Custodians vs. Wayne Ward: union warning

DISSENT the BLOG has been forwarded an email, sent on Tuesday by Mary W (she’s the Chief Job Steward of the CSEA local) to district Human Resources officials (namely, Teddi Lorch and Bob King), that threatens a “hostile work environment/retaliation complaint” against IVC Director of Facilities & Maintenance Wayne Ward.

Recently, at the request of several IVC Facilities and Maintenance workers, Dissent reported on Ward’s alleged unprofessional conduct.

In the letter, Mary writes:

I would like to alert you to the fact that CSEA is on the verge of filing a hostile work environment/retaliation complaint against Wayne Ward for his treatment of the custodians at Irvine Valley College. Board Policy 4000.5 prohibits retaliation:

The District seeks to foster an environment in which all employees and students feel free to report incidents of harassment without fear of retaliation or reprisal. Therefore, the District also strictly prohibits retaliation against any individual for filing a complaint of harassment or for participating in a harassment investigation. Such conduct is illegal and constitutes a violation of this policy….

…Of particular concern are some of the actions taken against custodian Ruben Morales. Morales transferred to IVC from Saddleback because it is closer to his Long Beach home. He was a graveyard shift custodian at Saddleback, and laterally transferred to a graveyard shift at Irvine Valley. In the past year, Ward has changed Morales’ schedule no less than five times. Several of these changes were verbally given, but Morales was not aware that he should require confirmation in writing, or that he had the option of refusing unless provided with 20 days notice in writing. Most recently, Morales was today given 20 days notice that he will be transferred to swing shift from days, and that another custodian will be transferred from days to swing shift. Supposedly, this was done to increase the efficiency of the work unit, but since neither custodian has any reason to believe their work is unsatisfactory, it is hard to see how this is of enough benefit to the College to warrant the disruption to the employees’ lives. In fact, Wayne Ward is aware that Morales works a second job that is necessary to support his family, and that this change to a swing shift, which he has never before been required to work, will disrupt his ability to continue in this employment and cause undue hardship for his family.

The most recent actions seem to be in response to the Unusual Occurrence Report that the custodians filed after being accused of planting a condom in another M&O employees locker, and have escalated since this event has become a frequent topic in Dissent [the Blog]. Most recently, Dissent … observed Morales being forced to spend several hours on his hands and knees scraping chewed gum off the concrete in the main traveled areas at IVC during the hours that classes were in session. [Dissent]…asked Morales several questions which he answered politely and respectfully. [Dissent]…chose to write up the humiliation of this employee, bringing even more retribution down on his head.

CSEA cannot allow these actions to continue. We would like to work cooperatively with the District to resolve problems of this nature. Please investigate this situation as soon as possible and advise us as to what action will be taken with regard to the 20-day notice to Mr. Morales. Also, please know that if retaliatory action of this nature continues, whether against Mr. Morales, another custodian, or the unit as a whole, we will have no option but to file a formal hostile work environment complaint and the appropriate grievance for violation of these Board Policies.

Mary [W]
Chief Job Steward
CSEA Chapter 586

DtB is relieved to find that CSEA is taking action in this case. We hope that the matter will soon be resolved.

SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION: the conversation between a Dissent writer—me—and Mr. Morales involved only one question, asked as I was headed to class: “Hi. What are you doing?”—or something to that effect. Morales—he was not on his hands and knees at the time; he was working a scraping knife that was attached to a handle—gave a brief answer, which I did not understand. I smiled and then continued to my classroom. That Mr. Morales’ gum-scraping activity was particularly disagreeable was suggested to me later by workers. The activity struck me as perhaps disagreeable, but not humiliating.

Dissent’s coverage of the custodians’ trials and tribulations re Ward was prompted by a group of workers’ contacting Reb and me. Dissent did not contact the workers. Before any blog posting about this matter, Reb and I repeatedly explained to workers that Dissent coverage of their situation would likely yield retaliation.

The workers seemed to understand this. The (four or five) workers who visited us explained that they had already contacted the Lariat, hoping that it would report their situation. They expressed disappointment and surprise that the student paper evidently opted not to do so, despite their urging.

Reb and I urged the workers to demand assistance from their union. Perhaps owing to low expectations regarding union assistance, the workers seemed determined to bring their situation to light.

Finally, after running the initial blog past the workers’ apparent spokesman, and making all requested corrections and changes, we posted the blog and commenced Dissent’s coverage of the situation.

I have been told that some workers have contacted local news media and that a reporter is working on a story. —CW