Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Civil Service Board - 03/10/2003 MINUTES 1 E'S a', 516*CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING 1201 LEOPARD ST., CITY HALL HUMAN RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM MARCH 10,2003 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CITY STAFF PRESENT Cydney Farrar, Vice-Chair Cynthia C. Garcia, Director of.. Human Resources Erich Wend!,Member Susan Hutson,Asst. City Attorney Jeffrey Kaplan,Director of Solid Waste Services JoAnn Espinosa,H.R. Sr.Analyst C. Papageorge/D. Caudillo,H.R. The 516th Civil Service Board Meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. Item #1: Review and approve the minutes of the 513th Civil Service Board meeting which have already been approved but need signatures. ( w Item#2: Review and approve the minutes of the S15 Civil Service Board meeting held on July 17,2002. Motion to approve minutes made by Cydney Farrar. Motion was seconded and passed. Item #3: Review and consider the appeal of a 10-day suspension filed by Orlando Suarez, Sr.,Equipment Operator. Opening statements were made by Susan Hutson, representing the City. The City subpoenaed Ira Rodriguez as a witness, but Mr. Rodriguez is out on sick leave and, therefore, was excused. Mr. Henry Castro, who was Mr. Suarez' supervisor, no longer works for the City and does not live in Corpus Christi. It has been arranged for Mr. Castro to be available by telephone to give his testimony. Mr. Roland Garza, representative for Mr. Suarez,objected because according to the letter of the suspension it was stated that Henry Castro was a deciding factor in the suspension and he would like to have him there in person. Susan Hutson said that Mr. Castro now lives and works in Laredo and is available by telephone and we have previously let witnesses testify by phone. The Board agreed that Mr. Castro could testify by telephone. The witnesses were brought in,administered the oath and the Rule was invoked and explained to the witnesses. SCANNED Susan Hutson made the opening statement. She stated that this hearing was being held because of a severe breach of safety protocol which was caused because of a poor decision by Orlando Suarez. She stated that evidence would show that on March 12,2002 Orlando Suarez, a good mechanic,was called out to Padre Island to service a trash truck. It was one of the City's new trucks which was having brake problems. When he arrived on the scene he checked the brake mechanism and found a problem with the right front brake. He had two choices to make. He could have made the repair on the spot if he had the tools and equipment to do so, or he could have had the vehicle towed. He had the authority to call a tow truck or have a supervisor call a tow truck Mr. Suarez did neither of the above. Mr. Suarez plugged the air hose and tied the air hose back to the brake chamber. By doing that, he disabled one of the brakes on the vehicle. This was now a 13 ton trash truck carrying tons of trash and missing a brake. He then allowed the driver of the vehicle to pilot it from Padre Island, over the JFK Causeway through Spring Break traffic, to the repair facility—a distance of approximately 20 miles. The vehicle could not continue its route, but was allowed to be driven 20 miles in defective shape. The heavier the vehicle, the longer the stopping distance and time, especially when one of the brakes had been taken off. Testimony will be given that the vehicle was pulling to the left which is into on-coming traffic. Mr. Suarez' actions that day were bad in four ways. It put our driver at risk; it put the public on the roadway at risk; it put the mechanic at the repair facility at risk; and it jeopardized the warranty on this new $140,000 trash truck. He compounded that mistake by not accepting responsibility for what he has done wrong. He does not believe he did anything wrong. Mr. Roland Garza, Mr. Suarez' representative, stated that Mr. Suarez felt he made the right decision that day based on his experience and his knowledge. He felt he had a mutual agreement with all parties involved and that the right thing was done. Mr. Garza said the City offered Mr. Suarez a reduced 2-day suspension, if he would give up his right to come before the Civil Service Board,but he declined. Mr. Garza stated that the truck's warranty was not voided, and the manufacturer of the truck felt that it was the appropriate thing to do. Susan Hutson called the first witness to the stand, Orlando Suarez. He stated he is an Equipment Mechanic III and has been with the City eighteen years including his two years with the military. He works at the Elliott Landfill. His supervisor is Tony Benavides who is supervised by Mr. Jeffrey Kaplan. He acknowledged that he had been given training on how to repair the new trucks. He asked Mr. Castro and was given one of the trainings that involved automation computerized system that picks up the 90-gallon container. He stated he has attended other trainings on how to repair brakes on other vehicles and that there was a difference in the brakes, but that he is aware of how the brakes work. He stated be was a heavy equipment mechanic for Baker Marine before working for the City and he has more than 30 years experience. He has a CDL with an endorsement of hazardous material.and tanker. He agreed that before he could get a commercial drivers' license he had to read the DPS' commercial drivers' handbook and had to pass an exam. Ms. Hutson stated that the handbook advises that a safe vehicle is one with all of its' brakes functioning, and asked Mr. Suarez if this was correct. Mr. Suarez stated that it was. He agreed that there was a procedure for calling a tow truck when necessary and that he had made repairs in the field before. He was asked if it was correct that Mr. Castro had counseled him as to when he could call a tow truck and when he couldn't. He said that Mr. Castro had not talked to him about that procedure. He knew about it because that procedure had been in place. On March 12,2002 he stated that he had been called out to Padre Island to look at a refuse vehicle that was having brake problems. He did not test drive the vehicle because the brakes were locked and it was in the middle of a public road. He found that the hose to the front right air chamber had broken off. The air brakes lost all the air pressure which puts the system automatically into emergency brakes and stops the vehicle from being moved. Ms. Hutson asked if this was a safety feature and Mr. Suarez agreed. He stated what he did to the vehicle was block the line going to that air chamber and tied it back to keep it from getting damaged from the wheel, and then Juan, the driver, got into the truck and built up the air pressure to about 120 and then they moved the truck from blocking traffic. He then checked the rest of the unit to see if there were any other problems. Ms. Hutson asked if he had bypassed the safety system in order to move the truck. ( Mr. Suarez stated he did not. He said he did not make the repair on the spot because it was still under warranty. He was asked if he was authorized to jeery rig the vehicle and if that was a good idea? He said he was supposed to get the vehicle moved to a safe area or a repair destination as soon as possible. He said he did not call a tow truck because the truck could not be moved from the middle of the road because it was totally locked up and because it was not necessary. The fix he made was necessary to get the truck rolling and to release the emergency brake. Ms. Hutson asked Ms. Suarez if the truck could have continued on its route. Mr. Suarez said "no" it could not because it had to be repaired. Ms.Hutson asked if the vehicle could not continue on its garbage route, why was it safe to drive the vehicle up and over the causeway, more than 20 miles away? Mr. Suarez said the vehicle had adequate brakes, 90% of the service brakes, to be returned back to a repair destination. She then asked if Mr. Suarez had the equipment to replace the chamber on the spot. Mr. Suarez answered no, and said since the vehicle was only three months old it was under factory warranty. She asked if the safest option was for him to have the vehicle towed. He said that was not the safest option. He further stated that the vehicle did not have tons of garbage...it had about two streets worth of garbage which was about 400-500 lbs. Ms. Hutson stated that the decision to move this truck along JFK Causeway was during Spring Break heavy traffic last year while more people were on the road and the conditions were unsafe. Mr. Suarez did not agree. Ms. Hutson asked Mr. Suarez if when a brake is disabled on a vehicle, doesn't it pull in the opposite direction of that brake? Mr. Suarez did not agree and said that with the ABS computerized system, the brake system is kept under control. Ms. Hutson asked if he had been warned and counseled about safety issues in the past. He said he had and that be had attended safety meetings. He stated he knew safety was first, and then collection. She asked if plugging off the brake hose was one of the recommended repair procedures. He stated it was. She asked where the procedure came from and he said it came from a past practice and that the manufacturer provides a tool to release that emergency brake system. He said it was correct procedure to plug the line because of past practice. Ms. Hutson stated there was not an actual tool provided by the manufacturer to plug the line. Ms. Hutson asked if in the same set of circumstances he would allow a driver to drive that vehicle over the JFK Causeway and Mr. Suarez said he would. She asked if he was saying he hadn't learned anything from the suspension, and he stated that the action that Mr. Jeffrey Kaplan took was not correct. She said that the fact Mr. Kaplan suspended him for ten days tells him this is inappropriate behavior. Mr. Suarez said Mr. Kaplan does not know what is going on in the field. The question was asked as to what time of day this incident occurred, and Mr. Suarez stated it was about 8:30 a.m. He was asked about the statement he made that the manufacturer said Mr. Suarez had made the right decision. Mr. Garza stated he would be bringing that up in an Exhibit. Mr. Henry Castro was called in Laredo, Texas to testify, and was sworn in. Mr. Castro stated he was an Equipment Mechanic Supervisor for fourteen years with the City of Corpus Christi. He was Mr. Suarez supervisor from the time of his transfer to SWS until he was transferred to the landfill. He stated that he had spoken to Mr. Suarez about safety procedures about some things. He agreed that he had to do quite a bit of supervising of Mr. Suarez because of his failure to follow procedures at times. He stated he had to issue him a daily work schedule and a letter of counseling for failure to follow instructions on October 16, 2001. He also received another letter of reprimand on November 21, 2001 for failure to follow instructions, leaving a tool on a truck and something else that Mr. Castro could not remember. Ms. Hutson asked if part of that letter of reprimand,was about safety features and procedures and Mr. Castro said that it was. Mr. Castro said they had a strained working relationship and that Mr. Suarez was not receptive to his supervising. He further stated that he had talked to Mr. Suarez about towing procedures, and that Mr. Suarez had requested a tow truck on other occasions. Mr. Castro said he became aware of a brake problem with that truck when he was contacted by Heavy Equipment Foreman, Ira Rodriguez that there had been a brake that had been compromised. Mr. Castro said he was disappointed and surprised by the actions Mr. Snares had taken on the truck. He further stated that ( he had never given any mechanic the authority to perform this type of procedure on a truck,and that he felt Mr. Suarez ignored the tow truck procedure he knew about and put the driver, the public, and our mechanics in harms way. However, no damage was done that voided the warranty.. Ms. Hutson asked Mr. Castro if he felt that the suspension was warranted in this case and he replied that he felt the suspension was warranted. Witness was passed to Roland Garza who asked Mr. Castro if he had ever been approached or given any letters from Mr. Suarez where he outlined some concerns of some of the unsafe practices in the Maintenance Department. Mr. Castro said he had submitted some concerns regarding heavy equipment, but he wasn't in charge of heavy equipment. Mr. Garza read from a memo addressed to Henry Castro on January 126 Orlando Suarez requested a meeting concerning the demands of the SWS fleet. Mr. Castro was asked if he remembered receiving the letter detailing these issues and he replied that those would be normal things that the mechanic does. Copies were also sent to Cynthia Garcia and Estella Garcia and requested a response in writing from Mr. Castro. Mr. Castro responded that he did not remember if he responded in writing. Mr. Garza said that Mr. Suarez sent another letter to Mr. Castro on July 23, 2001 regarding safety recommendations and he requested a response. The letter stated he was requesting a monthly Safety Meeting. Mr. Castro said some safety issues were addressed, but not necessarily by a notice on a bulletin board. He stated that safety issues were important for everyone. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Castro if mechanics had an opportunity to requisition parts ? from the Service Center so they could take them out to the field for vehicles that were covered under warranty. Mr. Castro said the mechanics know that as long as they return the old part for warranty, that this shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Garza offered as Exhibit 1 (P-1)a letter from Rush Truck Centers of Texas. He asked Mr. Castro if the procedure that Mr. Suarez performed out in the field was an industry standard. Mr. Castro replied "no". Mr. Garza also asked him if these trucks were purchased from Peterbilt in San Antonio. Mr. Castro said he thought that was where the manufacturing occurred but he wasn't sure where they were delivered from. He said he did not have any relationship or know anyone who worked at the Rush Truck Center in San Antonio. He stated that Mr. Suarez was knowledgeable about towing procedures and should call Ira or himself for wrecker service. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Castro if he had ever told workers out in the field, that when not necessary, do not call a wrecker because of the expense involved. Mr. Castro said he had never instructed anyone to do that. Mr. Garza asked about the June 15,2001 letter to Mr. Suarez concerning a daily work schedule for Solid Waste Services and Call-In and Call-Out Procedures for repairs. Mr. Garza said that on page 3 of Mr. Suarez' 10-day suspension it says that Henry Castro has instructed Mr. Suarez to call him on non-routine matters involving other than standard operating procedures. Mr. Castro said that was correct. Mr. Garza asked where on the daily work schedule did Mr. Castro point that out. He stated that if you read it you should be able to comprehend what he was trying to say. Mr. Garza read the ( I form that stated "notify the Foreman of major repairs sent to Maintenance Services". He asked if Mr. Castro had forgotten to put routine or non-routine matters on the form. Mr. Castro stated he had not forgotten and that Mr. Suarez knew what had to be done. Mr. Garza asked if Mr. Suarez was in compliance as long as Mr. Suarez notified the Foreman. Mr. Castro said "no" because the Foreman would have to notify Mr. Castro. That day there was a cell phone on the truck that could have been used to call Mr. Castro. It would have been Mr. Suarez' responsibility to call him because he worked directly under Mr. Castro. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Castro if he was aware of the circumstances on the day in question regarding the side loader trash vehicle, Unit#1731? He answered "no" he was not aware of the decision to drive the truck back in and he had carried a cell phone with him that day. He became aware of the situation when Ira Rodriguez called him and asked him to come by Heavy Equipment and look at a unit that had been compromised, which was a safety issue. Mr. Garza read from employee Exhibit 1 (P-1). Mr. Castro said the letter stated moving the truck to a "safe location"for repair which did not mean to drive it 20 miles. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Castro if he thought the manufacturer was incorrect in recommending this as an industry standard. Mr. Castro said the manufacturer was not operating that vehicle and the City would be liable if something had happened, and he didn't think the manufacturer meant it could be driven 20 miles. Mr. Garza cross-examined Mr. Suarez and asked him how many hours of training he had attended on this 13-ton side loader compactor. He answered approximately four hours, but he had to complain to Mr. Henry Castro to get the training. He said the City does not have a practice of keeping up with training. He received the service call the day of the incident around 9:00 a.m. The trucks leave the yard at 7:30 a.m. It took 30 to 45 minutes to get to the truck and he spoke to Juan Vasquez when he arrived. David Garza, the field foreman for those working on garbage collection, was not at the site. Mr. Suarez said there was about 500 lbs. of trash in the truck. Juan Vasquez had spoken to David Garza and there were no instructions for Mr. Suarez to call a tow truck. Mr. Garza read parts of the letter of suspension that stated Mr. Suarez had disabled the right front brake instead of making the repair. Mr. Suarez stated the unit was down and it was locked-up. He said the City does not have a practice of teaching employees to jeery-rig things. He said he has to make service calls to job sites and during heavy traffic and on busy freeways and that the time of Spring Break was like making a service call at any other time. Mr. Suarez stated he went to San Antonio to Rush Truck Centers of Texas, the manufacturer of the Peterbilt trucks. He stated that in his opinion the work he performed on the truck at the site was an acceptable practice. He enabled the truck to be moved and not block traffic. This was a joint decision among David Garza, the truck operator and himself. There was no recommendation to call a tow truck, ( and no objections were voiced. Mr. Suarez said that the Warranty was not compromised. • Mr.Castro stated that the last time he renewed his CDL license was about three and a half years ago and he does not have to retest unless he carries extra endorsements. He was asked if it was a practice to call Risk Management and he said it was not. He was asked if the City had provided him with a copy of a Texas Commercial Motor Public Safety handbook that was revised in 2002. Mr. Suarez stated he had not received one. Mr. Garza asked if Mr. Suarez had seen the check-in document before. He said he had, but it did not state he had to call Mr. Castro on non-routine matters. A discussion followed about the 10-day suspension letter that stated he unilaterally made the decision on the truck. He stated be did not and that it was a joint decision among Juan Vasquez, the fleet field foreman and himself. The letter stated the vehicle cost$140,000 and was under factory warranty and Mr. Suarez agreed. Mr. Suarez was given this letter five months after the incident. He stated that there was not enough room in the parking lot at work to test the brakes on the vehicle. The first thing to do when you take a vehicle into Heavy Equipment is to park the vehicle, go into the office and make out a work order. The Foreman usually writes up the work requisition and this is not a job function of Mr. Suarez. Mr. Suarez says that after the incident with the truck there was no policy posted on the board that would stop him from performing this practice again. lie was �/ I informed by Juan Vasquez that the City wanted him to sign a form stating he had no knowledge of the fix that was done to the truck. He found out two or three months after the incident that he was being investigated for disciplinary action. He said Mr. Kaplan gave him an opportunity to take a 10-day suspension, keep the letter of allegations and be transferred; or, be given a 2-day suspension, keep the letter and give up his right to go to the City Civil Service Board. Mr. Suarez stated he did not feel he had done anything wrong. Susan Hutson cross-examined Mr. Suarez and stated he had expressed his First Amendment right in the workplace by refusing to accept instruction from his supervisor. He said this was not correct and that he had refused to sign the check- in/check-out heckin/check-out form because he wanted Mr. Castro to be involved in helping to solve some of the problems they were having with the equipment. Ms. Hutson presented City Exhibit #1, a letter of counseling to Mr. Suarez which Mr. Suarez had refused to sign. Mr. Suarez said he did not sign because of a credibility problem with Mr. Castro. Mr. Suarez acknowledged getting a letter of reprimand from Mr. Kaplan in November, 2001, which was presented as City Exhibit #2. He refused to sign the letter and denied having a problem with authority. A discussion followed on the ABS braking system. Ms. Hutson stated that fixing the truck to get it moved to the side was not the problem; letting the truck be driven 20 miles was the problem. ( ,, • Mr.Garza asked Mr. Suarez to show him on employee's Exhibit#-2 where it said he was supposed to fill out the work order or call a wrecker. Mr. Suarez said the letter from Henry Castro did not say that. Exhibits P-3 and P-4 were presented to the Board. Mr. Roland Garza presented P-5 and P-6, a letter of counseling and time sheet for Henry Castro dated October 16, which shows that Mr. Castro didn't even arrive at work in time to observe Mr. Suarez. Mr. Suarez stated that when he went to visit the manufacturer they stated the repair was an industry standard. He stated he felt that he did not do anything wrong. Mr. Garza offered P-7 as an Exhibit. A discussion was held concerning a book Mr. Suarez had bought from Peterbilt. Mr. Garza said the letter from Rush opined that the temporary type repair that was done on the truck to move it from traffic to a place of repair was acceptable. Mr. Suarez stated the repair destination was 14 miles from the area where the truck was broken down. Ms. Hutson called John W. Coleman, Sr. Equipment Mechanic, who has been with the City for 17 years as a witness. He stated he had serviced Unit #1731 on March 12, 2002 for a "noise on the right front brake" according to the work order. He drove the truck less than 10 mph in the shop area to ascertain the problem. It noticeably pulled to the left. When he examined it he found that it had a line tied off. He took a picture of it, and it was submitted as City Exhibit #3. He took a picture because he wanted to complain to his supervisor because this wasn't a proper repair—it was a "patch" at best and not safe to move because it had one wheel blocked out. Mr. Garza objected that Mr. Coleman was not a field service mechanic; he is an in-house mechanic. Ms. Hutson said he had experience with this vehicle repair. Mr. Coleman said he did not believe it was safe to drive that vehicle from where it broke down to the repair center and that the type repair that had been done should have been noted on the work order. He also stated he felt Mr. Suarez was a good mechanic. Mr. Garza asked if Mr. Coleman felt the manufacturer was incorrect to state the vehicle could be moved to the repair center for repairs. He stated it put the City at risk, but that the manufacturer must know their vehicle. A discussion followed about the name of the braking system. Mr. Coleman said he fills out the work orders sometimes. He replaced the grease seal for the wheel that day and the vehicle checked out fine. A discussion about the repair followed. Mr. Hutson presented City Exhibit #4, a two-page document that Mr. Coleman signed concerning his statement of what had transpired with the repair to the truck. The photo (taken after 8:00 a.m.)and statement were from March 12,2002. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Coleman if he had discretion in making decisions in the field for temporary repairs. He said he did. If a wrecker was needed the office would have to be called and the office would call one. • Susan Hutson called Jeff Kaplan,Director of Solid Waste Services as a witness. He stated he has worked with the City for two years, 'and has twenty-eight years experience in municipal or county government. He stated Mr. Suarez was transferred under Mr. Kaplan due to a disciplinary action and that he did not get along with Mr. Castro. Mr.Kaplan later reprimanded Mr. Suarez, City Exhibit#2, due to a problem with supervision, and because he left a wrench on a vehicle after completing repairs which was a safety issue. Mr. Suarez refused to sign the letter. Mr. Kaplan said that Jim Davis from Fleet Maintenance showed him a picture and said his mechanic was very concerned because Mr. Suarez had made the repair. Mr.Kaplan asked Patricia Gomez to investigate the repair incident. Mr.Kaplan stated he saw the letter from Rush Center and said he did not think the letter meant the truck could have been driven 20 miles or 14 miles. He says he called and specifically questioned Rush about that, and they stated that is the most they would ever write in a letter because it was an unsafe practice. He said he spoke with a company spokesman from Peterbilt, who is the truck manufacturer, not Rush. Mr.Kaplan described a brake anti-locking system. Ms. Hutson asked Mr. Kaplan about his offer to Mr. Suarez reducing the 10-day suspension. He stated Mr. Suarez on 3 separate occasions told him that he didn't want to waste the City's money and why didn't Kaplan drop the charges. Mr. Kaplan said he told Mr. Suarez he warranted the suspension, but he was willing to lower the 10-day suspension on the basis that he recognize his error. He did state that Mr. Suarez had been doing a pretty good job. Roland Garza asked Mr. Kaplan if he had a high concern for safety in the work place. Mr. Kaplan answered yes he did. He was asked if he posted memos or bulletins on the bulletin boards or offer training sessions to the field mechanics. Mr. Kaplan said he had safety procedures in place. Mr. Garza asked if he was refuting what Rush Center said in the letter. Mr. Kaplan said the intent of the letter was not to have the truck driven a far distance. The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. It was agreed to reconvene on Thursday, March 13,2003. The 5160i Civil Service Board Meeting was called to order at 8:15 a.m. on March 13, 2003. Mr. Jeffrey Kaplan, returned for questioning by Roland Garza. Mr. Kaplan stated that safety was an issue that he liked to see handled through a chain of command. A memo from Mr. Suarez to Mr. Kaplan was submitted as employee Exhibit #7 and Mr. Kaplan said that he had responded to it. Mr. Garza asked if it was true that Mr. Suarez had sent several memos stating that Maintenenace Services had been releasing vehicles as being ready when, in fact, they were not. Mr. Kaplan stated he did not recall. Mr. Garza stated that Exhibit #7 states that Ira Rodriguez replied, "If we were going to be son of a bitches, he could be a son of a bitch too." He made this statement to Mr. Suarez when he complained that Unit 561 was not ready. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Kaplan what were the corrective measures taken with regard to what Mr. Rodriguez had said and the City Policy with regard to harassment in the workplace and verbal abuse. Mr.Kaplan replied that Mr.Rodriguez does not work for him, but that he had informed Jim Davis. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Kaplan if he could have his office fax over a copy of the reply he gave to Mr. Suarez. He said he had no idea if he could. Mr. Garza said Mr.Kaplan held safety in high regard, but he had not responded to Mr. Suarez' safety issues in the workplace. Mr. Garza entered employee Exhibit #9, a City of Corpus Christi work order #74215. Work Order #75684 was submitted as Exhibit # 10. After discussion with Cydney Farr, CSB member,Exhibits#9 and#10 were withdrawn. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Kaplan about the work order for unit 1731. Mr. Kaplan stated he did not know when the vehicle was towed in and could not comment on what is written on the forms. He stated that it was not under his jurisdiction. Mr. Garza said the unit was experiencing problems on February 3, approximately 30 days before the alleged incident when Mr. Suarez repaired the vehicle in an unsafe manner. Mr. Garza asked about the warranty, which the City has stated was not violated. The work order states this vehicle had problems seven days prior to being released back into the field. Employee Exhibit#10 was submitted which was the work order of the truck on the day of the repair incident. Mr.Kaplan said he heard that the photo of the truck was taken on March 12 at 7:00 a.m. and at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Kaplan said both he and Mr. Suarez had attended ABS training. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Kaplan how many reprimands Mr. Suarez had been given. He stated he would have to see the file to answer. Mr. Garza said Mr. Juarez had received two reprimands in 20 years, and none since the incident to Mr. Kaplan's knowledge. Mr. Kaplan stated that Jim Davis is responsible for overseeing the maintenance of the vehicle and when employees bring him concerns about the vehicles, he lets Mr. Davis know. Mr. Kaplan says he lets employees express their First Amendment right in the work place. Cydney Farrar called for a three minute-break. Hearing resumed and Roland Garza called Astolfo Torres as a witness. Mr. Torres stated he works at the Solid Waste Department and has worked for the City about twenty-six years. He has knowledge of working with Mr. Suarez who he describes as a team player who he did not have to reprimand, and who was concerned about safety. Mr. Torres was shown employee Exhibits P-11 and P-12 which he had signed,but had questions about safety issues. (Exhibits were withdrawn). Susan Hutson asked Mr. Torres what his involvement was with Unit 1731 on March 12,2002. He said he was not involved with that Unit. Mr. Garza called Juan Vasquez, Heavy Equipment Operator, an eleven-year employee with the city to testify. He stated he was familiar with that unit and drove it when it broke down on the island. The air hose to the right front tire was broken and the vehicle had half a load in it. Once the vehicle was worked on by Mr. Suarez, Mr. Vasquez called his Foreman, David Garza, and was told to bring the unit in since the mechanic said he could take it in. He did not have any complications bringing the truck in. He said he felt Mr. Suarez was a good mechanic. Susan Hutson asked Mr. Vasquez if he remembered meeting with her in September and at that time he had stated he didn't really have a say in whether the vehicle was driven back because it was Mr. Suarez call. He did. He drove back from the island at a very slow speed. Mr. Vasquez stated he did not have any certifications as a mechanic. Mr. Garza brought back Exhibit#10 which was the work order of unit#1731 dated March 12, 2002. It says brakes not working. Mr. Vasquez said he let the mechanic know that the brakes weren't working. He said he did not feel as if he were in danger. He said he thought he drove the unit back at 45 mph. Roland Garza called Paul Galvan to testify. He stated he is a Senior Pump Operator and has worked for the City ten years. He used to work with Mr. Suarez. He was asked if the procedure that Mr. Suarez followed in the field with regard to the air brakes was a safe practice. He stated he felt that it was and that he had performed the same procedure before, and that he would perform that type of repair today. He said it is everyone's decision as to what happens when a vehicle is broken in the field. He previously worked with Henry Castro, but Mr. Castro never gave him or Mr. Suarez a safety meeting. He said he can request a wrecker but he has to call in to Maintenance Services to have a wrecker called in. Mr. Galvan stated he calls in to a Supervisor, if there is a disagreement as to what is to be done. He stated the last time he tied off brake lines was when he was at the shop at Maintenance Services about three years ago. He talked to Ira Rodriguez and got permission to do so. It was a double axle dump truck. He said the truck did not have ABS but the principle is the same, regardless. He has not worked with the ABS system on the garbage trucks. He said he did not know what meetings Henry Castro and Orlando Suarez may have had. He stated he has a current CDL license. He said when he calls in for a wrecker he is not given a hard time. When asked what happens when the vehicle loses air pressure, he stated the emergency brakes work with air to release them. He said 90% of braking ability is in the rear; the front brakes are there to assist. ( Susan Hutson asked Mr. Galvan what size the dump truck was that be had allowed to be driven back with the plugged off brake. He said it was a 12-yard, dual axle in the back and has one steering axle in the front, was about 8 feet shorter than the dump truck and was about half the weight of the auto loader. He was asked if he was aware that the commercial vehicle handbook says that all brakes must do its share of the work to be safely controlled. He said he was, but that the DPS says if it can be driven back safely then it can be. He said the front brakes are only assisting the back brakes. Mr. Garza asked if he would perform the same procedure of plugging the air brakes today and Mr. Galvan said he would. Susan Hutson asked him if he would do it if his supervisor said he shouldn't do it, would he do it? He said "no". Roland Garza called Juan Jose (Joe) Gallegos as a witness. He is a light Equipment Mechanic Foreman with 28 years service with the City. He worked with heavy equipment for six years and he worked with Mr. Suarez, who he described as a reliable, trustworthy team player. Mechanics in the field do not have to call Risk Management. He never had to reprimand Mr. Suarez. Ms. Hutson asked how he was involved in the March 12 incident involving the truck. He stated he is not the foreman and had nothing to do with the incident. He said that out of nine employees he could probably trust three to be the most knowledgeable, and make the right decision. . Roland Garza wanted to present Mr. Lupe Salazar, a Journeyman Mechanic with 27 years experience who works at the Regional Transportation Authority who can ( show that it is an industry standard to repair a brake the way Mr. Suarez did. Susan Hutson said that he is not an employee of the City and does not know what the City standards are, nor does he know anything about Unit#1731. Susan Hutson stated that Mr. Galvan gave testimony that was a standard in Fleet Maintenance three years ago. For that reason, she wanted to call Jim Davis, the head of Fleet Maintenance to testify. Roland Garza objected. Cydney Farrar, CSB member, said that neither witness would be heard. Susan Hutson called John Coleman again. He stated he worked for the City for 17 years and to his knowledge it has never been a standard at Fleet Maintenance to plug brake lines and tie them off as Mr. Suarez had done. He said if he had seen an employee doing that, he would have reported them. Ira Rodriguez had told him to put it in writing. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Coleman to look at employee Exhibit #10 which stated the brakes and air conditioner weren't working. He stated after the repair, the onboard computer didn't signal any problems. He was aware that the vehicle was in several times to be worked on. Mr. Coleman read that the work order wasn't the first one he got that morning. He stated it is not a standard practice to work on a vehicle before a work order is received, but it does occur. Mr. Jeff Kaplan was called again. He stated that the investigation against Mr. Suarez involved multi-disciplines. The practices involved in the repair in the field and the coordination with the shop, and some of the previously stated facts were taken into consideration during the investigation. (1) it is a frequent practice of drivers to return at the end of the previous days' route with partial loads in their vehicles and they don't dump the vehicles. In this case, it had a partial load from the night before, (2)in the process,ABS systems are considerably different on every type of vehicle on which they are utilized. All sensors have to be hooked up and operating. He said there had been no coordination with the shop to make the decision Mr. Suarez made. Susan Hutson asked Mr. Kaplan when Mr. Galvan was transferred to work under Mr. Kaplan. He replied it was two years ago, and he was sent to the landfill where he did not operate any over-the-road equipment. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Kaplan, what the difference in safety was whether it is on the road, or off the road. Mr. Kaplan stated there is none. Mr.Kaplan looked at the work order and stated that it did not say the sensor was disabled. Mr. Garza asked if Solid Waste Services gave Mr. Coleman a form before the truck went out that it was experiencing problems. He stated he had no idea. Ms. Farrar asked if in the course of Mr. Kaplan's investigation he could find no practice to tie off these brake lines. Mr. Kaplan said he asked Fleet Maintenance if that was a practice they endorsed or utilized because if it was it would have had an impact on his decision in this case. He was told "no" it wasn't. Mr. Galvan said it was a practice. Mr. Kaplan said he talked to mechanics also during his investigation. Mr. Garza asked Mr. Kaplan if he had his whole investigation to offer today. He said he didn't. The summary of his findings had been offered j today. Closing statements were made by Susan Hutson and Roland Garza. Board went into closed session at 11:05 a.m. Board reconvened at 11:18 a.m. Motion made by Cydney Farrar and seconded by Erich Wendl to uphold the 10-day suspension. Ms. Farrar stated that Mr. Suarz was presented as a trusted mechanic and, therefore, had influence over the driver to try to drive the vehicle back to the repair center. The Board believes communication with the Supervisor is key. The Board feels the City is very fortunate that nothing serious happened while that vehicle was being driven back to the repair center. Ms. Farrar said there is concern on the part of the Board that the City offered the employee a deal, and that they would not recommend that. They also recommended that at the next regularly scheduled safety meeting this incident should be covered as an excellent learning experience to all mechanics and all drivers that if there is anything less than 100% they need to call their supervisors, they need another opinion, or they need to get some backup. ( y Hearing was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. , • i I A , 7, ,..,,DZ, X,. .,. Cynt ia C. Garcia,Secretary Andrew Lehrman,Chair Civil Service Board Civil Service Board .,- (e,r14-cl (,v6t-r Cydney Pa r,Vice-Chair Erich Wend!,Member • ) ) _.,