Local
Posted on Thu, Nov. 29, 2007
Why depot worker's scores fell is argued
By Ashlee Clark
ACLARK@HERALD-LEADER.COM
The scores on a former Blue Grass Depot employee's performance evaluations dropped after he raised concerns about safety, witnesses testified yesterday.
But a supervisor said he lowered Donald Van Winkle's scores after he heard Van Winkle make a snide remark about his dealings with the depot.
Current and former depot employees took the stand for the prosecution yesterday during the second day of Van Winkle's hearing before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Phalen of the U.S. Department of Labor.
Under a federal whistle-blower law that protects employees from retaliation, Van Winkle wants his name cleared and is seeking compensation for loss of pay, mental anguish and stress.
Van Winkle says supervisors reduced his duties and denied him training, hazard pay, overtime and advancement opportunities after he raised concerns that the depot wasn't accurately monitoring air quality inside its chemical weapons storage igloos.
The depot contends that he was demoted for cause, including arrogance toward supervisors.
Van Winkle completed his testimony yesterday afternoon. He outlined supervisors' alleged retaliatory actions toward him and the circumstances of his resignation from the depot in Madison County.
Gary Stanfield, Van Winkle's former supervisor, testified that he gave Van Winkle a score of one -- the highest possible -- on his 2003 and 2004 evaluations.
"Mr. Van Winkle possesses an excellent technical knowledge," Stanfield wrote in the 2004 review.
But Van Winkle scored between a three and a four on his 2005 evaluation -- between successful and fair. His supervisors signed the review on Feb. 9, 2006, about a year after he said there were problems at the depot.
Van Winkle says the score was retaliation for coming forward with his concerns. Stanfield testified that his opinion of Van Winkle changed when he heard the former employee in a break room talking about what he hoped to gain from disclosing problems at the depot.
"I heard him say that he 'would love to see the United States pay for my farm,'" Stanfield said.
"I lost a lot of respect for the man then."
Van Winkle denies making the statement.
Van Winkle, a former air systems monitor, said he and several co-workers attended a training session in early 2005 with the manufacturer of a chemical monitoring device used to detect VX, a nerve agent stored at the depot. Van Winkle learned there that the device was being used incorrectly, he said.
He testified Tuesday that he feared for the safety of depot employees because the equipment couldn't properly monitor VX.
After his disclosures, Van Winkle said yesterday that the equipment he used at the depot was "monkeyed with." Parts began to disappear, which caused malfunctions, he said.
Co-workers testified yesterday that Van Winkle was a competent employee.
Carol Hunter, a toxic-material inspector when she worked with Van Winkle, said Van Winkle's equipment would malfunction a lot and he would take longer to complete tasks. However, Van Winkle wasn't the only one who had difficulty with equipment, she said.
Van Winkle began receiving disability after injuring a vertebra in April 2006 at his home. He said he thought he would be fired if he didn't take the disability.
He resigned on Oct. 31, 2006, after deciding to run for political office. He has been unemployed since his resignation.
Van Winkle testified yesterday that he also questioned the qualifications of Bonnie McCoy, a supervisory chemist at the depot. McCoy's response to VX detection problems has become the subject of extensive testimony during the hearing. McCoy allegedly was upset when she learned about the air monitoring issue and couldn't explain why it was being used incorrectly, witnesses have testified.
McCoy had been scheduled to testify as a hostile witness for the prosecution, but has been removed from the list for personal reasons.
Phalen will consider whether the prosecution can submit a taped deposition by McCoy, said Van Winkle's attorney, Paula Dinerstein, senior counsel for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The hearing is scheduled to end today. Proceedings will begin at 8 a.m. at the University of Kentucky College of Law courtroom.
Reach Ashlee Clark in the Richmond bureau at (859) 626-5878.