ML042320042
| ML042320042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/2004 |
| From: | Armenta J, Holland C NRC/OI/RGN-IV/FO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0255 4-2003-027 | |
| Download: ML042320042 (27) | |
Text
A-- LIA=t NO. 4-ZUU5-UZ7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report o~f Investigation CALLAWAY PLANT: 'K WIN_ 's DISCRiMINATION AGAINS UFOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Office of Investigations Reported by O:RIV Informalio- inthis record was deleted inaccordance with the.Freedom of information Act, exemp Sofls iClz FOIA :
Title:
CALLAWAY PLANT:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINSI _. _MA b FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee: Case No.: 4-2003-027 Union Electric Company Report Date: March 3, 2004 P.O. Box 620 Fulton, MO 65251 Control Office: OI:RIV Docket No.: 50-483 Status' CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
1
&O i g ¶tb ,Ž 42...It*.
Crys&I D. Holland, Special Agent J nathan Armenta, Jr., Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Field Office, Region IV WARNING DO NQ\DISSEMINATE, PLACE IN TH LIC DOCUMENT ROOM, OR DISCUSS'E CONTENTS OF THIS REPO OF INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC NVITHOb'SAUTHORITY OF THE APPRO TG OFFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUTIORI7ED DISCLOSURE MAY ULT IN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND/OR CRIMINAL PR CUTION.
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on May 20,2003, by the Nuclear Regulato Commission (NRC), /
Office of Investigations (OI), Region IV (RIV), to determine if a JI tL employed by the Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut) at the Union Electric Company's Callaway Plant, Fulton, Missouri, was the subject of employment discrimination by Wackenhut for raising safety concerns.
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, OI:RTV determined the allegation that als the subject of employment discrimination by Wackenhut for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
NOT FOR PUBLC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT AP VAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECIRQ1FCE OF INVESTIGATOS ION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 l
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBbC OSURE WITHOUT APPR' L OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, O EOF INVESTIGATION ON IV Case No. 4-2003-027 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Paze SYNOPSIS ........................ 1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ........................ 5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ........................7 Allegation ......................... 7 Applicable Regulations ........................ 7 Purpose of Investigation ........................ 7 Background ........................ 7 Interview of Alleger ........................ 8 Coordination with NRC Staff ........................ 10 Testimony/Evidence ..................... 10 Review of Documentation ..................... 19 Analysis of Evidence ..................... 22 Conclusions ..................... 24 LIST OF EXHIBITS ..................... 25 NOT FOR PUBLIŽ' CLOSURE WITHOU XAPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, UICE OF INVESTI G' IONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 3
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC CLOSURE WITH APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, UICE OF INVESTI IONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 4
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit BAUMEISTER, Roger J., Security Operations Supervisor, Wackenhut ...... ........... 5 CORBIN, Michael S., Project Manager, Wackenhut ................................ 6 ROBERTS, Randall W., Security Officer, Wackenhut ............................. 11 WILLIAMS, Curtis D., Security Officer, Wackenhut .............................. 10 WRIGHT, Timothy A., Security Officer, Wackenhut ........................... 9 NOT FOR PUB CLOSURE WITHOUT PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, E OF INVESTIGA NS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 5
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBL CLOSURE WITHOUT A OVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVESTIGATIOJ REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Alleeation Discrimination Aaaft~for Raising Safety Concerns Applicable Regulations (2003) 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate Misconduct 10 CFR 50.7: Employee Protection Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated on May 20, 2003, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Office of Investigations (OI), Region IV (RIV), to determine i Mai employed by the Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut) at the Union Electric Company's Callaway Plant (Callaway), Fulton, Missouri, was the subject of employment discrimination by Wackenhut for raising safety concerns (Exhibit 1).
Backeround During the conduct of an OI:R1V in tion 1OI Case No. 4-2002-032] into the alleged em ent discrimination against management for raising safety concerns, rovided additional information that he continues to suffer from harassment for raising safey conrerns. During a second interview o onducted by OI:RIV on February 25, 20 elated that he and several coworkers met at
'but he's gonna lose his job because of this association and because of raising these concerns."
also alleged as intoxicated and called him a derogatory name>;
stated he filed a complaint with Callaway management harassment and an investigation was conducted; however ware of the outcome of the investigation. 8 advised he was conced madet such comments to him when they had always been on good terms. dded that , ,
NOT FOR PUBLSCLOSURE WITHOUT APROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INVESTIGATION GION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 N 7
had a good rapport with Michael S. CORBIN and Roger J. BAUMEIS R,
_ A, and he believed that comments may have been precipitated bye"ither CORBIN or BAUMEISTER. - _
stat actions ais of incidents that he had been subjected to since filing his co _ d the NRC/>
and, to him, was evidence of a hostile work environment.
On May 19, 2003, the RIV Allegation Review Board discussed the allegations made by d requested OI:RIV investigat allegation of continuing harassment by ifianagement for raising safety concerns.
Interview of Wm (Exhibit 2)
_J.
On February 25, 2003 i was interviewed at his requeluby OI:R1V at Callaway in Fulton, Missouri;-
7f O./
AGENT'S NOTE: " or k history information was obtained during a previous interview conducted on September 9, 2002 [OI Case No. 4-2002-032].'
F PS dvised that on0 awards banquet was held at Michigan Place in JeffersonCity, Missouri, by Wackenhut se'cirity personnel to celebrate activities which occurred during the year 2002. .isstated that "There were some people that didn't want to go..."
and "...not participate with...". the awards banquet; therefo re
_t dvised that several Wackenhut security advi personnel from et a Lt around four o'clock in the afternoon to have t)/
some drinks and play foosball. Estatea, "For those people that wanted to go to the Wackenhut deal, they were free to do so...I had not made...definite plans either way..."
(Exhibit 2, page 60).
NOT FOR PUBLIC SCLOSURE WITHOUT APPRO F FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVESTIGATIONS, WON IV<
Case No. 4-2003-027 8
... .I
stated that "At about midnight or so... _hwed Iand began to harass him _ - - stated that was intoxicated and called him derogatory names "...in a very derogatory W...was pretty ugly towards..." him (Exhibit 2, page 61). rther advised that ments, towere overheard by other Wackenhut security jpersonnel ateiW ir tated tha also made statements directly to the Wackenhut security personnel [NFI] at by sayings may win his _fft but he's gonna lose his job because of this associatior and because of raising these concerns" (Exhibit a i thaied iwas assigned to the same security crew ass :0 ih was known as Wised that '.directed negative comments towards him because e ay have believed that he_ was "...out to get Corbin and...Baumeister..." because of the safety concerns that he had raised to management (Exhibit 2, page 69 _; tated, "I thought I had a friendly rapport with... _and "I was shocked that he reacted to me this way...his behavior is indefensible" (Exhibit 2, page 62).
advised he believed tha negative actions and derogatory comments were attributed to his alcohol intoxication and that ad he would hot have made derogatory comments to him unjder normal circumstance advised that the lowing Monday morning [NFI] he filed a complaint with Wackenhut regardin behavior towards him atand subsequently, Patrick J. DORAN, Legal Counsel for Wackenhut, and James R. PEEVY, Reserve Employee Concerns Manager, Callaway, were assigned to investigate his complaint.
)
i _stated that on January 22, 2003, he met with PEEVY, CORBIN, and DORAN to discuss his complaint but felt that he was being interrogated by DORAN when questioned about his confrontation wi t subsequently another meeting was held within atten ance; wherbhe ...apologized profusely..." to him and t the end of the meeting they _ ' Sh hook hands (Exhibit 2, page 68).
stated that he reporte havior'iowards.him as a concern to Wackenhut management and the NRC to show a pattern f a continuation of a hostile work environment at Callaway.
stated that he has no knowledge of any actions taken by Wackenhut to address or resolve his complaint and stated that because he had filed "...form al complaints again with OSHA and NRC there's been a continuing battery and harassing in events" (Exhibit 2, page 70).
urther stated, "...I have not heard and been told the impending disposition on Ifor a (sic) harassing me has been completed" (Exhibit 2, page 68).
so
. .I NOT FOR PUBLIC SURE WITHOUT APPROVi OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF QF INVESTIGATIONS, Case No. 4-2003-027 9
AGENT'S NOTES: Documents provided to OI:RIV br'during his interview are referenced in Exhibit 3.
Coordination with NRC Staff On March 12, 2003, Karla D. SMITH, Regional Counsel, NRC:RIV, was provided a copy of
_ranscript of interview for review to determine if was engaged in protected activities and possibly subjected to employment discrimination.
On March 13, 2003, a copy o transcript of interview was forwarded to the RIV's technical staff for review and identification of safety and/or technical concerns.
On March 14, 2003, Troy W. PRUETT, Chief, Plant Support Branch, NRC:RIV, reported.that a review o )transcript did not disclose or identify any safety or technical issues which were related to "... the overall discrimination complaint" (Exhibit 4, page 1).
On May 9,2003, SMITH provided her review and analysis o -transcript of interview.
SMITH advi tlaj Testimony/Evidence OI:RIV interviewed the following individuals regarding the allegation that Wackenhut management discriminated agains or raising safety concerns.
Interview of Rozer J. BAUMEISTER (Exhibit 5)
On July 10, 2003, Roger J. BAUMEISTER, Security Operations Supervisor, Wackenhut at Callaway, was interviewed by OI:RIV in Fulton, Missouri. Also present during the interview of BAUMEISTER was DORAN, Attorney and Legal Representative for Wackenhut.
BAUMEISTER began his employment at Callaway as a security officer in 1982 and after 2 years, was promoted to Central Alarm Station (CAS) operator. Subsequently, BAUMEISTER was promoted on various occasions to security shift assistant supervisor, security shift supervisor, and ultimately to security operations supervisor in January 2002.
NOT FOR PUB ISCLOSURE WITHOUT AP L OF FIELD OFFICE DIR EC E OF INVESTIGATIO ON IV Case No. 4-2003-027 10
Regardin epotedobehavior BAUMEISTER advised that he was surprised to learn th a t ad a conflict because, to his knowledge, they had a good relationship with each other and he was not aware of any hostilities between them.
BAUMEISTER stated that_ as "...one of the type guys that gets along with everybody..." and that prior to receiving c"omplaint about -Wackenhut had no previous discipline problems wi(Exhibit 5, e 20). BAUMEISTER also explained that he considere iactions towardsa _
unprofessional and not a form of harassment or discrimination; however, he stated that it was
"...unacceptable for an employee to do that to another employee, no matter what the relationship..." (Exhibit 5, pages 13 and 20).
BAUMEISTER advised that he had no involvement and did not attend th BAUMEISTER stated that he had only attended the awards ceremony and was notified on the following work day about the incident betweet
'BAUMEISTER stated that, other than receiving notification about the incident from CORBIN, he had no further involvement with complaint/concern.
alleged comments to sep rsonnel abou tBM AU EISTER surmised that_ ay have obtained information about UJt complaints to fom coworkers assigned to BAUMEISTER stated, "I haven't discussed anything with him...I certainly never discussed it with anyone other than my superiors..." (Exhibit 5, pages 17-18).
BAUMEISTER stated that he had not observed any incidents of discrimlriation, retaliation, or harassment at Callaway towards . or any other employees (Exhibit 5, page 20).
BAUMEISTER further stated that whe taises a concern, "Everybody bends over backwards for him...If he brings up a concern, it gets the high attention of anybody..." (Exhibit 5, page 21). BAUMEISTER also believed that he [BAUMEISTER] could raise safety and/or security concerns without hesitation at Callaway.
Interview of Michael S. CORBIN (Exhibit 6)
On July 10, 2003, Michael Steven CORBIN, Project Manager, Wackenhut at Callaway, was interviewed by OI:RIV in Fulton, Missouri. Also present during the interview of CORBIN was DORAN, Attorney and Legal Representative for Wackenhut.
CORBIN began his employment at Callaway as a temporary, part-time security officer in 1989 and was subsequently promoted on various occasions to security shift assistant supervisor, NOT FOR PUBLK_ DISCLOSURE WIIHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC R, OFFICE OF INVE GATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 11
security shift supervisor, and finally to project manager in the year 2002. CORBIN's immediate supervisor is James [NMN] MILLS, Nuclear Director, Nuclear Services Division, Wackenhut Corporate Office, West Palm Beach, Florida.
CORBIN advised that on or about January 20,2003, he was approached by. _ who appeared to be "...extremely upset..." about a confrontation he had with{ ch occurred at CORBIN stated that informed him that he was going to file abcauseehad called himN _ derogatory narein the presence of other securit Personnel and "...had been drinking too much..." while a& OBIN advised that told him that (
_ilhad also made comments atV o Curtis D. WILLIAMS, Security Officer, Wackenhut, assigned t -that he [WILLIAMS] would have to be retrained because of his s nwit CORBIN further advised tha.. lso reported th e
_Wackenhut, likewise had a confrontation wit tha, evening; howeveJ]!0 did not provide any details regarding the conflict between. and CORBIN advised that because the Wackenhut security officers are assigned to work on different shifts, two awards banquets are held each year in order to provide an opportunity for all employees to attend an awards banquet. CORBIN stated that both awards banquets were held at the "Bones Bar and Lounge in Jefferson City, Missouri" (Exhibit 6, page 14). CORBIN advised that the first awards banquet was held on January 18, 2002, and the second awards banquet was held 1 or 2 weeks after the first banquet [NFI]. CORBIN stated, "All the available shift security 7 supervisors excep with the exception of Mark [NMN] ELLIOTT, Shift Security Supernsor, Delta "D" Crew, Wackenhut, because he [ELLIOlI1 had bee L W1 d was not available (Exhib CORBIN advised that told him that he had planned to attend th but felt obligated to stay a hen decided to remain at with the other Wackenhut employees [NHI]. CORBIN stated that t hA_ ..was not a company-sponsored function..." and it was not work related (Exhibit 6, page 35).
CORBIN advised that he was not aware any conflicts or tension between the security officers assigned to CO e advised that he had no knowledge of any conflict oTr tension between prooicdent at CORBIN related that he was unawareofif6 at nti~brought it to his attention on January 20,2 ORBIN stated that "he did not participate in the Wackenhut/Callaway investigation o 9complaint and was not present when . was interviewed during the investigation.
NOT FOR PUBLIC D ICLOSURE WITH T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,'QFICE OF INVES \ATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 N 12 *.
CORBIN surmised tha __ p egative comments towar 'ere due to V hi _uru t afftiUL wiLLI ot t'_MIN_..n
_.Q~~ibt.I6, page 11).
CORBIN advised that he did not viewL comments to gas discrimination, harassment, or retaliation for filing concerns. CORBIN stated that he viewed comments tol '...as a dumb mistake, plain and simple...But I have no control over what happens_ w(Exhibit 6, page,37)..CORBIN further stated, "To my knowledge, there is no harassment from anyone towards (Exhibit 6, page 39).
AGENT'S NOTES: Documents provided to OI:RIV by CORBIN during his interview are referenced in Exhibit 7.
I I
i I
I I AI kI I
I I
NOT FOR PUBP DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPOVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOFFICE OF INVESTIGATIO REGION IV CaseeNo. 4-2003-027 13
Interview of Timothy A. WRIGHT (Exhibit 9)
On July 10, 2003, Timothy Alan WRIGHT, Security Officer, Wackenhut, was interviewed by OI:RIV in Fulton, Missouri..
WRIGHT began his employment at Callaway as a security officer in November 1998 and has remained in the security officer position to the present. WRIGHT's immediate supervisor is BATTEN, Alpha "A" Crew, Wackenhut.
When questioned about his knowledge of the events leading up to an incident which occurred betwee 2 WRIGHT explained that "'
NOT FOR PUNt[C DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC'1Q<, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIO GION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 14
the confrontation occurred because several security officers decided to attend _ a ii instead of the'_that night. WRIGHT stated, "I didn't want to go to the Wackenhut so I a dinner..."
rianned a '...just to get together as a crew and eat...th hing just came up" (Exhibit 9, page 8). WRIGHT stated that he personally did not want attend tho because "There's just certain things on my job I don't agree with" (Exhibit 9, page 9). WRIGHT explained that several members on his crew [Alpha "A" Crew], to include himself, believed that the Wackenhut promotion process for security personnel had not been conducted in a fair manner for the past 4 to 5 years and, as a result, some of his crew members did not whit to attend the af evening.
WRIGHT advised that after having dinner a he and several members of his crew left the restaurant and arrived a_ WRIGHT recalled that the following individuals were resent when he arrived a R Randy ROBERTS and his /1 /1 1-*
girlfriend d Jeff BYLARj I Rob HECKMAN; WI]LLC4NWS; anR IGHT advised that 10: 30 p.m. or 11 p.m., he observed lrond thawas alsoresent in the sports ba _ and noticed him conversing wit WRIGHT stated that afte{BUSCH] Ei~finished his conversation with approached him and "...made some' l.
- JiExhibit 9, page 6).
WRIGHT advised that appeared to be "...ve ,very mad..." and blame wr planning it 9, pages 24-25).
WRIGHT stated \'as "..Iery drufnl and calle offensive name (Exhibit 9, pages 18 and 24). WRIGHT further stated tha told him that he [WRIGHT] should transfer fro 'ertey werea bunch of losers..."
(Exhibit 9, page 26). WRIGHT stat" of his and surmised that because they had known each othe felt comfortable in talking to him abo hib t 9, pages f and 27). WRIGHT further advised that WILLIAMS was present durinDa of,is conversation with and U_
WRIGHT believed tha negative comments abou were excessive and influenced by his consumption of alcohol.' WRIGHT advised that during his conversation with y-_-_ ild ot mention or refer to any concerns that had been asd ,by stated, "..this is the only time I've ever seen...rid
"...since he has worked here drinking and upset;..He was upset we weren't at the party, and he basically went overboard with what he was saying..." (Exhibit 9, pages 32 and 34). WRIGHT advised that he believe emarks abo - ere his personal opinions about and had not been instigated by someone else.
,_a NOT FOR PUB] [C DISCLOSURE WITHOUT AROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE SQ, OFFICE OF INVESTIGA.NSRGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 15
WRIGHT recalled that he inforne iabout comments that same night at
_WRIGHT advised that subsequently whe told him that h was going to file a concern with Wackenhut regardin _ ,ihe [WRIGHT] stated he disagreed wit *because the incident with -
and.. ust basically was drunk and...said stupid things..." (Exhibit 9, page 40).
WRIGHT advised that during his employment at Callaway, he has not observed, nor been subjected to, any retaliation, harassment, or discrimination for raising concerns.
Interview of Curtis D. WILLIAMS (Exhibit 10)
On July 10, 2003, Curtis Douglas WILLIAMS, Security Officer, Wackenhut, was interviewed by OI:RIV .in Fulton, Missouri. Also present during the interview of WILLIAMS was DOPAN, Attorney and Legal Representative for Wackenhut.
WILLIAMS began his employment at Callaway as a watchman in September 2002 and later hired as a security officer and has remained in the security officer position to the present.
WILLIAMS' immediate supervisor is ELLIOTT.
e concerning an incident which occurred between
- WILLIAMS explained that he and o .w. ...
WRIGHT were present wtien about"0 ved at the WILLIAMS recalled that he had decide not toattend thej night because he was not the recipient of any award, but instead, attended the began making comments InC hat 7f MWE"0A IC WaLLIAM s t a sometime between 10 p m. and I.l p appeared at nd it was apparent tha shad "... been drinking alittleEflZ" (Exhibit 10, page 15). WILLIAMS stated tha alked over to them LIAMS and WRIGHT] and began questioning WRIGHT _about WILLIAMS advised tha told them [WRIGHT and WILLIAMS]
that it was inappropriate for WILLIAMS stated thareferred to th a derogatory name ,lunngthe conversation but, in his opinin, "...gujs talked like hat all the time" (Exhibit 10, page 21).
WILLIAMS advised that he did not view ommentregrardin hostile L(.
and stated was "...justjoking around and Just stlflike that" (Exhibit 10, page 22).
WILLIAMS stated that he and WRIGHT laughed at ' comments because they
"...thought all of it was funny, even the name-calling" (Exhibit 10, page 23). WILLIAMS recalled that. ad even joked with him that he [WILLIAMS] would have to be NOT FOR PUB DISCLOSURE WITHO PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC ,OFFICE OF INVESTIGA NS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 16
retrained as a WILLIAMS advised thatv visited with them [WILLIAMS and WRIGHT] for about an hour and then he left [Ni1.
WILLLAMS advised that i was not present during their [WRIGHT and WILLIAMS] /(
conversation wi and he did not, at any time, observe t_ ,alkingto WILLIAMS further advised that he considered a friend and also described him as a "workaholic." WILLIAMS stated that although he and id not "hang out" with each other, he [WILLIAMS] occasionally played basketball with him at the gym located on-site after work (Exhibit 10, page 16). WILLIAMS advised that the dinner ati as the first time that he had been in a social setting wiricoworkers. v WILLIAMS stated that, in his opinion,_ ,tomments abou w ere not related to any type of retaliation, harassment, or discrimination agains g concerns and simply viewedj his personal views and jokes (Exhibit 10, page 24).
Interview of Randall W. ROBERTS (Exhibit I l)
On July 10, 2003, Randall W. ROBERTS, Security Officer, Wackenhut, was interviewed by OI:RrV in Fulton, Missouri.
ROBERTS began his employment at Callaway as a security officer on August 2, 1982, and has remained in the security officer position to the present. ROBERTS' immediate supervisor is BATTEN, Alpha "A" Crew, Wackenhut.
When questioned about his knowledge concerning an incident which occurred between
_Yi r - OBERTS acknowledged that he 7(
~hadbenprsentwvs~
heldearlier that eveninc. ROBERTS ad se that sometime between 11:45 p.m. and.m.,
ROBERTS related tha nfsittin at atable l, immediately walked over toand beganto ementst lakesof leadership for not attendin' OBERTS stated tha iwas "...real belligerent and drunk..."' when he was speaking t however, he [ROBERTS] does not recall hearing any cursing, name calling, or derogatory comments directed a (Exhibit 11, pages 22-23). ROBERTS stated tha Co nversation with lasted "...Approximately two or three minutes" (Eihibit 11, page 27).
NOT FOR PUBLIC SURE WITHOUT APROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF INVESTIGA't REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 17
ROBERTS advised that he was not surprised at -behavior toward and stated that it "...was common knowledge that...- ... has a few beeevery now and then..." and becomesReal loud, outgoing, belligeren'ifter he had been drindn (Exhibit 11, pages 23-24). ROBERTS further advised that there have Seen other occasions at parties that he [ROBERTS] and ttended where they did not get along because he had been drinking.
ROBERTS believed that_ co ns toward form of employment harassment because coworkers were present and .had made job-related comments regardin leadership abilities an ROBE Sfuteri ex nthat he believed tha w s intentionally harassed by pas not part of the "cliques" at Callaway and had raised concerns to management (Exhibit 11, pages 30-3 1). ROBERTS surmised th& CORBIN, and BAUMEISTER were part of a clique or "...budd system..." and although may no have been instructed to harass F_'m ay have been instigated by gossip among "the cliHue" to confron (Exhibit 11, pages 29-30). ROBERTS clarified that he believedn ctions may havebeen related -iling concerns at Callaway and/or not -ut he [ROBERTS] had no specific information or knowledge about ALmotive for confronting or harassin (Exhibit 1 1, page 39).
ROBERTS advised that there have been other occasions where _ xhibited the same behavior towards him as he did toward For example, ROBERTS stated that on one occasion last year and some of the other security crew members attended a party where he [ROBERTS'was part of the band. ROBERTS stated that he sometimes wears earrings when he performs with the band and at this party, wh hn; few exchanged words at that point"i (Exhibit 11, page 34). ROBERTS advised that at imi magwaM FU f tWsu-bsequently interacted socially and at work but have never mentioned or acknowledged the incident to each other.
ROBERTS further advised that because of his wit include informally raising concerns himself, he [ROBERTS] believed tly
_ ROBERTS stated that he had been employed at Callaway for 21 years and "..it kind of makes me angry that ...new people.. _"_ , UM
'(Exhibit I 1, pages 49-50). ROBERTS advised that _ ) '
A -1' -
NOT FOR PUBLCI SURE WITHOUT APPROAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICsINVESTIGATIONS GION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 18
Me- - Exhibit 11, page 61). ROBERTS stated he decided _ MM_
lllrjlml (Exhibit 11, page 61).
AGENT'S NOTE: At the conclusion of the interview, OI:RIV provided ROBERTS with the NRC's telephone number and contact information for the Review of Documentation During the course of this investigation, OI:RrV reviewed and evaluated documents provided by the licensee, alleger, and/or the NRC:RIV staff. The documents deemed pertinent to this investigation are delineated in this section.
Documents Provided bv o OI:RIV on Februarv 25. 2003 (Exhibit 3)
A review of documents provided n n February 25, 2003, disclosed the following:
Pages 42-43: This email fron- _ i dated January 20, 2003, was notification that he _ was reporting a concern regarding a continuing hostile working environment and harassment by a coworker _M Page 45: This email fro to himself, dated Janus record of a telephone conversation he had wit~a role as a witness t ivior annotated that he info "eei'Z concerns about "...being labelled (sic) a snitch or, they are questioned by Wackenhut management r(
actions at Pages 56-57: Pages This apparent email 56-57:W from H o the "NRC Office of Investigations," dated February 25, 2003 [date not electronically generated], was a list of events, complete with dates and descriptions of activities, to support his claim that he was subjected to a hostile and I.,1i chilling work environment for raising safety concerns. t, AGENT'S NOTE: Concerns raised by' and reported to the NRC prior to February 25, 2003, were investigated by OI:RIV under OI Case No. 4-2002-032.
NOT FOR PUBLIC D LOSURE WITHOUT APPRO1L OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0NE OF INVESTIGATIONS, GION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 1 19
Documents Provided by CORBIN to OI:RIV on July 10. 2003 (Exhibit 7)
A review of documents provided by CORBIN on July 10, 2003, disclosed the following:
Page 1: This email from CORBIN to himself, dated January 20, 2003, was a record of a conversation that he had wit the same date.
CORBIN's email reported that he was advised b e planned to submit an employee concern regarding a' Page 2: This letter letter .
of The letter further stated, "Future inappropriate or disrespectful incidents, as the one that occurred on' ay result in your removal from supervisory status or more severe disciplinary measures, up to and including termination of employment."
Pages 3-2 1: This document, Wackenhut Nuclear Services (WNS) Procedural Manual, Employee Concerns Program (ECP), Number 113, Revision 2, outlines the program procedures for Wackenhut employees for reporting job-related concerns.
Pages 12-21: This document, WNS Procedural Manual, Open Door Policy, Number 114, stated, "It is the policy of the WNS that all employees be treated fairly and equitably and that all employees can communicate openly with supervisors and managers without fear of reprisal. It is the policy of the WNS not to tolerate any reprisals levied against an employee expressing their ideas, issues or complaints."
Email from CORBIN to OI:RIV. dated July 3. 2003 (Exhibit 12)
This email from CORBIN to OI:RIV was documentation of a meeting that he observed between
-bn January 27, 2003. The meeting was scheduled by CORBN so that ould meet and discuss the conflict which occurred onnjt NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCL ITHOUT APPR\ AL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OPESTIGATION REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 2U
-Lat Email fromnto OI:RIV. dated Julv 6. 2003 (Exhibit 13)
This email fr t IRVwas notification that he immiaft had "pi_"
Callawa ECP Reoorts and Interview Notes Rerardi4dinn--- rnlaint Filed on
.1xhbt 4 AGENT'S NOTE: These documents were provided to OI:RIV by Dave HOLLABAUGH, Employee Concerns Manager, Callaway.
The following reports and interview notes were generated by ECP Callaway as a result of a complaint filed b aegarding his alleged continued exposure b Wackenhut to a "chilled and hostile environment," specifically alleged harassment Pages 1-3: This document, CP Interview Notes, dated January 23, 2003, reflecte collection of the events a Pages 4-5: This document, WILLIAMS' ECP Interview Notes, dated January323, 2003, reflected WILLIAMS' recollection of events a Pages 6-8: This document, _ ECP Interview Notes, dated January 23, 2003, reflected recollection of events at _
The document further annotated [Pa e 8 tates that he has no evidence or information against that tie them to the
'threatening comments' about protected activity or losing his job."
Pages 9-10: This document, WRIGHT's ECP Interview Notes, dated January 24,.
2003, reflected WRIGHT's recollection of events at"E
_II Pages 11-12: This d Janua 27, A ' from .
4nd ECP in attendance.'
NOT FOR PUI LOSURE WITHOUT APROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTORINVESTIGAON IV Case No. 4-2003-027 21
Analvsis of Evidence An analysis of the evidence was performed to determine if avs the subject of employment discrimination by Wackenhut's management for reporting safety concerns.
Protected Activitv
_ h ad previously raised safety concerns to Wackenhut/Callaway management and alleged that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment because h5filed complaints with the DOL and NR(5t~peciricallyi vas evidence of a continuing hostile work environment against him at Callaway.
Further, a review and analysis o allegation by NRC:RIV Counsel in *cated that additional investigation b actions to w a in order to ascertain whethe r d__oontituted harassment, discrimination, and/or a 4W continuation of hostile work environment.
Manayement's Knowledge of Protected Activity CallawaY/Wackenhut management [CO.M AUMEISTER, and PEEVY] were aware of
_ _ protected activity becauseJ had infornedm ement and nonmanagement personnel of his concerns. Subsequently, on January 20, 200 W eported his confrontation with and filed a se&ond complaint with Wackenhut and Callaway's ECR management who, in turn, conducted an investigation and later _y
_UhIJaxh ibit 7, page 2).
Adverse Action During, a non-work-related social function on's
- 3:onronfrontation with as not related to hisLIpr rtected activities or evidence of a hostile work environment.
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAE OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOROFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, ON IV Case No. 4-2003-027 22
Nexus: Was the Adverse Action a Result o yEneaeine in Protected Activity?
The evidence developed during this investigation disclosed tha not subjected to retaliation, harassment, employment discrimination; or a contnuin e working environment ' C-because of his participation in protected activities.
Interviews of Wackenhut personnel conducted by OI:RIV regarding allegations tha in subjected o harassment and discrimination because he raised safety concerns disclosed tha egative commentary to and other security personnel present at la potaneous and the result of gative behavior towards Pwas influenced and amplified b to mption of alcohol prior to at arrivinoge rnents and other security personnel were )
ersonal opinions and not related to any harassment or discrimination of hat had been directed by Wackenhut/Callaway management. Further, the confrontation betwee __
During an interview stated, "I honestly do not thinks would have confronted him if I had not been drinking. It was the liquid couragJ Exhibit 8, page 36). tated, "I should have never said anything to... "..It was none of my business..." (Exhibit 8, page 14). rther stated,},..I got stu id one night and let my mouth override, and I truly am sorry for that, and I apologized t ateixxhibit 8, page 43).
Durino an interview of CORBIN; he surmised that, *egtive comments towards (Exhibit 6, page 11). CORBIN advised that he did not view oments to X (a l0 as discrimination, harassment, or retaliation for filing concerns. CORBIN stated that he viewec c omments t6 _ ...as a dumb mistake, plain and simple...But I have no control over what happen (Exhibit 6, page 37). CORBIN further stated, "To my knowledge, there is no harassment from anyone toward'Q B(Exhibit 6, page 39).
During an interview of WILLIAMS, he ad e at he did not view _eom ments regardiig ,as hostile and stated was "..justjoking around and 'ut tif like that" (Exhibit 10, page 22). WILLIAMS stated that he and WRIGHT laughed a comments because they "...thought all of it was funny, even the name-calling" (Exhibit 10, page 23). WILLIAMS recalled that ,had even joked with him that he [WILLIAMS]
would have to be retrained as a security offi se of his association with the NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS OSURE WITHOUT APQVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 OF INVESTIGATIO GION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 23
During an interview of WRIGHT, he stated he believed tha negative comments about ere excessive and influenced by his consumption of alcohol. WRIGHT advised that during his conversation wit, dIid not mention or refer to any concerns that had been raised by t Callaway. WRIGHT stated, "..this is the only time I've ever seen... '_ ince he has worked heregrinking and upset.He was u peand he basically went overboard with what he was saying..."
(Exhibit 9, pages 32 and 34). WRIGHT advised that he believe _rearks about wwere his personal opinions about ANOand had not been instigated by someone During the interviews of security personnel, only ROBERTS stated that he believed that j ictions towards r rm of employment harassment because coworkers were present and ad made job-related comments regarding eadership abilities and ROBERTS further explained tat in his opinion, as intentionally harassed byause not part of the kiques" at Callaway and had raised concerns to management
'Exhibit I11 30-3 1). ROBERTS stated that he had Po ecific information or knowledge abou t _ notive for confronting or harassingg (Exhibit 11, page 39).
ROBERTS did not provide any specific information to 0I:RIV to support his opinion that had been subjected to harassment and discrimination for raising concerns. 7(
A review of documents obtained during this investigation showed that Callaway/Wackenhut initiated an investigation within 2 days of receivinin regardin nwthn7 day , had taken tinais in the fo E xhibit 7, page 2, and Exhibit 14, pages 1-12).
In summation, OI:RIV determined that the investigation disclosed no evidence tha*
by Wackenhut for raising safety concerns.
5 ,sisof the evidence collected during this kuvas subjected to employment discrimination Conclusions Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, OI:RIV determined the allegation that
_as the subject of employment discrimination by Wackenhut for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
NOT FOR PUBL WITHOUT AOVAL ODISCLOSURE OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTROFFICE OF INVESTIGATI0NS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 24
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated May 20, 2003 (1 page).
2 Transcript of Interview wit l ated February 25, 2003 (100 pages).
3 Documents Provided b o OI:RIV, various dates (57 pages).
4 Various documents obtained during coordination with RIV staff (4 pages).
5 Transcript of Interview with BAUMEISTER, dated July 10, 2003 (24 pages).
6 Transcript of Interview with CORBIN, dated July 10, 2003 (44 pages).
7 Documents Provided by CORBIN to OI:RIV, various dates (21 pages).
8 Transcript of Interview wit _dated July 10, 2003 (45 pages).
9 Transcript of Interview with WRIGHT, dated July 10, 2003 (46 pages).
10 Transcript of Interview with WILLIAMS, dated July 10, 2003 (54 pages).
11 Transcript of Interview with ROBERTS, dated July 10, 2003 (64 pages).
12 Email from CORBIN to OI:RIV, dated July 3, 2003 (6 pages).
13 Email fro tMo OI:RIV, dated July 6, 2003 (2 pages).
14 Callaway ECP Reports and Interview Notes Regarding Complaint Filed on January 20, 2003,;various dates (28 pages).
NOT FOR LIVPILOSURE WITHOU ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIG A GION IV Case No. 4-2003-027 25