Larry Ottoviani had been warned several times by his supervisor to not feed the cats, and his official notice of termination stated that he had violated his “last chance agreement not to feed the cats on company time and/or company property.”
Ottoviani does not deny feeding the cats, but he does deny doing so on company time or company property.
“The FDA states that we must ensure that the grounds around the food plant under the control of the operator shall be kept in a condition that will protect against the contamination of food," says company spokesman Jason Genther. "Over the years we have seen an increased presence of feral cats on our property.”
Ottoviani believes that if it weren’t for him there would be far more cats on and around company premises.
In 2008, two local animal advocates discovered Ottoviani feeding cats. When they saw how many cats there were, they immediately began working with him to institute a Trap/Neuter/Return program.
Volunteers from the Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) helped sweep and clean up shards of broken glass in an unused area adjacent to the 7Up Bottling Company before launching an aggressive trapping program.
Between August 2008 and December 2009, 71 cats were trapped and taken to the SSPCA. The costs for altering the cats were paid by donations from the volunteers and from grant funds. Ottoviani took home some of the tame cats and kittens, later finding homes for them.
Ottoviani still believes he did the right thing. “I acted according to my conscience”, he said.
If you want to help Larry Ottoviani get his job back, you can join the hundreds of people who have posted their comments on 7Up’s Facebook page or sign the Reinstate Larry Ottoviani petition.
Image by Heather Ireland
Thanks for the info, this is terrible! We've signed the petition and voiced our objection to the 7Up company. Hopefully right will prevail in this!
ReplyDeleteThey caught 71 cats between August 2008 and December 2009, but that was also 3 years ago...how many since?
ReplyDeleteNot that I think he should've lost his job. He could've taken the food just off of 7Up property, after all. But that's a weird omission to me.
Jen - I read through the comments, and the author states that there were about two dozen cats left in the colony with attrition and tame cats/kittens being rehomed. The cats were not being fed on the property owned by 7Up Bottling Company. It was an adjacent property.
DeleteI'm kind of with Jen here. But if the cats were being fed on an adjacent property then 7UP has no claim to it. I thought they just trapped on the adjacent property but he was feeding them on 7UP property.
ReplyDeleteI can however, understand 7UP's concern. A company can get in a lot of trouble and even be shut down if an inspection shows health concerns for the general public. I wonder if this was a concern that by feeding them on the adjacent property they worried the cats would end up in the plant?
Mel - from what I can determine, there were many more cats before Larry and the SSPCA started the TNR program. If he's feeding the cats on his own time and with his own money - and it's not on the 7Up property - then I don't see why he was fired.
DeleteIt sounds, bottom line, like TNR was working if they trapped 71 cats and are now down to two dozen. *sigh* Wonder if the ASPCA advised Pepsico too? First Loews and now this.... *shakes head*
ReplyDeleteI am very impressed that he took such good care of those cats and kittens at all costs. And kudos to you for speaking up for him! I will be anxious to hear how this turns out.
ReplyDeleteWow - if we was truly feeding the cats on an adjacent property, I can't understand why they'd fire him. It seems he's a good person with a big heart and I hope something much better comes his way as a result of this.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know if 7Up was actively trying to stop the presence of the area feral population by notifying animal control, finding out what they could do legally about the problem, hiring a private company ( if legal) to clean up the problem, etc. I diesn't say in this article whether or not they were concerned enough to take action themselves, but more than eager to reprimand, and than fire an employee who was trying to remedy a bad situation on his own, which many companies find worthy of special awards or honors, not condemnation. I think this was mishandled on a management level and 7up should perhaps retrain it's upper management employees on how to shine a favorable light on the company rather than bring bad press to it.
ReplyDelete