CO0036969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 of 6 Some of those most in need of Sexual 'Harassment trainings were allowed to skip them. It does not surprise me that management could not produce any documentation of action taken, as they took none. 2.0 Hostile Work Environment and Management Retaliation I disagree with the finding. After filing my complaints, I was reassigned to a new region, assigned to the most dangerous zone, and was denied supervisory assistance as retaliation. I have witnesses and records to prove that treating chemicals were withheld just from me; other employees were allowed to use these chemicals, regardless of the time of year and costs. The District's response is untrue on that point. Co-workers ignored me, refused to work alongside me, gossiped about me even while I was present, and called me names. Supervisors berated and yelled at me. A live snake was put on the hood of my work truck. Despite hearing a co-worker repeatedly yell "ERMA" at me (referring to a confidential complaint I had filed), a supervisor declined to intervene. In my presence, my supervisor asked a property owner where I took my naps. Co-workers were told by management not to speak with me about the work being done in my own zone. Efforts to go outside the District were intercepted and punished. For example, when I called the whistle- blower phone number(posted in the employee break room and also distributed to the employees), I was referred to the District's own in-house counsel. I asked for permission to address the entire Board of Trustees directly but was blocked by this same in-house attorney who undertook no true investigation due to his financial conflict of interest. 3.0 Violation of District Nepotism Policy #2230 1 agree with this finding regarding Nepotism but the investigative focus should have clearly shifted to violations of the District's Policy#2023, Conflict of Interest. Personal relationships between supervisors and subordinates can be ruinous of workplace effectiveness and morale. I personally witnessed just such a supervisor-subordinate relationship at the District and both parties vehemently denied its existence. I was actually threatened with being beaten up by the female co-worker who didn't want me to work directly with my supervisor, her secret boyfriend. For years management failed to resolve this actual conflict of interest as that supervisor-subordinate relationship continued. Management even reassigned supervisors to protect and promote this relationship. As a result the supervisors had to learn new regions, effectively taking supervisors out of the field operations for about six months as they learned their new regions. This began the decline of safety measures in field operations and team morale. Mosquito populations spiked. A second couple in a supervisor-subordinate relationship did immediately disclose their relationship to management but rather than maintain them in separate job descriptions, management promoted her to the position of an assistant supervisor, despite her lack of experience and knowledge. As such, I've witnessed her supervise her own husband. This second couple, who did not like me, actually moved into the house next to me. The discomfort I was experiencing at work then became around the clock. These conflict of interest situations resulted in a hostile work environment. 4.0 Illegal Spraying at Mosquito Fish Hatchery at White Slough I disagree with this finding. District management failed to comply with California Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires that employers notify employees whenever a pesticide like Formalin is sprayed. Formalin is a known cancer-causing chemical. The District failed to post warnings and failed to take appropriate medical steps for those who might be exposed to this carcinogen. Characterizing Formalin spraying as "medical treatment" flies in the face of the fact that this chemical is dangerous to human beings. At the times that Formalin was sprayed, many employees were sickened with symptoms. I have records to show that 575 gallons of Formalin were applied to less than 5 acres of fish ponds. I suggest that this is a very high concentration. If the Formalin was not dangerous, then why did management only stop using it after the Grand Jury investigation in 2009? Further investigation into this matter is especially warranted. 12/20/2013