1991 AGN FEB 19 I25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The City refers to the performance evaluation of Maylon dated December 18, 1989, (copy attached) as an item in support of the determination to terminate the employment of Maylon. The evaluation was that, overcall Maylon was competent. It was the basis for a raise to the next pay step. It concluded by saying Maylon "is a competent Journeyman Lineman deserving of a promotion to `E' step. " This performance evaluation was written by the same Supervisor whose report was the basis for the suspension of September 11, 1989, three months prior to the performance evaluation. That suspension letter is also attached and is also stated to have been taken into account in the decision to terminate. The subsequent performance evaluation by the Supervisor mitigates the significance of the prior suspension. There was an incident where Maylon grabbed (co -employee) Siegfried by the shirt. Maylon acknowledges it, and that he was wrong to have done it. The date is uncertain but it was not recent. It was not the basis of any City action at the time. The Supervisor on the job at the time took no action because of it. The details are disputed. It is no basis for any discipline at this time. A co-worker, Medina, signed a written statement November 19, 1990 (copy attached). Medina also testified at the hearing. His testimony at the hearing contradicted a portion of his prior written statement. Medina was assigned by the Supervisor to take Rubio from the scene to get medical treatment. Although Medina drove Rubio to San Bernardino immediately after Rubio was hurt, Medina testified that Rubio did not tell Medina that Maylon broke Rubio's finger. Medina testified he didn't know how it got broken. Neither the testimony nor the written statement of Medina is a basis for any action by the City against Appellant. -5-