button, which will take you to the unedited
versions of the articles.}SPSE Newsletter #2, August 1998
Editor: P. Weidhaas
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
We devoted our last newsletter to the deteriorating relationship between Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the University of California (UC). That relationship has eroded even more at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Recent events at LANL demonstrate what happens when the UC, instead of managing the labs, allows a Lab administration to govern any way it wants. California legislators had to intervene on behalf of LANL employees. The legislators' letter to the UC Regents, the letter by Mechels to the Department of Energy (DOE), and Montano's article expose the UC's failures in managing LANL, and warn us at LLNL about following LANL's path. Below, we print edited versions of these letters and articles; their full text as well as links to relevant sources reside on our website: www.spse.org.
{Webmaster's Note: Look for the button, which will take you to the unedited
versions of the articles.}
In May, members of Citizens for LANL Employee Rights (CLER), a non-sanctioned LANL employee organization, scored a major victory. Ninety-seven members of CLER won a $2.9 million settlement from the LANL/UC. The UC Regents announced plans to settle all claims related to the November 1995 layoff in which 193 UC employees lost their jobs at LANL. On the eve of the layoff, over 100 laid-off UC employees organized and formed CLER. The settlement affects only the 97 CLER members who joined in a Group Lawsuit. This marks the first time that LANL employees organized to oppose a layoff. On another front, a separate settlement resolved the findings of the Department of Labor that LANL discriminated against Hispanic employees during the 1995 layoff.
Furthermore, at CLER's prompting, an unprecedented meeting took place in Santa Fe, New Mexico on May 8. Two California legislators visited for a day of hearings on LANL's labor practices. California Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco and California Assembly Budget Chair Denise Moreno Ducheny joined several New Mexico legislators: Senate President Pro Tem Manny Aragon, Senate Majority Whip Ben Lujan, and Speaker of the House Raymond Sanchez.
Former CLER President Chuck Montano, and current Vice President Chris Mechels, addressed the panel on behalf of LANL workers. LANL/UC were represented by LANL Director John Brown, UC Provost Judson King, and Carmen Estrada from UC's Office of Human Resources, headed by Lubbe Levin.
Revelations made public that day struck a chord with the legislators. They were dismayed by the fact that LANL treats workers differently from their LLNL counterparts in terms of employee rights. In particular, LANL workers lack the right to unionize or to form independent employee organizations. The California lawmakers expressed their feelings in the following letter to the UC Regents. /Chuck Montano, Former President of CLER
May 13, 1998
Ms. Meredith J. Khachigian, President
Board of Regents
University of California
RE: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dear Friends:
On Friday, May 8, 1998, we conducted a day of briefings, site visits, and a community meeting in Northern New Mexico on the operations and impact of the Laboratory. The visit was at the request of the leadership of the New Mexico Legislature, including the President Pro Tem, Senator Manny Aragon, and the Speaker of the House, Rep. Raymond Sanchez. ...
. . .
...We heard from University and Laboratory representatives and employees that led us conclude [sic] that Laboratory policies and practices governing employees are distinct from those at the other Laboratories and are not directly based on California statutes, administrative laws, and University regulations even though employees sign an oath of loyalty to California. ...Therefore, we will seek changes including legislation, if necessary, to address the specific problems.
...(W)e heard very serious allegations. ...They include the following:
1. Lack of clarity and fairness in the grievance process. We heard that the Laboratory's grievance process permits Laboratory managers and counsels to advise grievance panels, to restrict or deny discovery, and to yield different results from similar complaints.
2. Hiring, lay-off and re-hiring process: There was strong testimony that the 1995 lay-offs: while based on budget concerns, were reflective of management needs, personal biases, or other issues unrelated to the budget. We heard that the laboratory has not hired back employees laid-off in 1995, despite a significant number of hirings since that time. Further, we have seen evidence that the Laboratory utilizes a system of recruitment that emphasizes Limited-Term hires that are converted to permanent positions and results in bypassing equal employment and other policies.
3. Whistle-blowers: We were disturbed by testimony that employees have been "black-listed" and unable to find placement, despite Laboratory openings for which they seem suitably qualified, or even with the Laboratory's contractors or sub-contractors.
4. Severance pay: We heard testimony that laid-off employees had to sue the University and the Laboratory in order to secure severance pay, and in the case of re-hire, employees had to retroactively refund the money.
5. Restrictions on health benefits for laid-off employees: We were concerned to hear that the University had restricted or denied health benefits to former employees on the basis that the laid-off employees were utilizing health services at a greater rate than other health plan participants.
6. Upward mobility: We are disturbed by the testimony that we have heard on the lack of a clear process, goals, and timetables.
Overall, the allegations regarding personnel practices were very disturbing to us. They indicated a pattern of conduct in treating employees, particularly the older and minority staff who were laid-off in 1995 due to budget concerns, that reflects poorly on all Californians.
Therefore, we request that the Laboratory re-instate the laid-off employees or offer them suitable employment opportunities. ...Without such action, any settlement offer will result in a significant group of employees, many with decades of service, being left without any meaningful employment opportunities. ...This will yield bitterness, resentment, and continued hostility to California and to the University's role in managing the Laboratory.
. . .
Richard Polanco,
Senate Majority Leader
and Chair, Latino Legislative Caucus
Denise Moreno Ducheny, Chair,
Assembly Budget Committee and
Vice Chair, Latino Legislative Caucus
LANL Continues to Slide Backwards
LANL no longer uses the highly reputable American Arbitration Association (AAA) as the source for external arbitrators. LANL doesn't like AAA's new standard for "Due Process" which, among others, gives employees the right to choose their representative. LANL limits that right of its employees, once again going against the direction of all other UC Campuses who do use AAA. /Chris Mechels, CLER Vice President
Chris Mechels (CLER) Responds to the
DOE
June 1, 1998
Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr.
DOE Office of Worker and Community Transition
Dear Bob,
The purpose of this letter is provide the follow-up information you requested in last week's meeting. Specifically, it is to address the LANL abuse of "term" appointments to avoid their 3161 rehire obligations [under the National Defense Authorization Acts of 1997 & 1998] and to bypass their AA/EEO obligations. I am copying LANL's Diversity Officer and the LANL Director, for their action. I believe that the current LANL policy is not only unethical but illegal.
As the (enclosed) copy of LANL policy AM 104 shows LANL hiring practices are riddled with paths around "normal" hiring practices and AA/EEO obligations. The Limited Term conversion, without advertisement of the job, is unique within the UC system and much abused. Post Doc conversion, without advertisement, is unique within the UC system. GRA [Graduate Research Assistant] conversion, not even allowed within AM 104, frequently takes place, and is even specified on the LANL Web page, as the "GRA Conversion" enclosure shows. ...Such practices are not the norm in the University of California (UC) system, or at the other Labs....
The Limited Term abuses at LANL are frequent and profound. With a change to the (enclosed) AM 113 in 1991, LANL made "term" appointments terminable with 15 days notice, whereas they had been contracted for a fixed period, e.g. 2 years. As "term" appointments now have no rights, LANL employees will not apply for "term" jobs. With no LANL applicants there is no one with "standing" to question the selection process, thus the managers can hire whomever they wish. Then, at some convenient future time, a simple Personnel Action converts the hired friend to a "regular" UC appointment, without any need to advertise/compete the job. This is what happened prior to the 1995 RIF as illustrated in the (enclosed) May 16, 1998 letter to Senator Polanco. In this case five "term" hires were "front loaded" between 05/01/95 and 09/13/95 to directly displace five UC "regulars" of long service who were RIF'd. This directly violated the intention of 3161. The five "term" employees were then converted to regulars without any opportunity for the displaced employees to "bid" on the jobs, thus violating their 3161 Preferential Rehire rights. Such practices took place across the Lab as demonstrated in the (enclosed) listing of conversions. ...
Post Doc hiring practices at LANL constitute outright age discrimination. Post Docs are hired by a special Post Doc process, which is detailed in the (enclosed) Post Doctoral Program Guidelines. Noted in those Guidelines is that Post Docs can be converted without the position being advertised. Thus, Post Docs are hired via a process that LANL employees do not have access to. They are then converted to unadvertised jobs that LANL employees have no access to. In the 1995 RIF Post Docs were exempted from consideration for RIF (enclosure), and then converted to jobs vacated by the RIF of "regular" employees. ...
GRA conversions constitute another case of outright age discrimination. They are hired via a special hiring process unavailable to LANL employees and then converted (enclosure) without job advertisement thus barring LANL employees from application. GRA's were also excluded from consideration for the 1995 RIF thus directly violating the intention of 3161 by discriminating against those of long service. ...
A further vehicle of discrimination at LANL is the use of waivers to advertising. These are used to hire contractors, without LANL employees, or ex-employees, having a right to "bid" on the jobs. After only 8 waivers in FY 95, all during the "run up" to the RIF there were 49 waivers in FY 96 as they were used to avoid job advertisements that the RIF'd employees could bid on, thus violating the 3161 Preferential Rehire provisions.
. . .
...DOE had a very real, though perhaps unwitting, supporting role in LANL personnel abuses. DOE paid, under 3161, to RIF the LANL employees in 1995; the cost did not (unlike past RIFs) come out of the LANL operating budget. Thus LANL management, planning further RIFs in FY 96 and FY 97, had a strong incentive to target LANL employees of long service, those with the big severance packages. DOE gave LANL management a "free shot" at LANL employees, those whom 3161 was to benefit. DOE stood by while LANL management directly compared LANL/UC employees, with 3161 preference, against contractors and "term" employees, and terminated the UC employees. Then DOE stood by while LANL refused, and then resisted, their 3161 rehire obligations, while hiring/converting 1100 people. DOE has paid the bill for LANL abuses while LANL management has violated all their 3161 obligations and AA/EEO laws.
What can DOE, especially your office, do? You can insist on LANL policy changes. The Limited Term, GRA, and Post Doc, policy abuses detailed and documented in this package must stop. ...You are now fully apprised of this illegal situation, you must stop it. ...
Your office has financed the 1995 RIFs with over $20,000,000. LANL management has taken the money and used it to target the very people that the U.S. Congress intended the money to aid, while thumbing their noses at DOE. This cannot, at this late date, be undone. You can, however, meet your current obligations, and create an impartial dispute resolution board to enforce the Preferential Rehire. ...Stop cooperating with the LANL HR staff in their continuing efforts to thwart the intent of 3161.
. . .
Sincerely Yours,
Chris Mechels, CLER Vice President
In a private communication to SPSE, Chris Mechels warns us that LLNL's change to their layoff policy, followed by the introduction of "Flexible Term Employees" is a walk down the LANL path. According to Mechels, Livermore's Manager of Human Resources, Gloria Kwei, knows that path well, having formerly helped to create the scheme at LANL. The LANL features, which until recently were still missing at LLNL, are: 1) the ability to convert term employees without competing for the job, and 2) the selection for RIF without regard to seniority. LLNL's changes to their layoff policy took care of 2, moving LLNL one step closer to LANL's dismal practices.
Mechels' experience with LANL management is that policies, such as the term policy, which give management more flexibility, always become a vehicle for attacking employee rights. He writes, "It is therefore imperative for employees to band together to defend those rights. The only reason that LLNL employees have preserved [some of] their UC employee rights is the existence of SPSE. We are seeking to start such an organization at LANL. I applaud SPSE's 25 year struggle for employee rights. Please join them." /Patrick Weidhaas
SPSE thanks Chris Mechels for his support. His warning echoes SPSE's concerns and strengthens our determination to fight for consistency in UC personnel policies across the labs and the rest of the UC.
This Unfair Labor Practice Charge is in progress, and it marks SPSE's attempt to enforce system-wide UC personnel policies at LLNL. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) hearing, scheduled for April 27, was canceled. The UC has asked the judge to rule on their Motion to Dismiss the charge. On June 8, SPSE Attorney Tom Sinclair submitted SPSE's response. The UC submitted its rebuttal on July 1. The judge will now rule on the motion. /Bruce Kelly
In recent weeks, two outside committees visited the Lab to take its pulse. The first, the Chiles Commission, swooped in stealthily and left us with a questionnaire. The other, the UC Regents Oversight Committee, arrived and left with banner headlines in the Lab's Newsline. Since both committees solicited input from "mere mortals," SPSE board member, George Craig, addressed them about the eroding relationship between the University of California and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Admiral Hank Chiles heads the Commission On Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise which is mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act For FY 1997 & 1998 to report back to Congress. The charter of the commission is, in part, to review and recommend improvements to the on-going efforts of the DOE to attract qualified scientific, engineering, and technical personnel to the nuclear weapons complex. DOE also instructed the commission to discuss with "junior and middle grade personnel" their attitudes and understanding of the mission. To accommodate this, the Lab scheduled private one-on-one interviews of 15 minutes with the different commissioners. I spoke with Charles Curtis, the former Deputy Secretary of the DOE. When I complained about the loss of employee rights in the new flexible status employee category, he indicated that I was not the only one to raise the subject.
Regent Peter Preuss chaired the Regents of the University of California Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories. The opening session permitted public comment on matters related to the agenda. I was presented as one of 5 speakers from the public which also included anti-nuclear activists Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley CAREs and Jackie Cabasso of Western States Legal Foundation. We were allowed 3 minutes each to speak our piece. Regent Preuss effectively squelched any dialogue with his committee during this session by holding us rigidly to the 3-minute rule. I expressed SPSE's concern about what the problems at Los Alamos portend for us.
After publishing a pro forma invitation for public input, the follow-up Newsline article censored all references to the public's participation. Local media coverage was equally informative: an empty row of press chairs showed their interest in reporting how the UC manages one of the country's nuclear weapons labs. /George Craig
On June 29, the Department of Labor upheld the claims of LLNL employee David Lappa. They concluded that Lab managers had retaliated against Lappa after he refused to sign an investigative report regarding the handling of plutonium. The case has received widespread media coverage. The Lab decided not to appeal the finding, citing concern for taxpayer's money. Lappa, who is the SPSE treasurer, fought his battle with the aid of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) attorneys who are experienced in protecting whistleblowers. As more details become available we will report them. /Patrick Weidhaas
Many LLNL employees are unaware that taking Leave Without Pay for any length of time deactivates their disability insurance. This may expose them to serious financial hardship should they become disabled while on unpaid leave. Moreover, should an employee become disabled AFTER taking Leave Without Pay, the unpaid leave could affect their disability payments.
SPSE strongly encourages employees who consider Leave Without Pay to confirm this vulnerability by contacting the Benefits Office or by visiting the UC's benefits website at www.ucop.edu/bencom/hw/ygip/disaend.html. There, they will find the following advisory: Coverage can end if certain employment actions occur. For example, if you...go on leave without pay,...coverage stops on the last full day you are actively at work.
Strangely, in months with unpaid leave, the disability premium remains the same--even though the level of coverage is non-existent for the unpaid leave portions of the month! According to Benefits, this apparent inequity has been challenged in the courts--unsuccessfully.
|
SPSE Executive Board Update |
| SPSE President-elect Hilary Kauffman has resigned because of time constraints. William O'Connell has been appointed to that office. Sue Koopman has been appointed to the SPSE Board to fill the seat Bill vacated. The offices of President and President-elect will be filled by election in November. |
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/