The Occupational Health Branch manager for the state Department of Labor and Industrial Relations’ Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Division has been ordered to pay a $1,000 penalty for driving two probationary employees on separate occasions to a used car dealership owned by a friend to buy vehicles they were not required to have as part of their jobs.

The Hawaii State Ethics Commission ruled Jan. 22 that Tin Shing Chao “likely violated the Fair Treatment Law by recommending AutoBiz to his subordinates. … Respondent Chao drove his subordinate employees to a small business owned by an acquaintance, then remained on-site while the employees shopped for vehicles, while the employees were under the mistaken impression that they would lose their jobs if they did not purchase a car.”

Officials with the state Department of Labor and Industrial Relations said they could not comment on a personnel issue. Chao could not be reached for comment.

According to position descriptions for Environmental Health Specialists under Chao’s supervision, there is no requirement that they own a vehicle in order to travel to work sites to conduct inspections, according to the Ethics Commission. But the descriptions state that “access to a vehicle is preferred.”

Chao was supervising two probationary environmental health specialists who did not own vehicles in late 2016 and early 2017, according to the Ethics Commission. But Chao told both employees that they were required to have personal vehicles to perform their jobs, “per his understanding of the job requirements and customary practice,” according to the Ethics Commission.

The employees “were therefore under the impression that ownership of a personal vehicle was required if they (the subordinates) wished to continue working for HIOSH,” which is DLIR’s Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Division, according to the Ethics Commission.

So around February 2017 Chao drove one of his probationary employees to AutoBiz on their lunch hour. AutoBiz is owned by Tao “Kevin” Qiu, whose parents are acquaintances of Chao’s, according to the Ethics Commission.

Chao “pressured the employee to purchase a car from AutoBiz; and that Respondent Chao pressured the employee to purchase a more expensive vehicle than the employee could afford,” according to the Ethics Commission. “Respondent Chao disputes the allegation that he pressured the employee to purchase a car from AutoBiz or that he pressured the employee to purchase a more expensive car from AutoBiz. The subordinate employee further alleges that the employee left HIOSH because the employee could not make the payments on this car on the employee’s HIOSH salary.”

Then around May 2017, Chao drove a second probationary employee to AutoBiz on their lunch hour, according to the Ethics Commission.

“This second subordinate employee likewise alleges that Respondent Chao was present while the employee was looking at and negotiating the purchase of a vehicle from AutoBiz, and that Respondent Chao pressured the employee to purchase a car from AutoBiz,” according to the Ethics Commission. “Again, Respondent Chao disputes the allegation.”

In its report, the state Ethics Commission warned, “Supervisors must be sensitive to the serious power they have over subordinate employees; they may not pressure subordinate employees into spending personal funds in a certain way or at a specific business, particularly when the supervisor has a personal connection to that business.”