We have a remote worksite with 9 employees in California. The senior employee at the work area is the workflow lead, meaning the employee oversees the workload for the group, distributes work to other employees, ensures completion of the projects and provides general management type duties for the office. The employee does not supervise the employees of the group in terms of signing timecards, approving leave or participating in disiplinary measures. However, this employee does act as spokeperson for the group to remedy any conflicts within the group and has willingly agreed to continue to act as spokesperson for the group. In this capacity, the employee receives all notices of absense and travel to report as needed to the supervisors and participates in discussions with the corporate office, if another employee requests this employee's assistance or presence.
In the latest round of Prevention of Sexual Harassment Training, this employee was registered, based on the duties this employee performs for the company at this worksite. When the employee logged in to the training, they did not like the use of the work "supervisor" and refused to take the training, due to the "implied liability" this employee would be responsible for as a result of completing the training. As employer, we have talked to this employee about the duties being performed by this employee and explained that as long as this employee will be acting in the capacity described above, they would need to take the training even though the employee is not a named supervisor of the workgroup. The employee does not want to be supervisor but does want to continue to perform the duties listed.
Is this employee required to take the training required by AB 1825? We feel the employee should take the course.