategic Attendance Management (SAM)
The Company reported that it has been experiencing high levels of employee absence in the
Contact Centers due to various reasons. The biggest drivers of unavailability are leaves of
absence and FMLA/CFRA. During 2009, the full-time equivalent of 15% - 19% of Contact
Center employees were unavailable to take calls, significantly impacting the quality of service to
customers.
The Company stated that it had conducted benchmarking with other utility contact centers and
found that PG&E’s Contact Centers have substantially higher unavailability rates compared to
other unionized contact centers.
The Company stated that this absenteeism rate has had operational impacts in customer
satisfaction through abandoned and repeat calls caused by delays in accessing Customer
Service Representatives. In addition, employee satisfaction is impacted through high
occupancy rates (call after call being taken by CSR’s at work with minimal micro pauses),
reduced opportunities for training and communications, mandatory overtime and closing of the
vacation calendar. It is the Union’s belief that technological issues have more impact on
customer satisfaction than lead to believe. Significant concerns around abandoned calls
include misdirecting the customer in the IVR (e.g., “regular office hours are from 8:00 a.m. –
5:00 p.m.,” winter storm messages, as well as multiple transfers to “specialty groups” to
complete the customer’s many concerns. The Company has had a challenge complying with
the CPUC’s 80/20 requirement (80% of calls answered within 20 seconds) and operating within
its budget target. The Union asked if the Company could track the reasons for abandoned
calls. The Company stated there is no way to identify why a customer chooses to abandon a
call. Although, there are multiple potential reasons (external/internal system disconnect,
customer error, etc.), it is Call Center Operation’s belief that the primary driver is most likely
related to the length of wait time on hold for a representative.
The Subcommittee reviewed an hours report (Attachment 4) that showed month by month in
2009, all hours scheduled to work, all hours actually worked, hours coded as off premises,
overtime hours and headcount in each of the four Contact Centers (Fresno, Sacramento, San
Jose and Stockton).
The Company is consulting with Hewitt, the Company’s leave management vendor, to work on
identifying root cause drivers of absenteeism and to propose corresponding solutions for the
Contact Centers. The representative from Hewitt is Deborah Labonar. Dr. Labonar has been
working in the area of absence management consulting and analytics for ten years. She has
her PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Purdue University. She reviewed the
Strategic Attendance Management (SAM) process that it is using for the Contact Centers
(Attachment 5) with the Subcommittee. SAM is a data driven process utilizing actual absence
data to identify key target groups and specific absence trends. Hewitt explained that there are
3
PG&E – IBEW
Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee Report 2010
different drivers of absenteeism and that different drivers require different solutions. The
diagnostic process includes both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess the current
state of absence management. This will be done through focus groups with Team Leads and
Managers, job observations, detailed analysis of current illness and disability absence trends
and a validated survey to measure current organizational culture. The Union expressed
concern regarding the confidentiality of employee medical information and survey responses.
Hewitt and the Company responded that all individual survey results will remain confidential and
will be viewed only by the Hewitt consultant. Only group-level, rolled up results with be shared
with the Company.
The Union requested information from Hewitt regarding the companies and unions they have
used the SAM process with. Hewitt provided information that it had worked with one Company
and union.
The Union stated that they believe something is amiss in the Contact Centers to cause such a
high absenteeism rate. The Union stated the Company should be looking for the symptoms
causing this absenteeism.
It is also the Union’s belief that incorrect and inconsistent coding of exceptions may have had
an impact on the numbers presented. The Company did recognize this and advised that it
would provide guidelines and examples of effective documentation. There is also a belief by
the Union that there is a level of inconsistency among the Centers and absence management.
The Union stated that exit interviews, which at one time were conducted by local management,
were discussed as another means to identify causes of absenteeism in the Contact Centers.
The Company stated that these types of interviews were migrated to an outside vendor but had
since terminated the relationship with that vendor. The valuable information that was once
collected by the exit interviews, per the Company, has not been collected since the severance
of that relationship several years ago.
While the data shows unavailability rates to be higher in Contact Center Operations, the
Company recognizes this trend is not isolated to the Contact Centers. In an effort to better
understand and manage absence trends, the Company distributed a survey (Attachment 6) to
Contact Center employees which is focused on identifying the root cause issues surrounding
employee absences. This survey was introduced jointly from the Contact Center Director and
IBEW Business Manager (Attachment 7). The survey was reviewed with the Subcommittee
and the Union’s input was incorporated into the survey. The Company distributed the survey to
Contact Center Operations employees on Monday, February 22 and will receive the results in
late April. These results will be shared with the IBEW Business Manager.
The Company reported that as of March 1, 492 Contact Center employees had completed the
survey which is a 55% participation rate. The target participation rate for this survey is 60%.
The Company expects to have recommendations back from Hewitt by the end of April.
5. Additional Ways to Balance the Needs of Employee Time Off with the Operational Needs
of the Company
The Subcommittee reviewed alternatives that other western utilities use to provide flexibility for
employees to meet their needs for time off as well as the operational needs of the Company
4
PG&E – IBEW
Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee Report 2010
(Attachment 8). The common trend among the options provided by other utilities is some
variation of flex time.
The Union expressed its desire to see more flextime used throughout the Company. The
Company stated that this is something that would need to be reviewed by each line of business
on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a flextime type of schedule would provide the
coverage needed for the department.
The Subcommittee discussed alternative work schedules. The Company and IBEW have
generic letter agreements in place for 9-80 and 4x10 work schedules. The guidelines for
establishing one of these schedules are outlined in each generic letter agreement. The Union
stated that these are not used widespread throughout the Company. The Company stated that
the implementation of an alternative work schedule is determined on a case-by-case basis at a
local level.
The Company reviewed its current flexible schedule in the Payroll Department that was agreed
to by the Company and Union via a letter agreement. Employees are able to select a schedule
(start time, morning and afternoon breaks, lunch and end times). The available start times are
on the ½ hour beginning at 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Breaks are 15 minutes on quarter hour
increments. Lunch is on ½ hour increments and must be at least 30 minutes but can be as long
as up to 1-1/2 hours. End times are on ½ hour increments and are determined by the start time
and length of the lunch period. Once an employee selects a schedule, they are expected to
adhere to it. Temporary changes are allowed with the supervisor’s approval as long as the
change conforms to the guidelines. Temporary changes are infrequent and require a valid
reason. Employees can change their regular schedule and select a new one as long as it
confirms to the guidelines. If the change causes a coverage problem, and voluntary coverage
cannot be obtained, the least senior employee within the unit and classification is assigned to
the needed schedule.
The Company also discussed the schedule trade process available in the Contact Centers.
Employees are able to go into the Empower system and request a schedule trade. The
Company stated that for the year 2009, there had been over 3,500 schedule trades made in all
four Contact Centers combined. The Union asked if the Company could determine the
schedule trades that were not accommodated. The Company stated that it accommodates
virtually every request for a schedule trade with the only exception being those that fall outside
of the requirement of only full-time employees trading with full-time employees and part-time
employees trading with part-time employees. The Union stated it would like to see schedule
trades available between Contact Centers and also between full-time and part-time
classifications.
Attachments
1. Types of Leaves Comparison Chart
2. Executive Dashboard – Long Term Disability and Leave of Absence Report for the 2nd
Quarter 2009
3. Absence and Accommodation Solutions Report for 2009
4. Contact Center Hours Report
5. Strategic Attendance Management (SAM) Presentation
6. SAM Survey
7. Joint E-mail sent to Contact Center Operations employees regarding SAM Survey
5
PG&E – IBEW
Joint Non-Productive Time Subcommittee Report 2010
8. Western Utility benchmarking data of alternative hours provisions
For the Company:
For the IBEW:
Kathy Price
Debbie Mazzanti
6