HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Civil Service Board - 11/14/2005 MINUTES
530TH CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
1201 LEOPARD ST., CITY HALL
BASEMENT TRAINING ROOM
November 14, 2005
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CITY STAFF PRESENT
Cydney Farrar, Chairperson Cynthia C. Garcia, Director of
Jose Moncada, Member Human Resources
John Silvas, Member Jennifer Knox, Asst. City Attorney
Debra Marroquin, Director of Gas
Deanna Galan, Human Resources
Laura Gallegos, Human Resources
Chairperson Farrar called the 530th Civil Service Board hearing to order at 9:00 a.m.
Item#1: Review and consider the termination of Raymond H. Garcia, Sr. Gas
System Foremen, Gas Department.
Asst. City Attorney asked to have rule invoked and informed all present the meaning of
invoking the rule and asked to have all witnesses present for the swearing of the oath.
Oath was given. Asst. City Attorney, Jennifer Knox, introduced herself and client Debra
Marroquin, Director of Gas. Chairperson Farrar asks for a briefing. Ms. Knox states
Raymond Garcia was an employee in the Gas Department and was terminated on
December 27, 2004, for testing positive for cocaine in a random drug test while on duty
(HR15.3, HR15.0, Civil Service Board rules and regulations). On November 23, 2004,
Mr. Garcia reported to the Gas Dept. He performs safety sensitive functions and was
subject to random drug testing for this reason. On this day, he went to the Dr:Center and
submitted an urine sample which was positive for cocaine. On November 30, 2004, the
City's medical review officer reviewed the results and no medical explanation was found.
Mr. Garcia sought help with EAP; however, according to Gas Dept drug policy, HR15.3,
help must be sought through Gas superintendent or designee before problem is evident
through random testing or poor performance. Mr. Garcia never notified anyone of
problem. Once the random list is generated it is too late. Mr. Garcia went to the EAP
same day as his random drug test. This is not the first time he tested positive for cocaine.
In November 2001, he resigned in lieu of termination for a positive drug test. Ms. Knox
goes on to say the termination is justified and should be upheld.
Chairperson Farrar asks for Mr. Rodriguez to introduce himself He states name, Rene
Rodriguez and he is representing Raymond Garcia. Article 5 section 4b of Civil Service
Rules states that commission decides cases not only on substantive matters but also on
procedural matters. Section b, burden of proof, lists procedural errors. In December 2004,
client was given a contemplated letter then letter of termination. City said they wanted to
make a change to a date. City made 3 dates changes. My position City cannot make any
SCANNED
1
changes. Mr. Garcia was not personally notified of changes. Mr. Rodriguez states the
drug policy given to my client when he came back on new employee on April 28, 2003,
City provided HR 15.0 with signature, in this, there is no reference to superintendent or
designee. In the contemplated letter and termination, City is relying on document my
client signed July 25, 1996. He had since left employment for 1 1/2 years. Four or five
foremans.will testify that in all meetings with City, they've been told it is confidential.
Mr. Rodriguez goes on to state one week after Mr. Garcia was terminated, the City held a
meeting advising of this. Based on procedural and substantive matters, Mr. Rodriguez
believes the City will not be able to comply.
Ms. Knox notes that on October24, 2005, the City did fax to Mr. Rodriguez a copy of
15.3 which states an employee does need to notify the superintendent or designee. With
that, I'd like to call my first witness, Laura Gallegos.
City Witness Laura Gallegos, Human Resources Analyst was called. Laura Gallegos,
1201 Leopard, Human Resources - Working with Drug/Alcohol for 18 months. Currently
working with Police/Fire. Under drug/alcohol, oversaw 6 drug policies for City. City has
zero tolerance policy, mandatory termination on first offense. Mr. Garcia was positive for
cocaine.
City Exhibit 1 — City-wide Drug/Alcohol Policy, HR 15.0 was presented. Ms. Gallegos
states what the document is and that it was in effect at time Mr. Garcia took drug test,
November 23, 2004. Ms. Gallegos states Mr. Garcia violated this policy by testing
positive for cocaine. Ms. Gallegos states Mr. Garcia violated p4, section 5, prohibited
activities, p7b, operating machinery, vehicle while under the influence, p5 #3, being
under the influence of illegal drug on duty. Ms Gallegos states complying with policy is
condition of employment for all employees. Mr. Gallegos states Gas employees are
subject to random because DOT regs and RISPA mandates a separate random due to
safety positions. Fidel is contact for randoms generated once a month(Guerra Kieshnick).
City Exhibit 1 admitted as evidence.
City Exhibit 2 — Gas Department Anti-Drug. and Alcohol misuse policy HR 15.3 was
presented.
Ms. Gallegos describes document and stated it was in effect when Mr. Garcia tested
positive for cocaine. Mr. Garcia was randomly tested under this policy. Ms. Gallegos
states the City routinely has trainings and has employees sign acknowledgments.
City Exhibit 2 admitted as evidence.
City Exhibit 3 —Training Acknowledgement was presented.
City Exhibit 4—Employee Acknowledgement for HR 15.3 (7/25/96)was presented.
2
•
City Exhibit 5 Employee Acknowledgement for HR 15.0 (7/25/96)was presented.
City Exhibit 6—Employee Acknowledgement for HR 15.0 (8/22/96)was presented.
City Exhibit 7—Employee Acknowledgement for HR 15.0 (4/28/03)was presented.
City Exhibit 8 —New Employee Orientation Acknowledgement was presented.
Ms. Gallegos states these are acknowledgements forms which indicate Mr. Garcia was
trained on these policies. She states they are signed by every City employee and every
Gas employee where they apply. Ms. Knox states #3 is different. Ms. Gallegos states
another employee at Gas administered the training for Gas employees. Ms. Gallegos
acknowledges Mr. Garcia's signature is on all acknowledgements and they are kept in his
HR personnel file.
Ms. Knox would like to admit City exhibits 3-8 as evidence. Mr. Rodriguez has
objections to #'s 4, 5, 6. He objects to documents Mr: Garcia signed prior to resignation
in 1996. He states only those relevant are those signed after the came back to
employment.
Chairperson Farrar will not admit 4, 5, 6 in evidence.
Chairperson Farrar will admit 3,7,8 in evidence.
- `j
Ms. Gallegos states policies are strictly enforced and HR 15.3 controls in Mr. Garcia's
case because that is policy which authorizes random drug testing. Ms. Gallegos states HR
15.0 does not have random testing. Ms. Gallegos states EAP is available to all employees
for problems or addiction. It is strictly confidential and the City would not be aware of it
if the employee did not come forward with that information. The City will work with
employee and an agreement must be brought. Ms. Gallegos has conducted training on
HR15.0 and emphasizes employee must disclose problem to department or HR. Ms.
Gallegos states the rehab committee is the depart head, Director of HR, MRO for
drug/alcohol and substance abuse professional. Ms. Gallegos training HR 15.0 is
conduction in NEO, revision, Del Mar Supervision class and as requested by dept. HR
15.3 once a year and as needed per dept. Ms. Gallegos states employees are provided the
policy during training. Ms. Gallegos states it is too late to go to EAP on day of random.
Ms. Gallegos.conducted training in October 2004 and dept requested a makeup training
on December 2004 for those who weren't present in October.
City Exhibit 9—Memo to Cynthia Garcia for Sylvia Garcia was presented.
Ms. Gallegos states this memo was notifying of Mr. Garcia's testing positive for cocaine
and he resigned prior to being discliplined, document created 2/26/02.
City Exhibit 9 admitted as evidence.
3
Ms. Gallegos states this is a standard document when an employee resigns in lieu of
being terminated.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez asks Ms. Gallegos to look at City exhibit #1, page 4 and asks her to read
first sentence of second paragraph. Mr. Rodriguez asks her to look at exhibit #2, 15.3.
and look at last page, what is the purpose of this? Ms. Gallegos states employees sign the
acknowledgment form. Ms. Gallegos she hasn't seen as signed document such as exhibit
#2. Mr. Rodriguez asks what date City exhibit became effective. Ms. Gallegos—March 8,
2004.
Employee Exhibit lb—original Contemplated Disciplinary Action Letter was presented.
Mr. Rodriguez asks if there is a date indicating 2004 in this document. Ms. Gallegos
states no.
Employee Exhibit 2a—revised Contemplated Disciplinary Action letter was presented.
Employee Exhibit 2b—revised termination letter was presented.
Mr. Rodriguez asks Ms. Gallegos if Raymond Garcia received or signed any form in
2004 regarding this issue. Ms. Gallegos states no. Mr. Rodriguez states "shall" means
mandatory versus "may". Ms. Gallegos states depends on context. Mr. Rodriguez asks
her to look at City exhibit#3. Does it indicate Mr. Garcia was provided policy 15.3.
Does the NEO reference 15.3? Ms. Gallegos states no. It references 15.0. Mr. Rodriguez
states in City exhibit 9, memo.
Employee Exhibit 3 —Employment Application was presented.
Mr. Garcia's application for employment dated 2/25/2003. Mr. Rodriguez states on last
page of employment Mr. Garcia listed his positive test result.
Pass witness to Ms. Knox.
Ms. Knox states Mr. Garcia may not have turned in acknowledgement 15.3. Ms. Knox
states they are still city policies which they must abide by. No further questions
Chairperson Farrar asks for 3 minute break while copies are made.
EE exhibits la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3 admitted as evidence.
City Witness — Dr. Keith Rose,The Doctor's Center, was called. Keith Rose, 11559
Leopard, CC TX 78410. Dr. Rose has special training is drug detection and is the MRO
for City for two years. Has knowledge of drug abuse disorders. Procedures followed were
employee came in, performed drug test and follow chain of custody. Employee's id
4
•
checked, gives specimen, placed in bag. It is then sent off to Medtox laboratory.
Specimen collected a split specimen and the seal was initialed by Mr. Garcia.
City Exhibit 10—Medtox report was presented.
Dr. Rose states this is the form used in collection of drug screen. It was prepared at the
Doctor's Center by Maria Ramos. It is a standard document. Must have photo id when
employee is identified.
City Exhibit 10 admitted as evidence.
City Exhibit 11 —Medtox report showing positive drug screen was presented.
Dr. Rose states document is reported from Laboratory from Medtox.
City Exhibit 11 admitted as evidence.
Dr. Rose states specimen was collected November 23, 2004. Documents indicate reason
was random for testing. Five panel drug screen was performed.
City Exhibit 12—Medtox reporting confirmation results was presented.
Dr. Rose states medtox prepared this.
City Exhibit 12 admitted as evidence.
Dr. Rose states this document is prepared to show the confirmation of drug and levels of
what was positive.
City Exhibit 13 —MRO contact sheet for employee was presented.
Dr. Rose states Annabel prepared document and was signed by Dr. Rose.
City Exhibit 13 admitted as evidence.
Dr. Rose states this is an MRO verification worksheet. This is done several different
ways. The city requires it be done in person. I met with Mr. Garcia on November 30,
2004. He did not have a legitimate explanation for the positive drug test. Mr. Garcia did
not request a split sample. Dr. Rose states results were positive for cocaine. Dr. Rose
indicates 27,764 ng/milliliter were present and states this is the largest he's ever seen. Dr.
Rose states there is no other drug that mimicks cocaine. Dr. Rose states patients he's
dealt with have a high recidivism rate for cocaine.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez has no questions.
5
) City Witness — Fidel ,Flores, Guerra Kieschnick was called. Fidel Flores, 500 N.
Shoreline, Suite 800, CC TX 78404. Worked for them for 27 years. Guerra Kieschnick
provides services for Gas for more than 15 years. Mr. Fidel is responsible for preparing
list by running a random day selection list, first day that is not a holiday or weekend.
Faxes from Gas dept are received indicating updates of employee status. Will run the test
and call the Gas dept. It's put in an envelope, person who picks up list signs
acknowledgement from. List is generated once a month for Gas.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez asks Mr. Flores if he brought documentation showing how the random list
was generated or acknowledgement forms, how process is formulated in developing list.
Mr. Flores states it's a random list generator program. Mr. Rodriguez asks if list is sealed
when given to Gas. Gas dept discretion as to when they open it. Mr. Flores replies yes.
City Exhibit 14—Fax from Fidel was presented.
Mr. Rodriguez asks the time list was picked up. Mr. Flores does not remember. Mr.
Rodriguez has no objections.
Witness released.
City Witness—David Flores, Gas Department was called. Chairperson Farrar gives oath.
David Flores, 4225 S. Port, CC, TX. Worked for City about 10 1/2 years. Mr. Flores has
was acting director in 2004 when Mr. Garcia terminated. Mr. Flores was notified by
phone by Fidel when random testing was performed the prior working day. The morning
of test Mr. Flores notified work coordinators who is called for random under their
supervision. Mr. Flores phones Dr. Centers and faxes copy of list. There is always an
alternate list. Mr. Flores picked up list the day before from Fidel. He notified Santiago
Salinas about Mr. Garcia, morning of November 23rd at about 8:15-8:30am by phone. Mr.
Flores stated Mr. Salinas told him Mr. Garcia was not on duty but would return at 1pm.
He stated Mr. Garcia had to leave due to a car problem and would be back after lunch.
City Exhibit 15 —Time Detail Report was presented.
Mr. Garcia's name/id # appears on document, stated David. Jeannine Ganem is payroll
clerk for Gas and made notes on report.
City Exhibit 15 admitted as evidence.
David states Mr. Garcia was out for a period of the day, noting the times on the detail
report, returning at 12:44pm. David stated Mr. Garcia left at that time for go for his
random drug test.
City Exhibit 16—Contemplated Disciplinary Action letter was presented.
6
1
•
David states he signed document and stated Mr. Garcia was given the opportunity to
respond December 16, 2004. Shows David City Exhibits 3 & 7. David states these
documents were referenced in the letter. David states the changes made to the letter were
clerical mistakes. David states the correction made did not change the allegations made to
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Rodriguez objects to leading the witness.
Chairperson Farrar states it is allowed in this proceeding.
Ms. Knox continues with David asking the basis for termination. David states a positive
drug test.
City Exhibit 16 asked to be admitted as evidence by Ms. Knox. Mr. Rodriguez asks to
ask questions about this document before admitting. Chairperson Farrar allows.
Mr. Rodriguez— City exhibit 16 has a signature page. David states correct. EE exhibit la
has same page. Mr. Rodriguez states these are duplicates. Asks David to look at first page
of both documents, first sentence in 2nd paragraph. David states neither are the same.
Mr. Rodriguez objects to City exhibit #16 in that Mr. Garcia was not properly served
with it.
Ms. Knox responds by stating Mr. Rodriguez has already admitted this exhibit as EE
exhibit as 2a. For the record, the CSB instructed the City to resubmit the document with
the correct date. Mr. Rodriguez states this is not true. The City told Commission they had
one date to change and three were changed. Mr. Rodriguez objects then and now to the
changing of dates. City exhibit 16 was never personally served to Mr. Garcia.
Chairperson Farrar asks Ms. Knox if Mr. Garcia has ever received #16. Ms. Knox states
the city forwarded, faxed, a copy to Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez acknowledges receipt of#16, asked by Chairperson Farrar.
Chairperson Farrar asks to see the reference of this in the CSB rules. Mr. Rodriguez notes
page 8 of CS rules, article 4, section 1, III. Ms. Knox states.it was also certified mailed to
the designee, attorney. Ms. Knox stated a letter was sent by Mr. Rodriguez on 8/24/2005
stating representation.
Mr. Rodriguez states City exhibit #16 is a false document because the first page was
corrected.
Chairperson Farrar states the purpose of this document is to give Mr. Garcia notice and to
defend himself and prepare his defense. Mr. Rodriguez states it is not for this reason and
is a false document.
Chairperson Farrar states purpose was to correct typos.
Chairperson Farrar states it is 11:05am and would like to go in to closed session.
7
•
Chairperson Farrar states is it 11:30am and the board is out of closed session.
Member Jose Moncada states the board reviewed #16 and dates changed. Mr. Moncada
states the dates changed were related to employment applications and were not of issue.
May 28, 2003 was a key date and ties to the NEO. program which Mr. Garcia
acknowledge, as exhibit 8. Board also talked about proper notice. In notifying Mr.
Rodriguez as a rep., the board feels this is adequate. Motion made to accept exhibit 16 by
Mr. Moncada.
Chairperson Farrar accepts the motion and asks for a second. Member John Silvas
seconds the motion. -
City Exhibit 16 admitted as evidence.
Mr. David Flores states Mr. Garcia reported to work 11/23/2004. He states Mr. Garcia
submitted a urine sample and tested positive for cocaine. He states he did not have
knowledge of Mr. Garcia's problem with cocaine. Mr. Flores believes the board should
uphold the termination.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Flores stated the first time he received copies of 15.3 was when he was hired. Mr.
Flores states there are about 12-15 foremen in the Gas dept. Mr. Rodriguez states 4 or 5
of them did not know letting someone in the City know if they are getting help for a
t drug/alcohol problem.
Ms. Knox objects—speculation
Mr. Flores stated Mr. Salinas said Mr. Garcia should be back after lunch. Mr. Flores
found out Mr. Garcia went to EAP program that afternoon. Mr. Rodriguez asks if Mr.
Flores met with Roland Garza during any of this process. Mr. Rodriguez asks for Mr.
Flores if the city exhibit 16 was given to Mr. Garcia as written. Mr. Flores states no, dates
were changed.
Pass the witness.
• Ms. Knox states if on 11/23/04, Mr. Salinas notified him if Mr. Garcia sought help at
EAP. Mr. Flores stated Mr. Garcia spoke with Mr. Salinas and gave an indication he
thought he would test positive.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez asks if Mr. Flores knew of Mr. Garcia going to EAP before his random
and Mr. Flores stated no.
Pass the witness.
Ms. Knox states Mr. Garcia did not directly tell Mr. Flores he went to EAP. Mr. Flores
stated that was correct.
No further questions—Ms. Knox
Mr. Rodriguez asks where Mr. Flores current office was at that time: Address stated
earlier. Mr. Salinas was in his office as well. Mr. Garcia would have clocked in at same
location.
8
No further questions.
Mr. Rodriguez asks board to take witness out of order, Roland Garza.
Ms. Knox - The City objects to Roland Garza, he was not designated as a witness.
Pursuant to CS rules he needed to be designated on the docket control form.
Chairperson Farrar states the board will hear him.
Employee Witness—Roland Garza 2854 Alvin, CC, TX 78415
Mr. Garza stated he represented.Mr. Garcia and met with David Flores and Cesar Garcia.
Mr. Garza took two policies to this meeting Mr. Garcia had already signed. Mr. Garza
spoke with David Flores and stated Mr. Flores said he had no knowledge of drug policies.
Mr. Garza spoke with several foremen at the Gas dept. and was told they believed they
did could go to anyone for help.
Pass witness.
Ms. Knox—no questions.
City Witness — Santiago Salinas, Gas Department— Santiago Salinas, Gas Dept, 4225 S.
Port, worked for 21 years. Supervised Raymond Garcia and knows Mr. Garcia was found
positive drugs. Stated he was notified of the random on 11/24/2004 by David Flores at
about 8:00-8:10am. Mr. Garcia was not on duty at that time. They had a safety meeting.
Raymond came in at 7am and called Mr. Salinas about 7:50am and told him he needed to
go home. Mr. Salinas asked why and Mr. Garcia told him he had car problems. I
informed Mr. Flores that Mr. Garcia was not on duty. Mr. Garcia returned and contacted
me as soon as he got back to work. I informed Mr. Garcia of the random drug test and, at
that time, Mr. Garcia stated he just came from a counseling class, that's where he really
went. This was after I notified him to take his random. Mr. Garcia drove himself, city
vehicle. Mr. Salinas had no knowledge of this problem before this. Mr. Garcia's
termination is justified, stated Mr. Salinas.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez asked if there was anything unusual when Mr. Salinas spoke withMr.
Garcia. Mr. Salinas stated no. When you received the call from Mr. Flores, Mr. Salinas
was already gone? Yes. Mr. Salinas assumes Mr. Garcia had already clocked in when he
told him about the random. Mr. Salinas thought he told him earlier than noon,Mr. Garcia
clocked in at 12:44pm. Mr. Salinas recalled the time was about noon.'Mr. Salinas stated
Mr. Garcia stated he lied about the car, he instead went to counseling.
Mr. Rodriguez-no other questions
Chairperson Farrar-a little before 12pm, break for lunch and resume at 1pm.
9
•
Chairperson Farrar-1:12pm reconvened from lunch.
City Witness — Debbie Marroquin, Gas Department—Debra Marroquin, 4225 S. Port, 20
years. Stated Mr. Garcia resigned the first time he worked at Gas, in lieu of termination.
We rehired him in 2003, Mr. Garcia had worked before and they are tested. prior to
working. States Mr. Garcia was in a safety sensitive position.
City Exhibit 17—Job description was presented.
Ms. Marroquin states the document is a job description for Mr. Garcia's position.
City exhibit 17 admitted as evidence.
Ms. Marroquin stated Mr. Garcia was in charge of a crew, detailed job functions. She
also stated they encounter safety hazards on a daily basis. She stated Mr. Garcia
endangered himself and others while under the influence. After a notification of a failed
drug test from an employee, she meets with asst. and human resources. If it's positive, it
is zero tolerance. Ms. Marroquin is familiar with 15.0 & 15.3. She states they are both
zero tolerance policies.
City Exhibit 18 —Termination letter was presented.
Ms. 'Marroquin stated corrections were made concerning dates. Ms. Knox is showing
city's #3,.7 to Ms. Marroquin. On#7, Ms. Marroquin read last line on 3rd paragraph. Ms.
Marroquin stated #3, 7 are referenced in the termination letter. Ms. Marroquin
acknowledged the clerical errors in the contemplated letter. Ms. Marroquin stated Mr.
Garcia tested positive for cocaine.which is the basis for termination.
Ms. Knox offers City exhibit 18 as evidence. Mr. Rodriguez objects.
Chairperson Farrar admits 18 as evidence.
Ms. Marroquin stated she did not have knowledge of a drug/alcohol problem and had not
been notified of a problem. Ms. Marroquin believes the termination is justified.
Pass the witness
Mr. Rodriguez—HR 15.0, article 4, EAP provision, does it say an employee needs to go
to a superintendent or designee. Ms. Marroquin states it does not.
City exhibit 18, second page, first sentence—lists dates. Mr. Rodriguez states there is no
mention of 15.3.
Pass the witness
Ms. Knox asks Ms. .Marroquin if Mr. Garcia was random tested under 15.3. Ms.
Marroquin stated it is the employee's responsibility to turn in acknowledgement forms.
•
•
10
Pass the witness.
f
Mr. Rodriguez states the acknowledgement forms are mandatory and are protection for
the City and states it is the City's responsibility to make sure it is turned in. Mr.
Rodriguez states the City is not sure if all employees turn them in.
Pass the witness.
No further questions, no other witnesses, but receive the right to call rebuttal witnesses —
Ms. Knox.
Employee Exhibit 4— letter submitted to Jennifer Knox was presented.
Mr. Rodriguez states the purpose is to maintain a record for then it goes to district court.
EE 4 admitted as evidence
Employee exhibit 5 —Response from the City was presented.
Attached to the response is policy 15.3 revised March 8, 2004. No where is there
reference to Raymond Garcia receiving a copy.
Employee Witness—Felix Gonzalez—Felix Gonzalez, Gas Department, 4225 S. Port, 16
years working for City. Stated he signed an affidavit. Stated he's gone to drug training
and it is his understanding there is an employee assistance program. Stated it was never
told to tell anyone else about the drug problem or seeking help. Stated he received the
revised policy.
Pass the witness.
Ms. Knox asks Mr. Gonzalez he signed acknowledgements regarding the drug policies.
The stated he understood the policies when he signed the acknowledgements. Stated
someone who conducted training trained it differently. Stated he did not misunderstand
the training. Stated Mr. Garcia did not fail before he was tested, according to the policy.
Pass the witness.
Employee Witness—Raynaldo Chavez, Gas Department
EE 6 admitted as evidence.
Raynaldo Chavez, 10 1/2 years.
Employee exhibit 7—affidavit was presented.
11
Mr. Chavez stated he went to drug training and was told about the EAP. Stated no City
supervisor had ever told him he needed to go to someone before seeking help and that he
wasn't told until after Raymond was terminated. They had a meeting conducted by Ms.
Gallegos.
EE 7 admitted as evidence
Pass witness.
Mr. Chavez stated he signed acknowledgement of policy. Stated he understood the
policies and failure to comply is termination on first offense. Stated his is responsible to
comply with city policies. Stated Marge conducted the trainings differently.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez clarifies he Mr. Chavez understood the policy to mean everything was
confidential. The first time he learned otherwise was after Mr. Garcia was terminated.
Pass the witness.
No further questions.
Employee Witness Orlando Herrera, Gas Department, 8 years.
Employee exhibit 8—affidavit was presented
States he signed this document under oath. Stated he was never told by anyone that he
needed to go through someone before going to EAP. He was aware after they revised the
policy. Stated he was first told after.Mr. Garcia was drug tested. Stated he was out on
vacation when it was revised and signed the form when he came back.
Ms. Knox asks who prepared the document, affidavit. Mr. Herrera does not know. Stated
they are his words
EE 8 admitted as evidence
Ms. Knox states Mr. Herrera signed acknowledgement forms and he stated he understood
the contents of the policies and failure to comply will be a violation of the violations.
Stated old.acknowledgements stated any employee, if they sought help, admitted self to
EAP, the City would take of them. Mr. Herrera states he understands violation is
termination on first offense. Stated he is responsible for what is written in the policy.
Pass the witness .
Mr. Rodriguez- Mr. Herrera states under the policy he knew before it was revised, he
didn't have to go to anyone. This was not until after the drug test of Mr. Garcia.
12
Employee Witness—Tommy Hendricks, Gas Department, 23 V2 years.
Employee exhibit 9 — affidavit was presented
Mr. Hendricks states it is true and correct. Stated he first got word from City about
notifying someone at work after Mr. Garcia was drug tested. Stated he should comply
with rules and it would be unfair to change rules after the fact.
EE 9 admitted as evidence.
Pass the witness
Mr. Hendricks understood the contents of acknowledgements, that violation is
termination. Stated as a Gas employee, the work is dangerous. Stated an employee under
the influence puts co-workers at risk. Stated city employees are responsible to comply
' with city policies. Stated an employee cannot seek help the day of the random, Mr.
Garcia failed to comply, it was too late to seek assistance on same day of random.
Pass the witness
Mr. Rodriguez Mr. Hendricks stated the employee would not be protected if employee
went to seek help on that day of the random. Stated, seek it ahead of time, not same day.
It would look"fishy".
No further questions.
Employee Witness — Eddie Rodriguez, Gas department, 9 years. Stated he attended
training regarding drug policies and was never told to tell someone else before seeking
help. Some who conducted training: Rosina, Cindi Papageorge, Laura Gallegos, Joann
Espinosa, Marge Reue, a black lady. Stated before Mr. Garcia, he thought you did not
have to go to someone first. Was first told by Laura in a training after Mr. Garcia was
terminated.
Employee exhibit 10=affidavit was presented.
EE 10 admitted as evidence.
Stated he spoke to Laura about meeting and how he was confused.
Pass the witness.
Ms. Knox — Mr. Rodriguez.stated he signed acknowledgements, understood policies.
Stated he is responsible for complying with what is written in the City policies. Stated he
thought Ruthie did one of the trainings in 2004. All others were too far back. Stated he
• did not misunderstand what was taught in policies.
13
}
Pass the witness
Employee Witness—Raymond Garcia, Gas department. Stated on 11/23/04 went to work
close to 7am, advised crew of safety meeting and stayed in the yard for about 1 hour.
Then he punched out and intended to seek help for his problem. Understood if he got into
program his•job would be protected. This was always how it had been explained by
Ruthie and others. Stated he went to EAP due to a relapse
Employee exhibit 11 —EAP pamphet was presented.
EE 11 admitted as evidence
Stated it does not state in pamplet to go to supervisor. Once returned from EAP went
back to work. Stated he met with one intern.
Employee exhibit 12—medical records was presented.
Stated he told intern he needed help. First spoke to Santiago when he was going to work
when he advised he was on his way to work. As soon as he got to work, he told Santiago
he went to EAP. He was told about random shortly after arriving. He told Santiago he'd
been at EAP and that he'd probably test positive. Santiago said cuss words,
disappointment. Stated he completed the program which lasted for 30 days and 90 days
of meetings. Stated it was never explained an employee needed to go to designee. Stated
he went back to work after taking the random for 2-3 days. Stated his is asking to be
reinstated because he has completed rehab.
Pass the witness
Ms. Knox -- Mr. Garcia stated he signed acknowledgements, was subject to HR 15.3,
understood it was a condition of employment, failure to comply is a violation. Stated was
responsible for crew. Stated he used/took an illegal drug before 11/23/04. Stated he did
not know name was on the list for random testing.
EE 12 admitted as evidence
Pass the witness
Mr. Garcia stated he drove City vehicle to take random test. Stated he should be held
accountable for own actions.
Pass the witness.
Mr. Rodriguez—Mr. Garcia, thought he was in compliance with policy by going to EAP.
Does not think it's fair the City changes rules.
Employee rests.
14
Ms. Knox states she has two rebuttal witnesses, Ruthie Caraway & Cindi Papageorge.
Chairperson Farrar allows.five minute break.
City Witness — Ruthie L. Caraway, Human Resources, 18 years. Stated she had
conducted training on drug polices, does not remember training on 15.3. City-wide was
conducted recently with revision, prior it has been many years. Stated employees are
given copy of policy. Stated there is a time which is too late to seek help, same day as
random for example.
Pass the witness
Mr. Rodriguez- showed FIR 15.0 to Ruthie. Ruthie states this policy does not state that
contacting dept head or designee.
Pass the witness
Ms. Knox asks Ruthie to read bold section of policy. HR 15.0 does not address random,
the new one does. Stated she has knowledge of 15.3 but had not trained.
Pass the witness
) Mr. Rodriguez—Ruthie states the policy states an employee must tell their supervisor or
designee about the rehab.
Pass the witness
No further questions.
City Witness — Cindi Papageorge, Human Resources. Oath is given. 12 years. Trained
city employees on HR15.0 &HR 15.3. City-wide was conducted 2-3 years ago. Gas was
conducted 2-3 years ago. Stated employees are given copies of polices in the training.
Pass the witness
Mr. Rodriguez—Cindi stated employees can go to EAP anytime and must tell supervisor
or designee.
Pass the witness
Chairperson Farrar advises brief summation statements
i b
15
Ms. Knox begins summation. Mr. Garcia was subject random testing and tested positive
) for cocaine on November 24, 2004. This is a direct violation of city policy. Mr. Garcia
did not speak with the department head or designee about his drug problems until after
the random test had been generated and on the same day as the random drug test.
Employees are responsible for complying with city policies as written. The City asks that
the board uphold the termination.
Mr. Rodriguez begins summation. Mr. Garcia believed he was doing the right thing by
going to EAP. The procedural issues are very important in regards to the contemplated
and termination letters. The dates were changed and they were not reissued to Mr. Garcia
personally. The city failed to comply with its own rules in regards to this. The City is
bound by the documents in which they bring the accusations and in which they
terminated the employment. Five foremen testified employees can go to EAP and still
keep their job. Mr. Garcia did as HR 15.0 requires. I am requesting Mr. Garcia be
reinstated with back pay and this matter be resolved.
Chairperson Farrar—it is 3:15pm and will go into closed session.
Chairperson Farrar—it is 3:50pm and the board is out of closed session.
Item#1 on the agenda: .
Chairperson Farrar: Review and consideration of termination of Raymond
Garcia.
J Member Jose Moncada: Motion to uphold termination of Raymond Garcia, move
the termination be upheld.
Chairperson Farrar: Is there a second to the motion?
Member.John Silvas: Seconds motion.
Chairperson Farrar: We are adjourned.
Cynthia C. Garcia, Secretary Cydney ar, Chair
Civil Service Board Civil Service Board
6) 4
Jos Moncada Member Jo . •ilvas, Mem•--r
Civil Service Board Ci Service Board
Jp1,40 P, ScLJ'53
16