Contributed anonymously:
Complaint resolution form in DOC format
From SPSE today...
DEADLINE FAST APPROACHING TO CHALLENGE YOUR LAYOFF --- PLEASE READ THIS
SPSE-UPTE has been gathering demographic information from the Lab employees laid off during the week of May 19th. Reviewing this information and LLNS policy, we believe that most of the people affected have justification to file grievances or discrimination complaints. They are as follows:
1. A formal grievance to LLNS claiming violation of LLNS layoff policy in combination with labor or case law. In determining order of layoff, companies are allowed to make exceptions to inverse seniority and skip over less senior employees only if they possess unique skills or abilities that do not exist elsewhere in the company. Generally, labor boards and the courts have found that instances of skipping should not amount to more than 10% of a workforce. LLNS excluded around 40% of its employees from the layoff pool. This is clearly far more than the law intended.
2. Well over 90% of the employees we contacted or who contacted us were over 40 years old. We believe that the age of the general Lab population is distributed more evenly. A difference in age distribution between the general workforce and the laid off employees would demonstrate a prima facie case for age discrimination. An age discrimination complaint can be filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
If you wish to file a grievance, you must get a Complaint Resolution Form (CRF) to LLNL's Staff Relations Division no later than June 20, 2008. Attached is an appropriately filled out CRF for the charge we just described. You need only fill in the personal information on the top part of the form, and send it to this address:
Robert Perko
Division Leader, Staff Relations, L-708
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P. O. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
Or, you can use this form as a template and craft your own charge with details of your specific situation. In either case, you should file the complaint before the deadline. Even if you are talking to an attorney you should still file the complaint if you believe (as we do) that Laboratory policy was violated. You can always withdraw the grievance later if for any reason you change your mind. You should expect that LLNS will deny the complaint at the initial step. That's normal. When this happens you should ask for independent review by an outside arbitrator rather than by an internal panel. Moreover, at this stage you should seek representation. Do not try to go it alone.
Also, if you are above 40, consider filing an age discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing in parallel with your grievance. To learn about this, go to:
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaints/Default.aspx?process=employment#main_content_1
Filing with DFEH automatically carries over into a duplicate filing with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The process of filing a grievance or discrimination complaint can be difficult. Moreover, it is beyond SPSE-UPTE's ability to represent every individual who wishes to file. We suggest that if you file a grievance, you also obtain legal advice in the matter before your case reaches the arbitration stage.
We have obtained demographic information from a large fraction of the individuals that were laid off. We have raw data on age, gender, and ethnicity, among other things. We offer this information, along with a list of people who were laid off, for your use in any internal complaint resolution or legal action. Bear in mind that our layoff list is not completely accurate, though it is more than 95% so. It represents our best estimate from sources we had at our disposal. If you or your legal representative believes this information will be useful, please contact SPSE-UPTE at spse@spse.org. We wish you well in asserting you rights.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Society of Professionals, Scientists & Engineers
Local 11 University Professional and Technical Employees, CWA Local 9119
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
(925) 449-4846 voice
(925) 449-4851 fax
Office Hours: Mon. - Fri. 8am to Noon
5 comments:
Thank you SPSE-UPTE for your support during this stressful period. Many of us career employees that were unfairly laid off on May 22 and May 23 are still in shock and are devastated by the loss of our careers at the once great Livermore Lab.
Thank you Scooby for all your time and efforts. This Blog is an excellent way for the LLNL employees and former employees to stay informed.
Yes I could file a complaint for age and veteran discrimination, but what would the end result be? My job back - with a company that devalues its employees and tosses them out like garbage. No Thanks, talking with hiring managers over the past week has convinced me that some companies do appreciate
knowledge and ability without regard to the age of the package.Why would I want to come back? The Lab, like so many other government institutions,has an overinflated sense of self-importance.Get out and see the science the real world is doing.
I stayed to long, it dulled my creativity.
Also, if you are above 40, consider filing an age discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing in parallel with your grievance.
I would highly recommend also filing a complaint to the HR Director as well. Lab policy also explicity prohibites discrimination on the basis on AGE as well.
Give it up people and enjoy the next few months of being worry free. Use the time between now and Feb of 2009 to find a job elsewhere if you can. Having little faith in ULM, the congress or the senate, and understanding we'll be in Iraq for many years to come no matter who's in office my bet's on the budget being less than anticipated for FY-09. I'll also wager by Feb of 2009 ULM will know what the consequences are. My prediction is between 1000 -1500 more people out the gate by the end of FY-09 and that's only if NIF is successful and their budget doesn't get hosed. If for some reason either one of these occur 1500 people will be a drop in the bucket and closing the gates of LLNL wouldn't be out of the question.
Regardless, SPSE should only be encouraging people to sue LLNS if they had a flawless employment record with 25 plus years of service and were evidently axed for no cause other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The ones who were marginal employees and you know who you are should just suck it up and admit to themselves their time came and went decades ago and they've been very lucky to have stayed employed at LLNL for as long as they did. There were many who fit this description on the SPSE list.
So lets move on to the next reality. The once exempt employees of NIF who were spared from the VSSOP / ISP will soon be seen by ULM as a problem and we clearly understand how LLNS deals with budgetary issues to assure their management fee isn't curtailed and their DOE mandates are accomplished. The people of NIF know as they get closer to being fully commissioned and it's eventually turned over to Jacobs they too will be sent out to pasture long before their usefulness has expired. This enviable fact will account for a large number of warm bodies needed to fulfill the FY-09 and FY-10 reduction in force. By the end of FY-10 Jacobs will have the keys to the house. Then and only then maybe we'll pause for a moment of silence, were someone will look back and realize that LLNL once a population of 8000+ will have diminished to approximately half it's original size. At that time LLNL a once great nuclear weapons complex of gallant personnel will have transition to a well tuned machine who's mission is to conduct a repetitive series of stockpile stewardship experiments on a routine basis by a crew of competent contract operators for theoreticians to play with. Nothing of usefulness in the realm of alternative energy for transportation or household use will have come about.
Just another unjustified hit in the ...from LLNS?:
The VVSOP people were required to NOT work for LLNS, or NNSA, or DoE for a year.
I can almost see why they have a legitimate desire that people not come back the next day as contractors, or as consultants (even if they try hire an outside consultant or other co. to do your work - but much of the work, after all, will not go away, even if the curent worker does)
But how do they justify forbidding other DoE or NNSA work, say at another site?
Our people have clearances, skills, knowledges, understand the Doe Rules, etc. Why, if another site wants to hire us, do they want to make it hard to take that job?
Looks like part of the LLNS new motto: "KGN" or "Kinder, Gentler...NOT!"
Post a Comment