Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Personnel Board - Meeting Date: 10/21/2009 CITY OF GLENDALE PERSONNEL BOARD HEARING MINUTES CONRAD ESTRADA October 21, 2009 @ 6:00 pm OPEN SESSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Terri Leon, Chairperson Gary Sherwood, Vice Chairperson Roberta Podzius, Board Member Al Lenox, Board Member STAFF PRESENT: Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Director James Brown, Assistant Human Resources Director Naomi Jackson, Human Resources Program Manager Lorena Sanchez, Human Resources Analyst WITNESSES: Conrad Estrada, Appellant Samuel McAllen, Code Compliance Director Paul Hernandez Lore Bowers Thomas Councell Ed De Santiago Stephan Eno Mark Greenawalt Stacy Laborin Kenneth Ross Jim Trammel OTHERS PRESENT: Christina Parry Joan Black Andrew Bowers Bryan Bowers Pamela Councell Sherry Cornillie Laura DiGioia Harry Evans Anthony Giunta Donna Ford Terrell, RPR, RMR, RDR, CRR, Certified Reporter #50250, recorded the record of the hearing. Estrada,Conrad Personnel Board Hearing Minutes October 21,2009 Page 2 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (Pages 4 - 6) Terri Leon, Chairperson, called the Personnel Board Hearing to order at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21, 2009. Roll call was taken. Mr. Conrad Estrada, appellant, represented himself in Propria Persona. The City of Glendale, respondent, was represented by Mr. Sam McAllen, Code Compliance Director. ORDER OF PROOF (Pages 6 - 8) Terri Leon, Chairperson, presented the Order of Proof. PURPOSE OF HEARING The purpose of the hearing was to take testimony in the matter of the disciplinary appeal requested by Mr. Conrad Estrada, a former City of Glendale Code Compliance Department employee. On July 20, 2009 Mr. Estrada was served with a Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment. His Notice of Termination was served on August 5, 2009. Mr. Estrada's termination from his position as a Code Inspector I, was based on his violation of City of Glendale Human Resources Policies and Procedures. Specifically, during an internal administrative investigation, allegations of unbecoming conduct and workplace harassment were sustained against Mr. Estrada. Investigative findings determined he verbally attacked and engaged in threatening and intimidating behavior toward a female co-worker. Mr. Estrada's actions constituted major performance deficiencies in violation of City policy. BACKGROUND On Wednesday April 22, 2009, a Code Compliance Supervisor advised Human Resources of a complaint he received against Mr. Conrad Estrada of inappropriate behavior in the workplace. According to the complaint, on March 31, 2009, prior to and following a staff function, which included a potluck and a meeting to discuss weekend work schedules, Mr. Estrada was verbally abusive and threatened physical harm toward a female co-worker. Certain members of the Code Compliance Department witnessed his misconduct. During the course of an internal administrative investigation, both Mr. Estrada and the female co-worker disclosed they were previously involved in an intimate personal relationship outside of work. Incident No. 1 A female co-worker of Mr. Estrada alleged prior to a staff function at the Paseo Neighborhood Park, he contacted her utilizing the direct connect function of his City issued cell phone and made the comment, "I don't want any f king attitude from you today!" The female co-worker was riding in a vehicle with another Code Compliance staff member who overheard your comment. The female co-worker stated she was embarrassed by Mr. Estrada's action toward her. Mr. Estrada admitted to making this comment to her and also admitted he asked her, "Why do you have to be such a f king bitch?" Mr. Estrada stated he has made this statement to her several times both on and off duty. He alleged profanity was a _ generally accepted practice in the Code Compliance Department; however he admitted he knew the use of profanity in the workplace was inappropriate. -2 - , Estrada, Conrad Personnel Board Hearing Minutes October 21,2009 Page 3 Incident No.2 Following the meeting to discuss scheduling, Mr. Estrada became upset with this female co-worker regarding her participation in the meeting, and stated to her, "I wanted to rip those f _king glasses off your face and punch you in the mouth!" Another Code Compliance employee witnessed this exchange. This employee was stunned and offended by Mr. Estrada's behavior and his statement that he would punch a woman, much less a co-worker. The female co-worker stated she was embarrassed, humiliated, ashamed, and disgusted by Mr. Estrada's behavior toward her. During his investigative interview Mr. Estrada denied making this statement; however, witness testimony confirmed this statement was made by him. Mr. Estrada also stated he told his co-worker, "If you're going to say something, f _king own up to it." He also stated he told his co-worker she was going to end up with a black eye, because of the way she carried on at the meeting. Even after the employee left the park, Mr. Estrada continued his harassing behavior by calling her and accusing her of hitting another vehicle and attempting to hit him as she left the park. This employee brought this matter to the attention of her supervisor, not only because it was humiliating to her,but because others were aware of it. Mr. Estrada, as well as witnesses to his misconduct, received Anti-Harassment Training and were aware that his behavior toward his co-worker on March 31, 2009, while on duty was in violation of City policy. In addition, despite being previously involved in a personal relationship with his co-worker; and despite his allegation that the use of profanity by Code staff is a generally accepted practice, Mr. Estrada's venomous attack on his co-worker, while on duty and in front of peers, went beyond any established boundaries of suitability for the workplace. The City of Glendale prohibits conduct which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment and is committed to providing an environment free of harassment and violence. Mr. Estrada's actions described in the two incidents above constitute major performance deficiencies, including workplace harassment and conduct unbecoming of a City employee. VIOLATIONS Mr. Conrad Estrada's actions demonstrated major performance deficiencies in violation of the following Human Resources Policies and Procedures: No. 202—Nepotism, Section II,D.I D. Personal Relationships 1. Personal relationships involving employees, on their personal time and off City property are outside the City's area of responsibility. However, the City will become involved and will take appropriate action if problems resulting from such relationships manifest themselves on the job. No. 503—Workplace Harassment, Section II.A.1.a,2.a, b A. Prohibited Harassment 1. a. Prohibited Acts -3 - • Estiada,Conrad Personnel Board Hearing Minutes October 21,2009 Page 4 Each employee has a responsibility to maintain a workplace free from harassment. Prohibited harassment includes, but is not limited to, intimidation or persistent abuse of another, whether physically, verbally or in writing. 2. b. Other Prohibited Harassment Other prohibited harassment is defined as verbal or physical conduct which has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. No. 503—Workplace Harassment, Section II.B.1, 1.b. B. Violence in the Workplace 1. Each employee has a responsibility to maintain a workplace free from violence. Any threats or acts of violence made by or to an employee, against another person's life, health, well being, family or property shall not be tolerated. a. Violent behaviors include,but are not limited to: ii. Making threatening remarks on the City of Glendale property, at City of Glendale events or under circumstances that may negatively impact the City of Glendale's ability to conduct its business. b. Employees that are in violation of the City's procedure are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. 5. Response Plans c. Disciplinary Action ii. Any employee deemed responsible for conduct which is prohibited by this procedure is subject to disciplinary action appropriate to the specific incident, up to and including termination from employment. No. 504 —Employee Conduct, Section I Purpose Employees shall at all times conduct themselves in a way that reflects favorably on the public they serve. The City upholds, promotes and demands the highest standards of ethics from all of its employees. Employees should maintain the utmost standards of personal integrity, truthfulness, honesty and fairness in carrying out their public duties, avoid any improprieties in their roles as public employees, and never use their City position or power for improper personal gain. All employees are -4 - Estrada,Conrad Personnel Board Hearing Minutes October 21,2009 Page 5 expected to respect and comply with all federal, state and local laws, including all municipal policies, rules, regulations, directives and procedures. No. 513—Disciplinary Policy, Section II.E.2 Major Deficiencies These are acts that involve questions of trust or honesty, constitute a threat to the orderly City operations or pose a threat to the health, welfare or safety of employees or other individuals. • Conduct unbecoming of a City employee ➢ Abusive attitude, language or conduct, toward employees or the public ➢ On or off duty conduct which may bring discredit to employees of the City • Unauthorized physical restraint or contact, or verbal or physical attack upon another employee or any other person or the attempt to do so, while on duty. • Misuse or inappropriate use of electronic communication system CITY'S OPENING STATEMENT (Pages 8 - 12) Samuel McAllen, Code Compliance Director, gave the City's opening statement. APPELLANT'S OPENING STATEMENT(Pages 9 - 14) Conrad Estrada, Appellant, representing himself in Propria Persona, gave the opening statement on his behalf. CITY PRESENTATION (Pages 14 - 70) Samuel McAllen, Code Compliance Director, presented the City's case. The following witnesses were called to testify for the City. All witnesses were sworn in. Conrad Estrada, Appellant(Pages 15 - 21) Lore Bowers, Code Inspector II (Pages 22 - 42) Thomas Councell, Code Inspector II (Pages 43 —52) Mark Greenawalt, Code Inspector II (Pages 53—61) Samuel McAllen, Code Compliance Director(Pages 61 —70) APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION (Pages 71- 1071 Conrad Estrada, Appellant, presented his case. The following witness was called to testify for the Appellant. All witnesses were sworn in. Lore Bowers, Code Inspector II (Pages 72 - 78) Thomas Councell, Code Inspector II (Pages 78 - 85) Kenneth Ross, Code Inspector H (Pages 85 - 88) -5 - Estrada,Conrad Personnel Board Hearing Minutes October 21,2009 Page 6 Stephen Emo, Code Compliance Supervisor (Pages 90 - 99) Stacy Laborin, Code Inspector II (Pages 100 - 103) Mark Greenawalt, Code Inspector II(Pages 103 - 104) Edward De Santiago, Code Inspector II(Pages 104 - 107) CITY CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Pages 107- 110) APPELLANT CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Pages 110— 115) CITY FINAL ARGUMENTS No final arguments were presented by the City. EXHIBITS Appellant Conrad Estrada attempted to place into evidence several personal emails between him and Lore Bowers. According to Mr. Estrada, the intent of the emails was to show the type of language used between them during the course of their relationship, when their relationship ended, and to set a precedence of what kind of behavior and treatment Mr. Estrada received in his department. Samuel McAllen, representing the City, objected to the emails, stating the emails were not relevant to the incident which occurred on March 31, 2009. Chairperson Leon communicated to Mr. Estrada that she and the other Board members had read the emails and understood his intent in presenting the emails; however, she stated she would prefer Mr. Estrada not go through all of the emails. Mr. Estrada made two subsequent references to these emails. Mr. McAllen continued to object, based on the relevancy of the documentation. When Mr. Estrada asked Ms. Bowers to refer to Exhibit 8, Chairperson Leon communicated to Mr. Estrada she would not allow it. PERSONNEL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS The Personnel Board deliberated the testimony and voted in Open Session. Question #1 (Pages 119) Chairperson Terri Leon called to entertain discussion and/or call for a vote on item number one: Was the action of the Appointing Officer based on political, religious or racial prejudice? There were no discussions made by the Board Members. Chairperson Terri Leon called for a vote. The question was voted upon and passed unanimously. All members voted no. Question #2 (Page 119 - 120) Chairperson Tern Leon called to entertain discussion and called for a vote on item number two: Did the City follow its policies and procedures that provide employees with the right to appeal certain disciplinary actions? There were no discussions made by the Board Members. Chairperson Terri Leon called for a vote. The question was voted upon and passed unanimously. All members vote yes. -6- Estrada,Conrad Personnel Board Hearing Minutes October 21,2009 Page 7 Question #3 (Page 120) Chairperson Terri Leon called to entertain discussion and called for a vote on item number three: Did the Appointing Officer have just cause to take disciplinary action based on the stated violations of the Human Resources Policy? There were no discussions made by the Board Members. Chairperson Terri Leon called for a vote. The question was voted upon and passed unanimously. All members vote yes. Question #4 (Page 121) Chairperson Terri Leon called to entertain discussion and/or vote on item number four: Does the Board sustain or not sustain the action of the Appointing Officer, based on the facts and information presented to the Board? There were no discussions made by the Board Members. Chairperson Terri Leon called for a vote. The question was voted upon and passed unanimously. All members voted to sustain the disciplinary action of the Appointing Officer. CONCLUSION BY THE CHAIR (Page 121) Chairperson Terri Leon concluded, in reliance on the evidence submitted in this hearing, the Board found the specific reasons presented to the Board at this hearing do justify the discipline assessed in this matter and, therefore, voted to recommend the disciplinary action be sustained. The hearing adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Submitted'by: 111 imCarmicle, Human Resources Director Human Resources Department -7 -