Oct. 2017, manager OS starts the defamation
The retaliation of the company. The false allegations. The incapability of Intel to answer my questions.
In the previous page, you have seen that I wrote an email to manager TM confronting him for his miss-behave.
I sent the email on the 16.10.2017. On the 27.10.2017 manager OS (4 levels above me) invited me to a “performance talk” that he directly linked to my email of concerns to TM. He explicitly did a causal connection between my email of concerns and his “performance talk”. In any part of the world, this is called retaliation. Retaliation for raising concerns is explicitly forbidden in Intel’s code of conduct.
From Intel’s code of conduct:
Intel does not tolerate retaliation against anyone who in good faith reports
possible violations of law, the Code, or other company policies or procedures,
questions on-going or proposed conduct, or participates in an internal
investigation. Retaliation can include, among other things, demoting,
transferring, or terminating anyone for raising a question or speaking up in
good faith about a possible violation of the Code, company policy, or law.
Employees who retaliate or attempt to retaliate against anyone who reports a
concern in good faith or participates in an internal investigation are subject
to discipline up to and including termination.
I reported the violation of the code of conduct with the results you can expect. Read about it on the page Open Door Investigation at Intel.
The performance talk was not a real talk, it was the opportunity for OS to assign me an IR (Improvement Required), shortly followed by a CAP (Corrective Action Plan). You can read the CAP below.
Manager OS writes in the IR, among other things and without feeling ashamed, that my technical qualifications are below the level required for a CV engineer with my seniority and job grade.
He doesn’t mention what are the missing technical qualifications. Pushed to give an answer what are these qualifications, he will write that he understood from my email. Again pointing to retaliation.Intel-Deutschland-CAP_Optimized
As you can read, in the CAP there isn’t a single reference to the work I performed in the company. Instead, most of the points in the CAP are referring to my email of 16.10.2017. Again establishing a direct causal connection between my email and the IR/CAP. Retaliation.
But let’s focus on the third point (technical) of the CAP because this is the one that is showing better the intent of the CAP (retaliation + bullying). They are saying that I lack the technical qualifications to make the job.
What are these minimum required technical qualifications? It is not said in the CAP.
What are all the missing qualifications? It is also not written in the CAP. There is only example 1.
When have they observed these lacks? Not given in the CAP, nor they answered it later.
In example 1 they wrote that I need training on basic Matlab. I’ve been using Matlab for many years, my code is delivered to the central server and to the team as part of my work. I asked when I wasn’t able to use Matlab, where are the evidence? In which situations they have noticed I cannot use Matlab? Manager OS and manager TM answered, without feeling ashamed, that I wrote it.
Let’s analyze the method of Intel. Manager OS takes a sentence I wrote: “I did not get trained in Matlab“, he purposely miss-interpret the sentence as if I have said “I’m not able to use Matlab“, he then adds the fake that I asked for a Matlab training, and use it against me. The same fake will be repeated later on by manager TM. I wrote about it on the pages A Trip to Linz and A meeting with….
Regarding example 2 (“You need a very detailed description of the work-package to perform”), it is not even mentioning any technical qualification.
After the CAP
Manager TM, taking over the work of manager OS, will present the CAP has an opportunity the company gives me to improve my performances, he also says that participation is voluntary.
I never thanked the company Intel for the opportunity they gave me. Therefore:
This website has exactly the purpose to show how kind the company is. I hope to have many readers.
I refused to “participate”. The CAP is an evident abuse, as neither manager OS nor manager TM are able to substantiate the allegation of missing technical qualifications. Despite my refuse, manager TM will continue recording “the progress”, according to his honest judgment, in the CAP. The progress recording of manager TM is exactly the progress recording that you can expect from manager TM.
The closure of the CAP will be signed by him, an HR employee, and the chairman of the works council MK.
On the third point of the CAP (missing technical qualifications), I decided not to let go it so easily, therefore I pushed Intel managers to give me answers, they will be shameless answers… read it on page A Trip to Linz.