Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723448.pdf

The May 23, 2013 supplemental investigative report of Knox addressed "whether
Mr. Allen retaliated against Mr. Swanson at the July 12, 2012 union meeting, and
whether Mr. Legere's performance evaluation approximately three months after this
union meeting was retaliatory." Knox could not determine what occurred at the union
meeting. Knox concluded there was no " 'nexus between the Legere evaluation and the
July 12, 2012 meeting.'"

Knox stated he could not conclusively determine what exactly happened
at the July 12, 2012 union meeting due to the conflicting, credible witness
statements, and that he could "find no independent evidence of a nexus
between the Legere evaluation and the July 12, 2012 meeting." Mr. Knox
found Mr. Swanson credible, and his notes of the incident credible. Mr.
Knox found Mr. Allen and Mr. Warren credible at times, and not credible at
other times. Mr. Knox found Mr. Legere "very" credible. Mr. Knox
concluded, "Based on the evidence available, I do not sustain the

10
             
No. 72344-8-1/11

allegations of retaliation against Mr. Allen and Mr. Legere associated with
the charges made."

The ALJ issued a detailed 20-page decision, "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law, & Final Order." The ALJ found that after Swanson reported Allen "solicited and

accepted alcohol from apprentices in exchange for a passing grade on an oral exam,"

Allen "lobbied line workers and crew chiefs to downgrade Mr. Swanson's performance

evaluations in an attempt to cancel his apprenticeship." However, because the

whistleblower retaliation complaint was filed in November 2012, the ALJ addressed only

the October 2012 evaluation of Crew Chief Legere. The ALJ found Swanson did not