Logo


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 ]


Re: Fwd: Facebook Physical Security - Allied Universal

From: domainremoved <Robert>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 11:17:52 -0700

Hi

Steve please see updated Petition List

AnaBey Cabrera Employee Id# 535880

Brian Wong Employee ID# 408533

Neftali Ordaz Employee ID# 531995



On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Robert Taitt <rtaittt_at_(domainremoved)

> 531995
>
> shepherdneff_at_(domainremoved)
>
> Neftali Ordaz
>
>
> Please see updated officer who is added to the petiton.
>
> Robert Taitt
>
> 467377
>
> On Aug 26, 2017 10:49 AM, "Robert Taitt" <rtaittt_at_(domainremoved)
>
>
> Hi
> Steve please see attached updates to the petition.
>
> Joel Mitchell employee number 46377
> Safa Nyeh employee number 558169
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2017 11:40 AM, "Robert Taitt" <rtaittt_at_(domainremoved)
>
>
>
> Hi
> 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
> 467377
> rtaittt_at_(domainremoved)
> 408-772-0809 <(408)%20772-0809>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- 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)
> kevin.rogers_at_(domainremoved)
> kkeith_at_(domainremoved)
> ccarlton_at_(domainremoved)
> samuel.kehinde_at_(domainremoved)
> a.delgado74_at_(domainremoved)
> bigb2956_at_(domainremoved)
> kermitlittle12_at_(domainremoved)
> kaydlc1442_at_(domainremoved)
> lgcruizer_at_(domainremoved)
> dtriumphant1_at_(domainremoved)
> nsmariano_at_(domainremoved)
>
>
> Hi
> 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.
>
> https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights
>
>
>
> 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 pay.
> - 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
> wide.
>
> https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
>
>
> *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. *
>
>
>
> *https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=3.&title=2.&part=2.8.&chapter=3.&article=
> <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=3.&title=2.&part=2.8.&chapter=3.&article=> *
>
>
> 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
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm
> l?bill_id=201520160AB1509
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio
> n.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=52.1.
>
>
>
>
> (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
> dispute.
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio
> n.xhtml?sectionNum=51.7.&lawCode=CIV
>
>
>
>
> 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
> Harassment?
>
>
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml
> ?bill_id=201320140AB2053
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm
> l?bill_id=201520160AB1311
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio
> n.xhtml?sectionNum=201.3.&lawCode=LAB
>
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio
> n.xhtml?sectionNum=210.&lawCode=LAB
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio
> n.xhtml?sectionNum=923.&lawCode=LAB
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> https://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/types/harassment.cfm?renderforprint=1
>
>
>
> 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
> employer.
>
>
> California Labor Code 1102.5. As officers we do not have to participate
> in any activity that is illegal.
>
>
> *https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.5.&lawCode=LAB
> <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.5.&lawCode=LAB> *
>
>
>
> 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
> regulation.
>
>
>
>
> 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....
>
>
>
> https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/i
> nterfering-employee-rights-section-7-8a1
>
>
>
> 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
> not*
>
> - 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
> them.
> - 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
> election.
> - 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
> activities.
> - 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
>
> rtaittt_at_(domainremoved)
>
> 408.772.0809 <(408)%20772-0809>
>
>
> Have a nice day!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Received on Sat Sep 02 2017 - 18:23:49 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)