Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Military Leave topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Kentwood HR clarifies military 'gap pay' policy after union statement

Kentwood City Commission · October 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City HR told the Kentwood City Commission on Oct. 21 that an internal misinterpretation of the military gap-pay policy was corrected and that an affected employee received an accurate differential payment on July 3, 2025.

City human-resources staff clarified the city's military-differential pay policy during the Oct. 21 Kentwood City Commission meeting, saying the city corrected an internal misinterpretation and paid an affected employee on July 3, 2025.

The HR representative said the policy, in the employee handbook, provides that an employee of the National Guard or a branch of the Armed Forces Reserves who takes military leave for annual field training or to respond to a civil disorder will be paid the difference, if any, between military pay and the base pay they would have received from the city. The policy sets maximums of 14 days for annual field training and 28 days for civil disorder response; HR said the 14 days equate to 112 hours (14 eight-hour days) when applied across departments with varying shift lengths.

HR told the commission the policy had been misapplied in one case because of different department shift lengths (8-, 10- and 12-hour schedules). HR said it sought clarity, recalculated the correct differential, notified union leadership and the department by email on June 13 following an in-person meeting June 5, and issued the corrected payment on July 3, 2025. The HR representative said the city reviewed records back to 2022 and adjusted payments where necessary to ensure equitable application across departments.

No formal grievance decision or union response was recorded in the meeting transcript; a resident earlier raised the matter after referencing a union statement dated Oct. 20.