Labor officials say retaliation still a major concern for city employees

Austin city management may not be fully aware of continued worries shared by members of its workforce over retaliation related to voicing complaints about the workplace. This news comes despite assurances of progress on issues outlined in a controversial 2010 study of internal city ethics, including those regarding retaliation.

 

According to an official with the local chapter of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), retaliation remains a major concern for City of Austin employees.

 

“While we will not comment specifically (on) the actual number of retaliation cases we bring forward on behalf of our members, I would estimate that approximately in 3 out of every 5 cases we take on, members cite fears of retaliation in bringing complaints forward,” AFSCME’s Caitlin Brown told In Fact Daily via email. “Many members don’t even want us to pursue valid complaints due to their overwhelming fear of retaliation.”

 

A statement provided to In Fact Daily via email by the city’s Public Information Office contradicts Brown’s account. “Results from the City of Austin’s most recent Listening to the Workforce survey indicate 24 percent of respondents feel that fear of retaliation is an issue,” wrote city spokesperson Kyle Carvell. “The city’s experience shows employees are not shy or adverse to reporting concerns they might have. There are multiple ways to report a concern and 85 percent of survey respondents said they know how to report unethical behavior. In addition to ethics training provided to all employees, retaliation policy is covered in several employee training programs.”

 

In the same email, city Employee Relations Manager Jeff Burton said: “The City goes to great lengths to provide multiple avenues to report a problem, including an anonymous hotline. The bottom line is retaliation is not tolerated at the City of Austin. The city has a responsibility to the accuser and the accused to conduct a thorough and fair investigation, and to address any issues we discover. We take all allegations of improper conduct, including retaliation, extremely seriously.”

 

In Fact Daily obtained copies of two retaliation complaints failed against the city. One, filed just recently, came through the union. The other, filed at the end of 2011, was obtained from the city via an open records request.

 

Carl “Mack” Burford, an employee with the city’s Public Works Department who filed the first complaint, agreed to let us use his real name. In Fact Daily was unable to contact the second complainant. Because she still works for a city department – and due to the palpable level of fear surrounding these issues – we’ll call her Alice, which is not her real name.

 

In his formal complaint, Burford alleges that he has been “subjected to ongoing ‘bullying’ and threats of retaliation for several months now.” Burford describes a meeting between himself and his supervisor in which Burford writes that he attempted to beg off duties that were not in his job description – including the operation of one of the city’s commercial vehicles. Burford alleges that his supervisor then “began threatening me with various forms of retaliation including stating that ‘if you don’t wanna drive for me, I will have you out in the parking lot washing every window on every vehicle the city owns.”

 

“In addition,” Burford continues, “(his supervisor) stated that if I refused, he would take disciplinary actions for insubordination and could lead to my termination.”

 

In his statement, Burford calls the issue “ongoing.” Burford further alleges that his supervisor told him and a group of his coworkers “that he is exempt from federal laws and regulations because he works for a government entity and that ‘if anyone tried to sue him or the city for unlawful act’ they would be wasting their time because ‘you can’t sue the city.'”

 

Burford also claims that his immediate supervisor told him that “he can work us 40 hours straight if he wants to without ever giving us a break.” In the statement, Burford also insists that he would be willing to perform the extra duties if he were appropriately compensated for the work – a move that would necessitate a promotion.

 

Carvell told In Fact Daily that the investigation into Burford’s complaints has not yet been settled.

 

Alice’s complaint is also fairly detailed. She claimed that in the wake of a report that she filed about wrongdoing in her department, she faced “capricious & malicious retaliation, harassment, disparate treatment, hostile work environment, defamation, etc.” Alice further suggested that she was “admonished” for reporting the behavior.

 

A city investigation into the situation initially reported by Alice found no significant wrongdoing.

 

Alice alleges that the retaliatory treatment that followed her complaint came in the form of three main issues: That her superiors have become “hostile, threatening” and demean her in front of others; that she and other employees who reported the wrongdoing are treated differently – and by “unreasonable rules” intended to impede their professional progress – than other members of her department; and that, due to this treatment, she was denied opportunities to advance.

 

After meeting with city officials, Alice refined her allegations. She took some of the sting out of her accusations, reducing the charge that her superiors had halted her promotion to one specific instance of what reads like age discrimination. The claims of harassment remained.

 

A city investigation into Alice’s retaliation allegations found no evidence to support her statements.

 

The 2010 ethics study was commissioned by the city’s then-Ethics Officer John Steiner two years after current City Manager Marc Ott arrived. It was performed by the well-regarded Ethics Resource Center. Findings in the report suggested that Austin was well below average in terms of internal perceptions of City Management.

 

“Two-thirds (65 percent) of employees perceive that the City has a strong ethical culture, compared to about 80 percent in the US Averages,” it reads. “Of the four component cultures, employee perceptions of senior leadership are the least favorable. This is typical in organizations; however, the disparity in perceptions about the senior leadership and the supervisor and coworker cultures is greater than that seen in the US Averages.” (See In Fact Daily, May 8.)

 

According to a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Ethics Resource Center, the 2010 study found that 24 percent of employees who responded to a survey cited “retaliation for a report.” That figure compares to a 2007 20 percent average for local governments across the country.

 

The study also concludes that 48 percent of “observed misconduct goes unreported.” That number compares to 33 percent in the local government average.

 

Further, the ERC report finds that “24 percent of those who reported misconduct perceived experiencing retaliation,” and that 78 percent of those who declined to report their concerns did so because the “didn’t believe that corrective action would be taken.”

 

Forty-eight percent of those that did not report issues “feared retaliation from (higher) management.” Thirty-eight percent “feared retaliation from (a) supervisor.”

 

Austin city management has raised concerns about the methodology employed by ERC to produce the study. Those worries – pegged to the fact that respondents could take the survey more than once – first surfaced at the time the report was produced. However, a series of emails obtained by In Fact Daily illustrate that an analyst employed by the city refuted the issues. (See In Fact Daily, June 11.)

 

Still, management did not release the report until after an In Fact Daily story reported its existence earlier this year. In June, Ott told us that he was under no obligation to release the report to Council. “It wasn’t a report I was obliged to send to Council,” he said. “The report was done for my benefit and the benefit of the executive team. You know, I was still relatively new back then and trying to get a handle on culture of the organization – and it served (that) purpose. It wasn’t commissioned for the Council. I’m not sure where that comes from.”

 

The Listening to the Workforce Study is open to all city employees. It is performed annually. Carvell said that the major difference between that study and the one performed by the Ethics Resource Center is the “breadth of topics” covered by the Listening to the Workforce Study.

 

However, the ERC effort was performed by a widely respected external contractor, one used frequently by Fortune 500 companies.