When a Workplace Dispute Became Something Much Bigger

When a Workplace Dispute Became Something Much Bigger

I have spent considerable time thinking about whether I should tell this story publicly.

I believe people deserve to know what happened at Des Moines Water Works and more importantly, they deserve the opportunity to see the facts, the timeline, and the decisions that followed.

I feel compelled to tell this story because, after nearly four decades at Des Moines Water Works, it has been difficult for me to wrap my head around what happened and how everything unfolded. It has also caused me to question what I once believed was job security and the established procedures at DMWW when it came to disciplinary action.

My understanding was that disciplinary action would normally progress through steps: first a written warning, second time off or suspension, and ultimately termination, depending on the circumstances and applicable policies.

What happened in this situation left me questioning whether those procedures were followed consistently and fairly.

What began as a dispute over a promotion and a union grievance that failed to overturn the decision appears to have set off a chain of events that ultimately affected multiple Des Moines Water Works employees.

J. Aalbers, a DMWW laborer and AFSCME Union President, used an amateur video posted on Facebook showing a section of street that had collapsed because of a leaking water service line and presented it to management as evidence of wrongdoing by an employee who had entered the excavation.

Rather than first speaking with the crew that had actually been on site, Aalbers contacted senior management and OSHA and pushed for disciplinary action against the trainer shown in the video.

But there was much more to the situation than the video showed.

The excavation had self-leveled, creating varying depths. The employees involved maintained that the excavation was safe under applicable OSHA and DMWW requirements and explained that conventional shoring could have created additional hazards or damaged other underground utilities.

These were not inexperienced employees. Between the trainer and Crew Leader, they had more than 70 years of combined experience. The Distribution Director had approximately 30 years of experience herself and stood behind the crew, expressing confidence in their judgment and the safety of the work.

The Crew Leader repeatedly stepped forward and said that if anyone should be held accountable, it should be him, not the trainer who was performing the work under his direction.

There were meetings with the CEO, COO, and Human Resources, where the Crew Leader continued to explain the circumstances and continued to accept responsibility as the leader on the job. Despite these repeated explanations and pleas to hear the crew’s side, management would not give them the benefit of the doubt.

A company safety representative eventually inspected the excavation and documented statements from the employees. The employees later disputed the accuracy of those written statements, saying they did not reflect what they actually told the safety representative.

Those concerns were brought to supervisors, but according to the employees, they were dismissed.

Then the situation escalated.

The Distribution Director, who had supported her employees, was the subject of a complaint alleging that she was not taking safety concerns seriously. She was placed on administrative leave and ultimately terminated.

The trainer was also terminated.

The Crew Leader retired.

Meanwhile, employees in the department were reportedly so dissatisfied with Aalbers’s actions that some sought to withdraw their union support and called for him to resign as Union President.

This is why I believe this story needs to be told.

At this point, the questions go far beyond one excavation or one video.

Was the video used as part of a personal retaliation campaign?

Was the excavation actually unsafe, or was the situation taken out of context?

Were the employees’ statements accurately reported to Human Resources?

Why did management continue pursuing discipline despite the explanations of experienced employees who insisted safety was their first priority?

Why was the judgment of employees with decades of experience discounted?

Were the established disciplinary procedures followed consistently and fairly?

And how did a dispute that began with a promotion ultimately contribute to the termination of a trainer and a respected Distribution Director, while another longtime employee ultimately retired?

I believe these questions deserve honest answers.

This isn’t about rumors, personalities, or taking sides.

It’s about documents, timelines, safety requirements, employee statements, management decisions, disciplinary procedures, and accountability.

When experienced employees stand up and say, “We were there. We know what happened. Safety was our priority,” they deserve to be heard.

And when careers are ultimately affected, the public and the employees deserve to know what really happened and why.