Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Fwd: Facebook Physical Security - Allied Universal

From: domainremoved <Robert>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:40:12 -0700

Steve attached is an updated list of officers at facebook who have added
their names to the petition. As well as an updated spreadsheet.

Tony Walker employee number 514487
Daniel Salazar employee number 514113
Seante Carter employee number 500653
Ruben J McEntire -yslas employee number 508173

Natavia Thomas employee number 563149

Steve please note on Natavia's behalf she is enacting her rights under
California Labor code 923. I now represent her with regards to labor
issues at facebook. She has the right to representation under California
Law. The right must be recognized under civil code 52.1. Please also note
this is not wine garden rights under the NLRA of 1935. Any meetings
between Natavia and AU Facebook Management and or HR. I must be present.

Robert Taitt

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Taitt <rtaittt_at_(domainremoved)
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Facebook Physical Security - Allied Universal
To: steve.claton_at_(domainremoved)
Cc: jones_at_(domainremoved)

Steve please note that under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 I and
my coworker have the concerted right under federal law to contact our
employer about work and working conditions. On behalf of myself Robert
Taitt employee number 467377, Tabbert Bostic employee number 520556, Daunje
Robinson employee number 523493, Daniel Gonzalez employee number 540023,
Miari Scott employee number 502432, Daniel Torres employee number 465502,
Norma Wakinekona employee number 502697, Kevin Le employee number 499320,
Lorenzo Gonzales employee number 469297, Diana Ruvalcaba employee number
526750, Celestino Jones employee number 392634, Kayla De La Cruz employee
number 528752, Gary Mitchell employee number 537392, Mai-Trang Nguyen
employee number 540035, Aaron Cook employee number 517945, Anna Delgado
employee number 535055, Kermit Little employee number 391461, Anthony
Hernandez employee number 433584, Bobby Caldwell employee number 517946,
Ramzi Fardan employee number 462381, Seante Carter employee number 500653.

The link below is straight from the National Labor Relations board website
regarding concerted activity.


Activity Outside a Union

Employees who are not represented by a union also have rights under the
NLRA. Specifically, the National Labor Relations Board protects the rights
of employees to engage in “concerted activity”, which is when two or more
employees take action for their mutual aid or protection regarding terms
and conditions of employment. A single employee may also engage in
protected concerted activity if he or she is acting on the authority of
other employees, bringing group complaints to the employer’s attention,
trying to induce group action, or seeking to prepare for group action.

A few examples of protected concerted activities are:

   - Two or more employees addressing their employer about improving their
   - Two or more employees discussing work-related issues beyond pay, such
   as safety concerns, with each other.
   - An employee speaking to an employer on behalf of one or more
   co-workers about improving workplace conditions.

We are contacting you regarding the gross negligence, illegal treatment,
discrimination and wage theft of Allied Universal Management at Facebook HQ
(Menlo Park CA) as well as the immediate removal of Frank Ortiz, Miles
Reece and Walter Locke from Facebook HQ Menlo Park.

Please see notarized petition attached. I and the officers listed above
are sick and tired of the way Allied Universal Management at Facebook has
conducted itself. For two plus years I and the officers above have seen
and endured disgusting acts from Allied Universal Management at Facebook.
Over that same time I have sent Allied Universal countless emails regarding
this treatment which has gone largely ignored by your HR & your management
team. On behalf of myself and the officers we have had enough! Frank
Ortiz was the last straw!

In late April I sent you an email regarding Frank Ortiz and his treatment
of women at Facebook. Mr Ortiz clearly has a major issue with women in
leadership roles at Facebook HQ. He harassed several female officers and
Leads.. Those women tired of putting up with Mr Ortiz's behavior quit,
changed their shift, broke down to the point of crying or are scared of
retaliation. In that same email I sited that it was possible that Mr
Ortiz had an affiliation with cocaine in his off time.

Mr Ortiz recently on company time and a company phone drew a picture of his
penis. He then by accident sent the picture to the work cell phone a lead
that reports to him. Mr Oritz was suspended and then allowed to come back
and keep his job. The following week Mr Ortiz decided to tell his officers
a lie about a high level Facebook Executive and after a week long
investigation again was allowed to keep his job.

Mr Claton this is unacceptable! Please explain how officers at facebook
can be fired for being three times late but Mr Ortiz is allowed to keep his
position? Please explain how an officer can be terminated for wearing a
Bluetooth earpiece but Mr Ortiz gets to keep his job? Please explain how
an officer can be terminated or even written up for being on there phone
but Frank Ortiz gets to keep his job? Please explain how an officer can be
written up, threatened and terminated for congregating talking about work
and working conditions but Frank Ortiz gets to keep his job?

Your policies are lopsided & discriminatory at best!

Please reference The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title 7 & the DFEH goverment
code 12920. Your policies must be equal across the board state and nation


*The following is the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the
United States Code, beginning at section 2000e. Title VII prohibits
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national
origin. *


It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is
necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons
to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment
on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,
physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.

Miles Reece and Walter Locke have terrorized Officers at Chilco Campus
Facebook. They have conspired and collided to setup officers and leads in
an attempt to fire them. They have intimated officers by driving there
personal cars with the lights off to try and catch officers doing something
they could fire them for. Mr Reece has intimated officers in the lobby by
just standing by there desk for several hours to scare them to not do
something wrong.

Please note that there is not an officer on this email and petition who
does not have major issues with Anxiety going to Facebook everyday
wondering what they will be threatened with, wondering if they will be
bullied or discriminated and retaliated against. For many days in 2015
and 2016 there were nights going home from work I wanted to cry because of
the treatment of Allied Universal Facebook Management.

 This email and petition is a live on going bonafide complaint until the
terms of the petition are met. Please reference California Assembly Bill
1509 straight from California Legislature. Any retaliation to myself and
any officer on this petition or email will constitute and misdemeanor and a
$10,000 dollar fine per violation. You are not allowed to violate these
right via California Civil Code 52.1


Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any
manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against
any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant
has engaged in protected conduct, as specified. Existing law provides that
an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged
or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and
reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an
employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee
who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for
reinstatement. Existing law subjects a person who violates these provisions
to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation.

California Civil Code 52.1 Any coercion, threats, and or intimidation with
regards to enjoyment of rights under the state of California the United
states of America can result in a $25,000 fine and prosecution by a city
and or district attorney.


(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law,
interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere
by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any
individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of
this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney
may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to
protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.
An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any
city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed
individually against each person who is determined to have violated this
section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights
under this section are determined to have been violated.

(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted
to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and
prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil
action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section
52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect
the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured,
including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a
pattern or practice of conduct as described in subdivision (a).

Your management team assigned to Facebook for many years has used
intimidation tactics to control officers. Please reference California
Civil Code 51.7

the link below is straight from the California Legislature website. No
intimidation is allowed with regards to our position as officers in a labor


 All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be
free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed
against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on
account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e)
of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person
perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The
identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is
illustrative rather than restrictive.

Facebook Allied Universal Management & HR have demonstrated gross abusive
conduct towards officers defined by the state of California as conduct of
an employer or employee in the workplace with malice that a reasonable
person would find hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employers
legitimate business interests.

Please reference California Assembly Bill 2053 the link below is straight
from the California Legislature. We would like to be informed if your
Leads, Supervisors, Account Managers, HR & Campus Managers have received
there legal requirement of training in Abusive Conduct and Sexual


AB 2053, Gonzalez. Employment discrimination or harassment: education and
training: abusive conduct.
Existing law makes specified employment practices unlawful, including the
harassment of an employee directly by the employer or indirectly by agents
of the employer with the employer’s knowledge. Existing law further
requires every employer to act to ensure a workplace free of sexual
harassment by implementing certain minimum requirements, including posting
sexual harassment information posters at the workplace and obtaining and
making available an information sheet on sexual harassment.
Existing law also requires employers, as defined, with 50 or more employees
to provide at least 2 hours of training and education regarding sexual
harassment to all supervisory employees, as specified. Existing law
requires each employer to provide that training and education to each
supervisory employee once every 2 years.
This bill would additionally require that the above-described training and
education include, as a component of the training and education, prevention
of abusive conduct, as defined.

Mr Claton in 2015 Facebook gave contractors 120 hours of vacation and sick
time. Your company did not pay out other then myself and Mike Bethel the
money that was owed to us. Your management team has also mis managed
paying officers on time with regards to there over time and regular pay.
This is a unacceptable violation of California Assembly Bill 1311,
California Labor Code 201.3 and 210. It is a misdemeanor and $300 dollar
fine per violation and 25% of the unpaid amount. Please links below
straight from the California Legislature.


Existing law generally requires that an employee of a temporary services
employer, as defined, be paid weekly. Existing law provides that a
violation of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.



Finally Please be advised every guard on this email is now being tracked on
a spreadsheet attached to this email. I will update the spreadsheet every
incident one of your managers retaliates. Also each guard has the right to
representation. If I feel an officer on this petition and email is being
mistreated I will at my and that officers discretion enact mine and there
rights under california labor code 923 right o representation.

The code gives the officer the right to be represented by myself Robert
Taitt in any meeting that is not an official disciplinary meeting. Please
note that I have already consulted with a law firm in southern California
it must be recognized. Please also reference California Civil Code 52.1
above. You are not allowed to coerce verbal and or written statements as a
condition of employment that are not voluntary and without representation.

The link below is straight from the California Legislature


In the interpretation and application of this chapter, the public policy of
this State is declared as follows:

Negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary
agreement between employer and employees. Governmental authority has
permitted and encouraged employers to organize in the corporate and other
forms of capital control. In dealing with such employers, the individual
unorganized worker is helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and
to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and
conditions of employment. Therefore it is necessary that the individual
workman have full freedom of association, self-organization, and
designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms
and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the
interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their
agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization
or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.

Mr Claton Under the Civil rights act of 1964 title 7, the age
discrimination act of 1967, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 An
employer is automatically liable for the harassment of a supervisor that
results in negative employment actions. Please see link below straight
from the EEOC website.


Employer Liability for Harassment

The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that
results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to
promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results
in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it
can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the
harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take
advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the

California Labor Code 1102.5. As officers we do not have to participate in
any activity that is illegal.


An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not
retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity
that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a
violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or

Section 7 Rights under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 your
management and HR team are not allowed to make an officers be happy or have
a good attitude at work when talking about work & concerted activity.
Please site NLRB decision orders related to T mobile, Dales and Hills
Hospitals, Star bucks etc....


Employees have the right to unionize, to join together to advance their
interests as employees, and to refrain from such activity. It is unlawful
for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights. For example, employers may not respond to a union
organizing drive by threatening, interrogating, or spying on pro-union
employees, or by promising benefits if they forget about the union.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) guarantees
employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," as well as the
right "to refrain from any or all such activities."

Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7" of the Act. For example, *you may

   - Threaten employees with adverse consequences, such as closing the
   workplace, loss of benefits, or more onerous working conditions, if they
   support a union, engage in union activity, or select a union to represent
   - Threaten employees with adverse consequences if they engage in
   protected, concerted activity. (Activity is "concerted" if it is engaged in
   with or on the authority of other employees, not solely by and on behalf of
   the employee himself. It includes circumstances where a single employee
   seeks to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action, as well as where an
   employee brings a group complaint to the attention of management. Activity
   is "protected" if it concerns employees' interests as employees. An
   employee engaged in otherwise protected, concerted activity may lose the
   Act's protection through misconduct.)
   - Promise employees benefits if they reject the union.
   - Imply a promise of benefits by soliciting grievances from employees
   during a union organizing campaign. (However, if you regularly solicited
   employee grievances before the campaign began, you may continue that
   practice unchanged.)
   - Confer benefits on employees during a union organizing campaign to
   induce employees to vote against the union.
   - Withhold changes in wages or benefits during a union organizing
   campaign that would have been made had the union not been on the scene,
   unless you make clear to employees that the change will occur whether or
   not they select the union, and that your sole purpose in postponing the
   change is to avoid any appearance of trying to influence the outcome of the
   - Coercively question employees about their own or coworkers' union
   activities or sympathies. (Whether questioning is coercive and therefore
   unlawful depends on the relevant circumstances, including who asks the
   questions, where, and how; what information is sought; whether the
   questioned employee is an open and active union supporter; and whether the
   questioning occurs in a context of other unfair labor practices.)
   - Prohibit employees from talking about the union during working time,
   if you permit them to talk about other non-work-related subjects.
   - Poll your employees to determine the extent of their support for a
   union, unless you comply with certain safeguards. You must not have engaged
   in unfair labor practices or otherwise created a coercive atmosphere. In
   addition, you must (1) communicate to employees that the purpose of the
   poll is to determine whether the union enjoys majority support (and that
   must, in truth, be your purpose); (2) give employees assurances against
   reprisal; and (3) conduct the poll by secret ballot.
   - Spy on employees' union activities. ("Spying" means doing something
   out of the ordinary to observe the activity. Seeing open union activity in
   workplace areas frequented by supervisors is not "spying.")
   - Create the impression that you are spying on employees' union
   - Photograph or videotape employees engaged in peaceful union or other
   protected activities.
   - Solicit individual employees to appear in a campaign video.
   - Promulgate, maintain, or enforce work rules that reasonably tend to
   inhibit employees from exercising their rights under the Act.
   - Deny off-duty employees access to outside nonworking areas of your
   property, unless business reasons justify it.
   - Prohibit employees from wearing union buttons, t-shirts, and other
   union insignia unless special circumstances warrant.
   - Convey the message that selecting a union would be futile.
   - Discipline or discharge a union-represented employee for refusing to
   submit, without a representative, to an investigatory interview the
   employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.
   - Interview employees to prepare your defense in an unfair labor
   practice case, unless you provide certain assurances. You must communicate
   to the employee the purpose of the questioning, assure him against
   reprisals, and obtain his voluntary participation. Questioning must occur
   in a context free from employer hostility to union organization and must
   not itself be coercive. And questioning must not go beyond what is needful
   to achieve its legitimate purpose. That is, you may not pry into other
   union matters, elicit information concerning the employee's subjective
   state of mind, or otherwise interfere with employee rights under the Act.
   - Initiate, solicit employees to sign, or lend more than minimal support
   to or approval of a decertification or union-disaffection petition.
   - Discharge, constructively discharge, suspend, layoff, fail to recall
   from layoff, demote, discipline, or take any other adverse action against
   employees because of their protected, concerted activities.

Robert Taitt Allied Universal Facebook - 467377


408.772.0809 <(408)%20772-0809>

Have a nice day!

Received on Wed Aug 23 2017 - 11:43:27 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)