That’s correct. It is the supervisor’s responsibility
to manage time issues with employees. Appropriate communication is between the
timekeeper and the supervisor.
Chanda
R. Graham, JD, SPHR
Senior HR Advisor, Employee Relations
University of
Telephone: (405) 271-2191
Facsimile: (405) 271-2443
From:
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008
6:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Time Clocks
I would think if there is no
supervisor's signature Stacy would send it back for the signature overtime
or not. It would be the supervisor's responsibility to notify the employee
that unapproved overtime is unacceptable behavior not the timekeeper
correct?
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008
5:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Time Clocks
I agree. If overtime is not
authorized in advance, the supervisor should be notified and a decision made,
based on the circumstances, whether corrective action should be taken.
However, it still has to be paid.
Chanda
R. Graham, JD, SPHR
Senior HR Advisor, Employee Relations
University of
Telephone: (405) 271-2191
Facsimile: (405) 271-2443
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008
2:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Time Clocks
If there is overtime that is not approved,
what is the process when there is no supervisor’s approval. Does Stacy
just send the supervisor a note that un-authorized overtime has been recorded
and asks them to approve?
My understanding from Chanda is that we
have to pay it, and then notify the employee (written) that it is not
acceptable behavior and further incidents could lead to disciplinarian action.
Jackie Durrett,
MBA,FACMPE
Department
Administrator & Clinical Assistant Professor
Phone: 405-271-4224
After
5PM:-405-271-5362-ext 32116
Fax:405-271-6428
email: [log in to unmask]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This
e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this
communication and any attachments.
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008
2:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Time Clocks
Here are the comments and concerns expressed at the time
clock meeting (with thanks to Denise Brown). Please respond with
additions, comments, corrections, etc. to the list.
Probably the first thing to be resolved is whether Count Me
In, LLC is going to make us an acceptable deal on replacing the old
remotes. I copied everyone on the note I sent to the representative I've
been working with. I have not heard back from him. The new devices
seem to be working reliably, but our experience with the old remotes was quite
unpleasant, and we feel we are due some consideration for that grief.
Present at the meeting were Dr. Crawford, George Varghese,
Jack Durrett, Deanna Chambers, Chanda Graham, Don Clothier, Denise Brown, Bev
Finley, Vanessa Miller, Quint Dillard, and me.
I have added Frank Lawler to this discussion list, and I
have suggested that perhaps Cina should also be on this list. Suggestions
for anyone else who should participate?
Placement of the remotes: We plan to mount two on the
south wall in the east-west hall that runs by where Gail Chapman works, the
hall leading into Blue Clinic. One would be mounted by Medical Records
where one of the old remotes is currently located, and one would be mounted in
the break room where another of the old remotes is currently located.
There would then be a total of four devices for people to use to clock in and
out. An SUR has been sent to site support describing what needs to be
done, along with a request to devise some sort of guard so that tampering with
the Ethernet and power connections would be prevented.
If and when we do decide to go forward, we will need to make
some changes to the existing policy to reflect the new locations and any
difference in how to use them.
In spite of the problems that we had with the old system, it
did seem to lessen overtime claims. If the campus does go to a bimonthly
pay system for hourly employees, this system would save us a lot of manual work
collecting time cards and calculating pay checks.
There are other time clock systems in use on the OUHSC
campus, but Family Medicine is the first on the OUHSC campus to use this
particular system. If we are pleased with the new system, others at the
University might be interested in this system.
Only Billing is using the system now, as a test. Next
we will choose a time we can have everyone clock in and out in a group, to see
if a large surge of activity will have a negative impact on the system; that
is, will it be reliable with large numbers of people clocking in or out at the
same time, as in regular use?
We also need to try this new system with people who had
trouble with fingerprint recognition with the old system. Will this
system work better for them, or will we need to make the PIN option available?
For supervisor sign off, it is better if they can sign off
each week and be done with that week, instead of having to go back over all
time cards at the end of the month.
Problems clocking in or out will go to the immediate
supervisor and then up the chain of command, if necessary, rather than
contacting Stacy Thompson directly.
Once the supervisor signs off on time sheet, it is accepted
without further question. (Note: It did occur to me that this
leaves open the question of what to do if there is clearly an error, as when
the person filed for vacation on a day that the time sheet shows that they
worked.)
Supervisors will have view only access to their employees'
time data.
We will need a procedure for substitute supervisor access to
read time card data when the primary supervisor is not present.
We decided to create a list serve discussion list for this
group.