Resolution No. 1927 T
0
RESOLUTION NO. 1927
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT ADOPTING PRO-
POSED DECISION OF HEARING OFFICER
SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL OF ALTON
J. GUNDERSON.
WHEREAS, the General Manager of SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT terminated the employment of Alton J. Gunderson with said
Distrist on July 29, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, said Alton J. Gunderson filed his appeal of said
termination with this Board of Directors at its regular meeting on
August 1, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, after "meet and confer" negotiations between the
attorney for said Alton J. Gunderson and the recognized employee
organization, Stationary Engineers, Local No. 39, and the attorney
for said District, appeal procedures were adopted by this Board of
Directors for employees terminated by the General Manager of said
District as more particularly set forth in Resolutions Nos. 1898
and 1902, and for the appeal of said Alton J. Gunderson as more
particularly set forth in Resolution No. 1903, all of which procedures
were agreed to by said Alton J. Gunderson through his attorney; and,
WHEREAS, a hearing on the appeal of termination of said
Alton J. Gunderson in accordances with said procedures adopted was
duly held on August 27 and 28, 1974, before Coleman E. Stewart, a
Hearing Officer agreed upon to hear the matter by said Alton J.
Gunderson and this Board of Directors through their respective
attorneys; and,
WHEREAS, said Hearing Officer, Coleman E. Stewart, has
prepared a proposed decision In the latter of the Dismissal of
Alton J. Gunderson together with a memorandum opinion in support
thereof, which decision and memorandum were received by the District
on September 27, 1974, and filed by the Clerk of the District as
a public record on September 30, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, said proposed decision and memorandum opinion
in support thereof, was mailed certified to said terminated employee
Alton J. Gunderson on September 30, 1974, and to his attorneys as
well as each member of this Board of Directors, together with a
notice that the matter of taking any action specified in said
Resolution No. 1903 on said proposed decision would be considered at
an adjourned regular meeting of this Board of Directors, October 10,
1974; and,
fir. WHEREAS, each member of this Board of Directors has read
and considered said proposed decision and memorandum opinion in
support thereof, and said decision was fully read in adjourned
meeting of said Board of Directors, October 10, 1974; and,
WHEREAS, this Board of Directors had explained in an
adjourned regular meeting of said Board, October 10, 1974, each of
the courses of action it might take upon said proposed decision;
and,
WHEREAS, the terminated employee Alton J. Gunderson nor
his attorney were not present at the adjourned meeting of this
Board on October 10, 1974, and no written or oral statement was
presented on his behalf, except an appearance by Local Union 39
Steward, Harry Hansen;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIIE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
1. The proposed decision of Coleman E. Stewart, Hearing
Officer, dated September 18, 1974, In the Matter of the Dismissal
of Alton J. Gunderson is hereby adopted in its entirety. A copy of
2 .
said decision and memorandum opinion in support thereof, is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, incorporated herein, and
made a part hereof.
2. The punitive determination of dismissal of Alton J.
Gunderson from employment with SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
on July 29, 1974, by the General Manager of said District is
ordered sustained.
3. The President of the Board of Directors of SOUTH TAHOE
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT is ordered and authorized to sign said
original proposed decision of Coleman E. Stewart, Hearing Officer,
as the decision of this Board of Directors. The Clerk of said District
is directed to sign and attest to the signature of said President
and affix the seal of the District thereon. The Clerk is further
directed to attach a certified copy of this Resolution to said
decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting of
the Board of Directors of SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT on
this 10th day of October, 1974, by the following vote:
AYES: Directors Wakeman, Fester, Kortes,
Hegarty and Ream
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4 11 11 .:7(ZdA...2
-•: *res .en •i
TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
ATTEST
II
r ; r
"A *A �� , i:r, o e
Board, ' OUTH TAHOE *MC r ; LI
DISTRIC
3.
Certificate
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. 1927, which was duly and
regularly adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Board
of Directors of the SOUTH TAHOE iuiii,IC UTILITY DISTRICT, El Dorado
County, California, held on the 10th day of October, 1974, by the
following vote:
AYES: Directors Wakeman, Feller, Kortes,
Hegarty and Ream
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AO
d •.
DA' ' W C LA u , ' . erg
SOUTH ' PUBLIC ' Iran (�IST j
(SEAL)
• • 1'
Filed with South Tahoe Public
Utility District as a public
record Sept. 30, 1974
1 •a .e4 /
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
11 In the Matter of the Dismissal of )
12 ALTON J. GUNDERSON ] MEMORANDUM OPINION
%me 13
14 ALTON J. GUNDERSON, an employee of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC
15 UTILITY DISTRICT was dismissed as of July 29, 1974. The letter
16 of termination as of that date states the following grounds for
17 such action:
18 1. July 16, 1974 - Gunderson reported for work after excessive
19 drinking, and incapable of fully performing his duties.
20 2. May 14, 1974 - Memorandum from General Manager (Culp)
21 to Al Gunderson, "This is to formally notify you that
22 watching television or sleeping on the job is not per -
23 mitted, and, if verified, is cause for immediate dis-
24 missal".
25 3. Sunday, May 12, 1974, 9:45 P.M. - Memorandum from Plant
26 Engineer (Gonzales) to Gunderson personnel file, 11 I
COLEMAN E. BTEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( 1 )
P. 0. 60X 306
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95646
1 came to plant where I found Al Gunderson with his head
2 down on table in the operator's lounge, eyes closed,
3 and apparently asleep. Terry Guild was reading a news -
4 paper at the time and when he saw me and spoke loudly
5 he awakened Gunderson ".
6 4. Wednesday, May 8, 1974, 9:05 P.M. - Memorandum from
7 Plant Engineer (Gonzales) to Guild personnel file,
8 "I came into plant and found Al Gunderson and Terry B.
9 Guild watching television in the operator's lounge. In
10 January (following Super Bowl) I gave Guild a direct
11 order that a television would no longer be allowed at
12 the plant, and the men were not to watch television on
13 duty ".
14 5. Monday, March 18, 1974, 4:00 P.M. - Memorandum from
15 Plant Engineer to Gunderson personnel file, "Al Gunder -
16 son arrived at work after obviously consuming a con -
17 siderable quantity of alcohol and in a drunken condition.
18 This was apparent by Gunderson's having a problem
19 shifting gears and parking his car (running into a pipe
20 near chlorine storage area)."
21 6. November 5, 1973 - Letter from Assistant General Manager
22 (Callahan) to Dorward Pump Company, Concord, California -
23 "It has just come to my attention that Mr. Gunderson, an
24 employee of the District, purchased an item from you on
25 Invoice No. 3649, dated August 10th, 1973, in the name
26 of the South Tahoe Public Utility District. Please be
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW advised that this invoice was purchased for the
P. O. BOX 306
661 SIXTH ST. ( )
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
1 individual's use, and is a clear violation by the employee
2 of the District's policy not to puchase personal items
3 in the District name. The District denies any respon-
4 sibility for the payment of the item."
5 Subsequently Gunderson was furnished a Bill of Particulars
6 dated August 13, 1974.
7 A preponderance of the probative evidence introduced
8 herein requires the determination that the following incidents
9 setforth in the Bill of Particulars are true:
10 1. September 5, 1973. Warning by General Manager Russell
11 Culp. There is to be no reporting for work with evidence
12 of drinking of alcoholic beverages while on job. Issued
13 in connection with shift assignment change from day to
14 graveyard. Violation would be basis for discharge.
15 This warning was based on prior reports of drinking
16 received by the Manager.
17 2. March 18, 1974. Arrived at work after obviously con -
18 suming a considerable quantity of alcoholic beverage
19 and in a drunken condition. Observed having a problem
20 changing gears in his automobile and in parking car
21 (running into a pipe near chlorine storage area). Warni,!
22 by Plant Engineer, John Gonzales, that any further
23 arriving at work with evidence of drinking alcohol or
24 drinking alcohol on job will be reported tothe General
25 Manager and be cause for discharge.
26 3. May 12, 1974, 9:45 P.M. On job in Operator's Lounge
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW with evidence of having consumed alcoholic beverage.
P. O. BOX 306
661 SIXTH BT. ( )
LINCOLN, CALIFORN
95648
lbw
1 Warned by Plant Engineer May 12, 1974 that further
2 incident could result in discharge. Warning May 14,
3 1974 by General Manager that one more report of drinking
4 while on job or reporting for work after drinking would
5 result in discharge.
6 4. January through July, 1974. Reports by employees that
7 Gunderson was starting work shift with evidence of having
8 consumed alcoholic beverages.
9 5. July 16, 1974. Reported for work with evidence of
10 having consumed alcoholic beverage. This incident was
11 reported to General Manager on July 22, 1974, and
12 Gunderson was discharged on July 29, 1974.
13 6. May 7, 1974, 9:05 P.M. Gunderson watching television in
14 Operator's lounge which when reported to General Manager
15 resulted in written warning dated May 14, 1974.
16 7. May 12, 1974, 9:45 P.M. Found sleeping on job. Written
17 warning by General Manager dated May 14, 1974.
18 8. August 10, 1973. Purchased a pump impeller for pump
19 on his private well for personal use from Dorward Pump
20 Company, billed to South Tahoe Public Utility District,
21 Invoice No. 3649, and charged to District contrary to
22 District policy.
23 9. March 19, 1974. Failure to do share of operator's
24 work and care of plant. Noted this date in evaluation
25 file as follows:
26 "I feel that with Al's knowledge of treatment
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. 0. BOX 306 (4 )
661 BIXTH BT. l
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
1 plant operations, he should be one of our very best
2 operators. It is obvious that Al's lack of interest and
3 motivation cause him to be lazy and not do his share of
4 the work and more. Since Al is shift leader, he should
5 know what is happening throughout the plant at all times.
6 More care of the plant should be given by Al."
7 Warned by Plant Engineer this could be grounds for
8 discharge. Thereafter continued to be sloppy in operator s
9 laboratory work with doubtful results, continued his
10 failure to clean the laboratory after use, and continued
11 his failure to backwash carbon columns and filters in
12 the tertiary plant.
13 Finding No. 1 is not weighed against appellant. Evidenc-
14 to the effect that appellant drank on the job was not adduced.
15 The warning and the report referred to become hearsay that will
16 not support a positive finding.
17 Finding No. 4 has a different status. The record
18 herein contains probative evidence that employees had observed
19 appellant starting a work shift with indications of having con -
20 sumed an alcoholic beverage and that they reported their observations
21 to managment.
22 Findings 6 and 7 are minor in importance, but are
23 significant of a pattern of disobedience to management directives.
24 Findings 2, 3, 4 and 5 are sufficiently serious when
25 considered in conjunction with findings 6, 7, 8 and 9, to sustain
26 the determination to dismiss appellant.
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. 60X 306 !
661 61%711 ST. `
INCOLN. CALIFORNIA
95649
1 Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf,
2 admitted that it was his practice to consume beer each day before
3 reporting for work. He indicated that the amount varied, on the
4 average, from one to four cans of beer, and that on March 18,
5 1974, he could have consumed six cans of beer. Considering the
6 number of times he had been warned by management that this course
7 of conduct could result in his dismissal, appellant's course of
8 conduct can only be appraised as either a wilful defiance of
9 management policies, or that he is a compulsive alcoholic.
10 Appellant's defense rests on two primary issues:
11 1. The Bill of Particulars, even if established does not
12 justify the ultimate conclusion of "Just cause to dis-
13 miss".
14 2. The dismissal was the result of "Union discrimination"
15 and so tainted the determination to dismiss as to
16 make such determination a nullity.
17 The formal decision submitted with this Memorandum Opinion finds
18 against appellant in both issues.
19 Appellant's inebriety constituted a hazard to the operatiln
20 of the District's plant that could not be permitted to continue.
21 It also consituted an unacceptable pattern of conduct to be
22 observed by fellow employees. Failure to discipline appellant
23 could very well lead to a like pattern of conduct being engaged
24 in by other employees. The record of companion appellants, Guild
25 and Fox, contains evidence that other employees did, on at least
26 one occasion as to each individual, consume beer while on a work
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW \
P. O. SOX 306 (6 )
661 61XTH ST.
LINCOLN. CALIFORNIA
956 48
1 shift.
2 Appellant's defense of "Union discrimination" is not
3 sustained. It is true that as of July 29, 1974, three employees
4 of the District were dismissed. It is also true that these
5 three employees were the ones most active in causing Operating
6 Engineers Local No. 39 to become the bargaining agent for the
7 employees of the District, however, the evidence fails to disclose
8 any prejudice against this union other than a declaration on the
9 part of one member of the Board of Directors that he opposed
10 the bringing in of the union. This was not the attitude of the
11 Board as evidenced by its cooperation in the acceptance of the
12 union without a formal vote of the employees, thus accelerating
k ow 13 the establishment of the union's jurisdiction by at least two
14 months.
15 Considerable evidence was admitted on behalf of the
16 defense to establish that other employees of the District, who
17 had not been disciplined, were guilty of disciplinary offenses.
18 This evidence is not relevant to the determination of the charges
19 setforth in the Bill of Particulars. That other employees were
20 guilty of disciplinary offenses does not exhonerate Gunderson. The
21 evidence was relevant only to the issue of "Union discrimination ".
22 No one employee was shown to have been guilty of disciplinary
23 offenses, either in number or as serious in consequence, as those
24 established against Gunderson. Had disciplinary proceedings been
Ike 25 instituted against any one of such employees the discipline imposed,
26 of necessity, would have been less severe.
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW 7
P. O. BOX 306
661 SIXTH RT.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648
1 Evidence adduced on the part of the defense that other
2 employees had personal purchases delivered to the plant by
3 United Parcel Service is without significance. In no instance
4 was it shown that such delivery was the result of the use of a
5 District purchase order, or in the name of the District.
6 Finally, the contention that the employee "appraisals"
7 of Gunderson fail to reflect any disciplinary act on the part of
8 Gunderson and that, therefore, the only logical conclusion is that
9 after Gunderson succeeded in bringing in Engineers Local 39,
10 management then undertook to "build a case" against Gunderson.
11 This contention lacks validity. The rationalization of the favor -
12 able appraisals as opposed to the disciplinary Bill of Particulars
k re 13 lies in the management structure and the atmosphere that prevailed
14 after the hiring of Gonzales. Gonzales was a young engineer just
15 out of college. He has presently been with management as a plant
16 engineer for two and one half (2 1/2) years. He is by birth half
17 Mexican and half Irish. He was the representative of management
18 who reviewed the appraisal reports of the employees. This position,
19 of authority disturbed Guild and he made his attitude known to the
20 other employees. The record does not affirmatively disclose thrt
21 the other employees resented Gonzales by reason of his ancestry,
22 but they did develop the attitude of the "silent treatment ". It
23 was in this atmosphere that Gonzales was called upon to function,
24 not only as the plant engineer, but as an administrative super-
‘le 25 visor. For this latter assignment Gonzales had not been specifi-
26 tally trained, and he failed to realize the necessity of his
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW ( " R
) P. O. 60K 306
661 SIXTH ET.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95640
•
•
1 active intervention in reviewing appraisal reports. He took the
2 attitude that if the employees rating supervisor gave him a
3 favorable report it was not his responsibility to intervene and
4 derogate that report if he had an adverse opinion. In this
5 attitude he was in error. However, the evidence discloses that
6 both he and the general manager came under criticism, from both
7 employees and the Board of Directors for being too lenient in the
8 area of supervisory discipline. Both have corrected such latitude.
Gi Ly
9 SIGNED this ' day of September, 1974.
10 �' 1
11
coleman E. Stewart
12 Hearing Officer Presiding
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COLEMAN E. 6TEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. Vox 306
661 BI %TN BT.
LINCOLN, CALIFONNIA
9564 8
•
Filed with South Tahoe Public
` Utility District as a public
record Sept. 30, 1974.
illy 04-04-6(4-Efe41/
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
In the Matter of the Dismissal of ]
11 1
ALTON J. GUNDERSON
12 ] DECISION
46, 13 The appeal of ALTON J. GUNDERSON from the punitive
14 determination of dismissal as an employee of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC
15 UTILITY DISTRICT came on for hearing on the 27th day of August, 197 ,
16 at the hour of 2 :00 P.M., before COLEMAN E. STEWART, Hearing
17 Officer sitting alone. The District was represented by JOHN C.
18 WEIDMAN and LEE H. SCHUERING, Attorneys at Law, and the appellant
19 was represented by MATHEW B.F. BERIN an Attorney at Law.
20 Evidence, both oral and documentary was adduced and
21 reported, and after oral argument the appeal was submitted for
22 decision.
23 FINDINGS OF FACT
24 The following facts are found to be true:
25 1. On March 18, 1974, appellant, ALTON J. GUNDERSON,
26 arrived at the plant and went to work in an intoxicated
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 306 ( 1)
661 BIXTH ST. l
LINCOLN. CALIFORN
95648
1 condition.
2 2. On May 12, 1974, appellant was observed in the Operator's
3 lounge with evidence of having consumed an alcoholic
4 beverage.
5 3. For the period of January through July 1974, employees of
6 the District observed appellant after he had gone to
7 work with indications of having consumed an alcoholic
8 beverage and reported these observations to management.
9 4. On July 16, 1974, appellant went to work with the
10 evidence of having consumed an alcoholic beverage.
11 5. On May 7, 1974, appellant was observed watching a
12 television program. This occurred after appellant, and
13 all employees had been warned that watching television
14 during shift hours was not permissable, and that all
15 television sets should be removed from the premises.
16 6, On May 12, 1974, appellant was observed asleep in the
17 Operator's lounge at approximately 9:45 P.M.
18 7, On August 10, 1973, appellant purchased a pump impeller
19 for pump on his private well for personal use from
20 Dorward Pump Company, billed to South Tahoe Public
21 Utility District, Invoice No. 3649, and charged to
22 District contrary to District policy. This was done in
23 opposition to directives, in writing, given to all
24 employees that individual purchases were not to be made
25 through the use of District purchase orders, or in the
26 name of the District.
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 306 (2)
661 SIXTH ST.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95646
•
•
SEp
' V j (1 r
S. T. P. D.
1 8. Appellant had, from time to time, failed to properly
2 clean up the chemistry laboratory, had failed to back
3 wash carbon columns and filters in the tertiary plant,
4 and had refused to follow a directive as to using a lab
5 test adopted by the District.
6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7 I
Appellant has been guilty of the following disciplinary
8
offenses:
9
1. Inefficiency
10
2. Insubordination.
11
12 II
,► 13 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT did not violate the
14 provisions of Section 3506 of the Government Code.
15
DECIS ION
16
The punitive determination of dismissal of appellant,
17
ALTON J. GUNDERSON, as of July 29, 1974, is hereby sustained.
18 DATED AND SGINED this :( day of September, 1974
19
21 C Leman E. Stewart,
Hearing Officer Presiding.
22
23
24
25
26 . a . . 0
COLEMAN E. STEWART ( 3 )
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 906
661 SIXTH BT.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
9564B
. ''
1 The foregoing decision is hereby adopted as the decision
2 of the Board of Directors of the SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY
3 DISTRICT this 10th day of October , 1974.
4
5 SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
6 B
7 Preside t
B / _. . _ - I
9 Secretary
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COLEMAN E. STEWART
ATTORNEY AT LAW (4)
P. O. SOX 306
661 SIXTH 8T.
LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA
95648