ML102740533

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ROI, Case No. 4-2009-068
ML102740533
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 05/03/2010
From: Fitzgibbon W, Kryk S
NRC/OI/RGN-III/FO, NRC/OI/RGN-IV/FO
To:
References
4-2009-068, FOIA/PA-2010-0245, RIV-2008-A-0069
Download: ML102740533 (3)
v • d • e


Text

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - ON INFORMATION

Title:

COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION:

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST Al ......c) FOR RAISING NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee: Case No.: 4-2009-068 Energy Northwest Report Date: May 3, 2010 P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Control Office: OI:RIV Docket No.: 50-00397 Status: CLOSED Allegation No.: RIV-2008-A-0069 Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:

zA* x/ý Scott Kryk, Special Agent W. Michael FitzGibbon, Acting Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III Field Office, Region IV DO NOT DISSEMINATE, PLACE INY.ýE PUBLICP-QCUMENT ROOM OR INT N OF THI1c DISCUSS THE CONTENTS H .. ORI I IN E INVESTIGATION OUTSIDE H RI OF NRC WITHOUT AUTHORITY 0 FTTHE THEAA F'C'A OF THIS OVING OFFICIAL HOR0TEDD REPORT. UNAUTHORIZED IZ IS C DISC PR MAY R M RESULT S U IN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONCT NS CR IMI L PROSECUTION.

R CRIMI LT ST'G F

OFFICIAL USE10ONLY 0 - 01 INVESTIGATION OVL RO OFINECUTRMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 V TIGATION INFORMATION SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region IV, on August 21, 2009, to determine if a(b)(7)(c) was discriminated against by Energy Northwest's Columba Generating Station (CGS), Richland, Washington, and/or Areva NP, Incorporated (Areva), Richland, Washington, for raising nuclear safety concerns.

Based upon the evidence developed, the allegation that a (b)(7)(C) was discriminated against by CGS and/or Areva for raising nuclear safety concerns was not substantiated.

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITH UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INREGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATIO NFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONL ESTIGATION INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE HO PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION IV 2

Case No. 4-2009-068 OFFICIAL US ONLY -01 INVESTIGAT N INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ON IN ESTIGATION INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS ...... .............. 1.......................

TESTIM O NIAL EVIDENCE .......... .............................. .................................... 5 DO CUM ENTARY EVIDENCE... ......................................................................................... 7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION....................................... .... 11 A pp lica b le R eg u la tio ns ............................................................................................... 11 P urpose of Inve stig atio n .................................................. .......................................... 11 Ba c kg ro u n d ................................................................................................................ 11 A ge nt's A nalysis ................................................................................................... . . 12 C o n clu sio ns ......................................................................................................... . . . 19 LIST O F EX HIBITS ......... .................................................. 21 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, >OF OF INV TIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 3 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGAT N INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFýF F INVES ATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 4 OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 INVESTIGATIO INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ON -01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit (b)(7)(C)

Areva NP, Inc. (Areva) ................. 71 (b)(7)(C ) ... .... ......... ........ ...... . .............. 64 (b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station (CGS) ............................................ 69 I(b)(7)(C) ýEnergy Northwest, CGS ..................... 68 (b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest, CGS ................................... 70 (b)(7)(C ) Are va ............................................. 73 l(b)(7)(C) IEnergy Northwest, CG S ................................. 66 I(b)(7)(C) t Energy Northwest, CGS ... 67 (b)(7)(C) Areva .............. 72 l(b)(7)(C)

I Areva ......... 74 (b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest, CGS ........................ 65 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC INVEST ATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 5 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATIO INFORMATION

OFFICIAL Y -01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 ,F IN STI, Case No. 4-2009-06 8 6 OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 INVESTIl INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 VESTIGATION INFORMATION DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administrat)o Complaint of Discrimination bý(b)(7)(c)

S~3 Fluor Hnrdin(7(Ca*n. Fluor Corp. position paper to DOL in the(b)()(.)

dated (.)(7)(C)...................... ....... 4 DOL Notice of Determination letter to[(b)(7)(c) advising that his complaint does not make a prima facie showing .............................................................. 5 Arbitration Decision between Fluor Hanford and the Ha r(forCL' mic Metal Trades Council, Carpenters- and Millwrights, Local 2403, regarding the[(b.?"_' ischarge, dated (b)(7)(C) I wher-(b(---)rievance was denied due to his falsification of time records, his insubordination, and his dishonest testimony under oath (pp. 1, 4, 6, 12, 14) ..... 6 U.S. District Court. Eastern District of Washinoton, (b)(7)(C) vs.

7)(C. . . ...................... ... .................................... .......... 7 Hearing before the Commissioner of the Employment Security Dertment ,tjhSta e of

-7.c Washington (b)(7)(c) wherejj laim for benefits is denied , dated (b( (c ... ................................................... 8 State of Washinaton. Office of Administrative Hearinqs for the Employment Security Department, (b)(7)(c) dated -(b)(7)(C)

- ent Securi . .......... 9 State of Washington, Thurston County Superior Cor b()C Employment Security Department of the State of Washi*gton, da ted- (b(7)(c..............10 U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), regardin((7) -11

  • (b)(7)(c)

US NL ,readn U.S. NLRB, regardingCase Cae..... No (b)(7)(c) .............-... - ............. I...... I........... 1 I..........

........... 12 U.S. NLRB, regarding Case No ......... 13 Discipl(b)(7)(c) n Letter from Fluor Hanforci (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) date............................................. .I................................... ..... 4 Flour d a tedm(mnrbn)(h(

ý(b)(7)(C ). O..................

  • suspending him for falsification of time cards,

.......... ............................................... ........ ...................... . 1 5 (b)(7)(C)

Employee Status/Change Authorization fo going from suspension to discharge effective (b)(7)(C)..... ........................................... 16 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W HO ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE TIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 7 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGA N INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 VESTIGATION INFORMATION DOCUMENTARY VIDENCE Exhibit Exit Clearance Form from Fluor Hanford, Inc. to. dated ..................... 17

/~~(b)(7)(C) ctn Employee Record Change fo date citing Discharge for cause .......... 18 Employee Status/Chanqe Authorization fo effective'(b)(7)(C)lJ" being en placedlcdo on unpaid nadsseso suspension effe 7.................... 7 tiver ...... I............................. I............ 19 Energy Northwest's answer to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination b)'b)(7)(C) d ated (b)(7)(C). . .....

..... . . . ............................................................... 20 Energy Northwest's position paper to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination by 1(b)(7)(C) 21 Documents provided by Energy Northwest regarding Safety Culture, Safety Conscious Work Environment, Employee Concerns Program, Differing Professional Opinions, Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture, and Non-Harassment Policy, va rio u s d a te s .................................................... . . ............................... . . . 2 2 (b)(7)(C) on-line application to Energy Northwest, submitted (b)(7)(C) where lists that his reason for leaving Fluor Hanford, Inc. was a Wrongful Termination - Filing Health/Safety Issues (pg. 5) ..................... 23 (b)(7)(C) (b()C)

Email from Energy Northwes *tol dated *................ 24 Email from Energy Northwes (b)(7)(C) q )(7)(C) date(d ................ 25 Energy Northwest Position Description for a Maintenance Mechanic, Job Code BS004, date d Ju ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ....................................... ............................................. . . .. 26 Mechanic Interview Score Sheet Summary for applicants, dated September 6, 2005 ..... 27 Applicant Action Average Weighted Scores, for Mechanic Position 002582, dated Decem ber 2005 ................................................................................................... . . 28 Applicant scores and rankings for Job Posting 002711 and 002737, dated June 2 1, 20 06 .................................................................................................... . . . 29 Applicant Action Total Weighted Scores, for Mechanic position 002812, undated ............. 30 Energy Northwest Position Description for Maintenance Work Team Manager, Job Code A 1166, dated February 24, 2000 ......................................................................... 31 Energy Northwest Position Description for Maintenance Work Week Supervisor, Job Code BF224, dated February 24, 2000 ......................................................................... 32 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE 0 IGA IONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 8 OFFICIAL US ONLY - 01 INVESTI TION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL U VESTIGATION INFORMATION DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Energy Northwest Position Description for a Project Lead - Major Maintenance, Job Code AM 230, dated June 27, 2006 ................................................................................ 33 Energy Northwest Position Description for a Training Specialist III - Mechanical Program Lead, Job Code AM233, dated June 12, 2007 ................................................ 34 (b()()(b)(7)(c)I 1 Report for datedý Energy Northwest Temporary Employee Evaluation as a temporary outage mechanic, along with his hiring package ................................ 35 I(b)(7)(C) .fo (b)(7)(C) 3 Lists of applications to Energy Northwest fro 36 e sum e , u nd ated ................................................................................................ . . 37 Email from (b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest to dated((b)(7)(C) ............. 38 0(b)(7)(c) recinfrP sto s3 1 M ch i, Energy Northwest computer printout o rejection for Positions 3331 - Mechanic, and 3363 - Procedure W riter II, dated [(b)(7)(C) . ....... ................................... 39 E . I (b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest to ( datedb ()(7)(C) I in response t request regarding his not being hired.....-..- .......................... 40 L(b)(7)oC)7reection of a job offer from Energy Northwest via email on (b)(7)(C) to(b)(7)(c) f Energy Northwest .................................. 41 (b)((7)(C)

PADS Access Synopsis Report fo enerated on (b)(7)(c).1 .......................... 42 Areva NP Inc.'s (Areva) response to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of. Discrimination by (b )(7 )(C )

(b)(b)(C)(43 ........... .. .I........

.. . .............. 43 byl(b)( 7)(c)

Areva's position paperJ. to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination 4 Ib)(7)(C)

(b)7)()..... ..... ..... I......................................... .......................... .... 44 Areva's Employee Control Concerns Program, Policy No. 0242, Revision 2, Effective October 27, 2006 ............................................ 45 Areva's Anti-Harassment Policy, Policy No. 0222, Revision 11, Effective January 19, 2007..46 Areva EmploveeRequisition Worksheet for a Technical Maintenance 5 position, dated (b)ý() - anc_(b)7)(c) application and resume for that position ............. 47 Areva's ranking of the candidates and the interview evaluations for the candidates considered for the Technical Maintenance position ............................................... 48 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE IN STIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 O 9 OFFICIAL-SE ONLY -01 INVESTIG ION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONL VESTIGATION INFORMATION DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit (b)(7)(C) e-Talent Activity Rep.ort..wi~th Arvdte rm(b)(7)(C) to (b)(7)(C)............................................... ........................................ 49 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by I(b)(7)(C) dated December 21, 2006............................................................ . .450 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by dated O ctober 13, 2006 .............................................................. 51 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by dated October 25, 2006 .. ................................................. 52 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by dated January 18, 2007 ................................................................. 53 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by dated Decem ber 27, 2006........................................... .................... 54 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by 7c.. undated ............................................................................ 55 Areva Requisition INFO0066, for a Supervisor, Technical Operations, undated ................ 56 (b)(7)(C)

Email from Areva to notifyina him that he was not selected for the Technical Maintenance position, dated b)(7)(C) ......................................................... 57

[{b)(7)(C) 3Aea oteUS O Declaration from/ Arevatche US. DOL regarding I(b)(7)(C) ............... 58 Declaration from (b)(7)(C)Ar to the U.S. DOL regardin (b)(7)(C) .. .. 59 (b)(7)(C) L

[ __ J(C) time sheets for his em Mlyment on-site at Areva through a contracting company, Thompson Mechanical, from (b)(7)(c) 60 Time sheets for three other Thompson Mechanical contractors, who were also laid off between (at Areva ................................. 61 U.S. DOL letter t (b)(7)(C) ] statn that there was no finding that the respondents listed in Complaint (b)(7)(C) iolated the ERA. ........... 62 U.S. DOL Final Investigative Report, dated (b)(7)(c) concluded that the Respondent, Energy Northwest, did not have knowledge o (b)(7)(C) protected activity ....... 63 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TýHOTAPPROVAL OF FIELD PPOVA O FILDOFFICE

'.'ý3T-DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF IN TIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 10 OFFICIAL USE 0 LY - 01 INVESTIGA N INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE 0-Nt VESTIGATION INFORMATION DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2004. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Editions) (Allegation No. 1) 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Editions) (Allegation No. 1)

Purpose of Investiaation This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,(NRC. Offilce4f Investicqations (01), Regqion IV (RIV), on August 21, 2009, to determine i' j(jj "

J(b)(7)(C) ýwas discriminated against by Energy Northwest's Columba Generating Station (CGS), Richland, Washington, and/or Areva NP, Incorporated (Areva),

Richland, Washington, for raising nuclear safety concerns (Exhibit 1).

Background

On June 2, 2008, the NRC's Allegation Review Board (ARB), RIV convened toreview and discuss a complaint of discrimination filed b (b)(7)(c) hrough his le al counsel, (b)(7)(C)

Govemment Accountability Project, Washington DC. A copy of (b)(7)(C) omplaint, filed with the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL), Case No(b)(7)(c) was forardeby DOL to NRC:RiV by letter dated (b)(7)(C) In the complaint filed with DOQLI)( 7 )(c) lalleged that he had been subjected to emp oyment discrimination by CGS because of his reputation as a "whistleblower" and for engaging in protected activities.

A review of the DOL complaint disclosed that claimed his protected activities began when he reported numerous health and safety coqcerns to the Department of Energy (DOE) while he was employed as ý(b)( 7 )(C) i for Fluor Hanford, Incorporated (Fluor Hanford) Richland, Washington. Fluor Hanford is a contractor for the DOE at the Spent Nuclear Fuels Project Hanford site. Specifically (b)(7)(c) reported that he was terminated by Fluor Hanford in(7)or raising nuclear concerns, a protected activity under the Energy Reorganization Act, and subsequent to his termination from Fluor Hanford, he has not been able to secure employment in the nuclear industry.

In the DOL complaintc stated that he had applied for at least 21 job postings at CGS during the period ofl(b)(7)(C) but was not employed because he had disclosed a "Wrongful dischar e for raising health and safety concerns" on his job applications to CGS.

Details o (b)(7)(C) submission of job applications to CGS are outlined in his DOL complaint in paragraphs 41 through 63 (Exhibit 3).

The Office of General Counsel had previously advised on May 29,-2008 that further information would be required in order to determine if(b)(7)() discrimination complaint was considered a prima facie allegat' warranted further investigation by the NRC. Subsequently, the OI:RIV interviewe *(* j on August 15, 2008 [01 Case No. 4-2008-048F] to obtain clarifying information regarding his nuclear safety concerns and allegation of employment discrimination NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSUR UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC VESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 OFFICIAL U, ONLY- 01 INVESTIG ION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONL -,01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION I* by GS.[Based (b)(5),(b)(7)(C) a review of b7Ctestimony and documentation, the RIV staf(b)(5)

On June 11, 2009, as contacted by the NRC and offered an opportunity to attempt to resolve his dispute with the licensee by participating in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program.

On August 7, 2009, the NRC received notification fror 7c ADR Program at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, that the licensee had declined to participate in ADR. On this same date, the RIV Allegation staff notified OI:RIV of the failure of the ADR process.

On August 11, 2009, the RIV staff provided the final Ab..min utes and prima facie worksheet to OI:RIV for initiation of an investigation to determine if ( as subjected to employment discrimination by CGS and Areva for reporting nuclear safety concerns. 01 advised the RIV staff that the statute of limitations expired on August 1, 2008; therefore, any willful violations identified during this investigation may not be applicable for escalated enforcement action.

(Exhibit 2).

Aqent's Analysis Protected Activity I(b)(71(C)

(( stated that he raised numerous safety crlce ns through the filing of Em loyee Concern Forms while employed at Fluor Hanford during Exhibit 3, pp. 4-6).,(b)(7)(C) Lsaid his safety 1C concerns at Fluor Hanford included major failures of the replacement of the PCM drive shaft, management's failure to adequately respond to water quality concerns, that employees were forced to work excessively long shifts, and a failed Fuel Transfer Crane at the 100K Basin.

l(b)(7)(C) so filed a wrongful termination case with DOL i (b)(7)(c) and testified as a witness in anoter individual's wrongful termination case.

Manaaement Knowledoe (b)(7)(C) ]on-line application to Energy Northwest, dated -(b)(7)(c)

_ stated that his reason for leaving his job at Fluor Hanford was a "Wrongful termination - Filing Health/Safety Issues" (Exhibit 23, pg. 5).

(b)(7)(c) (Energy Northwest, CGS, stated that he was not aware of 7 safety concerns with the DOE until the DOL investigation was initiated (Exhibit 65, pp. 17-21).

(b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest, CGS, said that he did not know or his history, an was not aware o any safety concerns raised by(YM¶ ntil several years later during the investigation (Exhibit 68, pp. 7-8).

(b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest, CGS, related that he was not aware o 1past until they received the DOL complaint letter (Exhibit 67, pg. 13).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSUR ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VE IONS, REGION IV Case No, 4-2009-068 12 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIG ON INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE NVESTIGATION INFORMATION nergy Northwest, CGS, stated that she did not know (b)(7)(c) ~prior to his application to Energy Northwest, and said that she was not aware of any safety concern issues at DOE (Exhibit 66, pp. 12-13, 15).

(b)(7)(C) Energy Northwest CGS stated that she has never met but knows of him through his DOL complaint (b)(7)(c) said that she has no knowledge of his safety concerns at DOE (Exhibit 69, pp. 3-4, 12).

[(b)(7)(C)  ! Energy Northwest, CGS, did not recall seeing (b)(7)(c) safety concerns listed on his Energy Northwest application. She said that she was not aware o his safety concerns until the DOL investigation (Exhibit 70, pp. 6, 16).

(b)(7)(C) ]/kreva, related that he was not aware of (b)(7)(C) ackground or of his safety concerns at DOE. The first time he became aware of F concerns was during Areva's response to the DOL investigation (Exhibit 71, pp. 11)

(b)(7)(C) Areva, stated that he was not aware of any safety concerns b (b)(7)(C) to DOE (Exhibit 73, pp. 8).

(b)(7)(C) Areva, indicated that she*"hed --nledg-6 -ri6r-51ii-a-gli~ti6-~tA-*va, an-d-thmt she had not heard anything about his background or safety concerns at DOE (Exhibit 72, pp. 6, 13).

(b)(7)C)Areva, ad vised that he did not kno prior to his interview at Areva, and that he was not aware thabc had raised safety concerns while at DOE (Exhibit 74, pp. 5-6).

Adverse Act L -,tated that Energy Northwest and Areva failed to .. him on numerous occasions aemn due to his prior protected activity at Fluor Hanford durin( (c) Exhibit 64, pp. 13-14, 26, 34, 64, 72-73, 76-77 and Exhibit 57)., ~

Nexus (b)(7)(C) , (b)(7)(C) . ....

was terminated from Fluor Hanford in for reasonable and just cause" as deternmined by a Labor Arbitrator during an arbitration hearing. Fluor's position was at (b)7 was not mistreated, which is sup~ numerous reviews and litig nf ilowingl(b)(7)(C) discharge (Exhibit 4, pp ib(7C liled a complaint with DOL i1 J~7)but the complaint was dismissed becau (b)()(C no~tave a prima facie case (Exhibit 5).

as terminated from Fluor Hanford for "falsification of records" and for "insubordination" because he violated instructions not to return to Company premises during an investigatory suspension. (b)(7)(C ) had submitted a false time card where he failed to account for a late start and an early departura work on 1(b)(7)() (b)(7)(C) as observed on site afterm )(7)( been suspended and banished from the premises. The arbitrator~determined t~han* new his time card was incorrect and had failed to correct it NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE 0 STIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 13 OFFICIAL US LY -01 INVESTI TION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ON VESTIGATION INFORMATION

"(b)(7)(C) I even after being told to change it by a supervisor. The arbitrator determined thal Ihad returned to the Company's premises onlb)(c) based on witness testimony fro edible witnesses who personally sawF~b kn site, and another witness who informed ) hat he had to leave the premises. The arbitrator also determined that(7C as not truthful to his employer dunna his testimony in the hearing and ruled, "The conclusion is inescapable -

Grievant (b)(7)(C) Ihas not told the truth." The arbitrator further stated, "But, in my mind, these mitigating factors, taken separately or together, cannot overcome the fact that I firmly believe Grievant (b)(7)(c) was dishonest in responding to the Employer's investigation and in his testimony under oath at the hearing" (Exhibit 6, pp. 1, 4-10, 13-14).

On Ithe State of Washington Office of Adminis ( earings for the Employment Security Department determined in Section 30, thagl.laimed to be a whistleblower, but(b)(7)(c) 'alsification of his time card. issue was unrelated to any whistle hlower ctivities. The conclusion of law was that "any whistleblowing activities on the claimant's part did not cause the discharge" a0(b)(7)(c) - *ailure to correct his time card and his failure to k hispervisor apprized was significant and led to his discharge (Exhibit 9, pp. 1, 5-6)ý Isuit against the State of Washington was dismissed (Exhibit 1 0 )(b)(7)(c) then filed a complaint with the U. S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (Exhibit 11), which was subsequently withdrawn (Exhibit 13).

"tc, On (b)(7)(C) I the Commissioner of the Employment Security Department of the State of Washington upheld the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings which was issued on R(b)(7)(C) nd adopted its findings of fact and conclusions of law (Exhibit 8, pp 1-3). On (b........ I,the U.S. District Court, Eastern itit ofahngto dismissed the case

-(b)()(C) , Fluor Hanford (Exhibit 7, Da .1 OnL(b)(7)(c) the NLRB also denied (b)(7)(C) complaint (Exhibit 12, pg. 1)!(b)( 7 )(C) tsubsequently filed a complaint with DOL onb (b)(7)(C) citing discrimination by Energy Northwest, Areva, and other companies for employment discrimination against him (Exhibit 3)](b)(7)(C) filed numerous c s with various agencies over his termination, although all were ultimately unsuccessful L..was suspended for falsifying his time card and then re-entering company premtse-siswbe on suspension and. being told to stay off site during the investigation (Exhibits 4-19 . *7 ),( had been told to amend the time card to correct it but he never did. As a result (b)(7)(C) as suspended and ordered to stay off site, however, he was observed by several employees on site a few days later. Jbe(he2 ied at a hearing about when he was on site which was contradicted by direct testimony ..... was not fired for whistleblower activities at Fluor Hanford, but solely over the falsified time card and the insubordination issue for returning to site while on suspension.

In their response to the DOL complaint (Exhibit 20), Energy Northwest acknowledged that

(())applied for several positions w (b)tien), but was not hired for a permanent position.

Section 59 of the letter points out tha was hired by Ener Northwest for a temporary position for the 2007 refueling outage. Section 41 shows tha ( )*7)(c) applied for a position which he was not qualified for, and Section 42 indicates tha (b)(7)(C) applied for three mechanic positions but was nott wed (Exhibit 20, pp. 1, 5, 8). In their position paper,ey Northwest shows that(ii7ftj interniaw-d four separate times for positions during [*2IJ and PT(Nýýq During his first interviewl b)(7)(C), ated third out of 5 applicants. In his second interview, I (7( rated third out of four applicants. D ii*in his, third interview, (b)(7)(c) placed fourth nine applicants, and in the fourth interview/, 7crated third out of seven. Additionall has worked for Energy Northwest at three different temporary positions, twice in land once NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF I EST TIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 14 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - Of INVESTIG ION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY TIGATION INFORMATION (b)(7) i(C) has also worked on-site at Energy Northwest for a contractor, Williams Plant Services. Records show tha(7)is eligible for rehire at Energy Northwest (Exhibit 21, pp. 1, 5-7, 9; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 28, p. 1; Exhibit 29, p. 1; Exhibit 30, p. 1). Energy Northwest also maintained that it has a strong policy regarding their safety culture and their safety conscious work environment (Exhibit 22) and that it does not discriminate.

  • also applied for a Journeyman Equipment Operator position at Energy Northwest, REQ. 002216, but he was not qualified for that position (Exhibit 24). He then applied for a maintenance mechanic position (Exhibit 26), but that position was later cancelled (Exhibit 25).

!)(7)() also provided a copy of his resume (Exhibit 37). Position descriptions for several of the positions tha I .applied for were obtained and reviewed, including the maintenance work team manager (Exhibit 31), the maintenance work week supervisor (Exhibit 32), the project lead for major maintenance (Exhibit 33), an i specialist (Exhibit 34). Energy Northwest provided a computer printout regardin{(b7)c) pplications (Exhibit 39), a nd wrote im a letter to explain the outcome of his applications to Energy Northwest (Exhibit 40) (b)(7)(c) PADS entry was reviewed and no negative entries were contained in his record (Exhibit 42).

[(b)(7)(C) application to Energy Northwest, dated (b)(7)(c) ]shows tha listed his reason for leaving Fluor Hanford as "Wron ful termination - Filing Health/Safety Issues" Exhibit 23, pp. 5-6). However, in(b)( 7)(c) hearing with the State of Washington onr(b)(7)C) the judge ruled in Section 28 that, "He[(b)(7)(c) ývas discharged for insubordination and falsification of records (time card)." In Section 30, the Order states that, "Claimant (b)(7)(c) 1 C, alleged that the time card issue was a setup by the employer [Fluor Hanford] to discharge him.

The undersigned [Judith McCarthy Administrative Law Judge] is unwilling/unable to infer that the employer set u claiman b)(7)(C) because of his past whistleblower activities" (Exhibit 9, pp. 1, 4-5) (b)(7)(c) ontinues o asse that he was fired for whistleblower activities when that is not the case (b)(7)(C) caused his own termination by falsifying on his time card that he was at work when he was not, and then he re-entered the company premises after being suspended and ordered t ta off site during the investigation. This has been upheld at many levels of appeal, bul continues to portray himself as a whistleblower who suffered retaliation with no evidence to support that claim, while all of the evidence supports that{fR)as fired for cause.

(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C)

Or ] wLqnerad aposition of employment at CGS for thq(b(7(c Refueling Outage R-19; however7 Iturned down the offer of employment due to another job that he had (Exhibit 41, p. 1). nis claiming discrimination by Energy Northwest for refusing to hire him while at the same time he is turning down an offer of employment by them.

stated that h reviously hire during Outage R-17 in0 .

Srpr.alle. thatlJ b)() lalso had previously worked at the coolin towers durinn R-1 8 in (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) related offered a temporary position t(b)(7)(C) _ utl(b)(7)(C) urnedown e position [..()(C) Jpointed out tht 7 r.commended to ()7(c)° apply at r orthwest becaus (c) thought thal did a good job during the outa0es.

II)()(*was aware tha had interviewed on at least two ( ns, but thaý ( lwas never the top ranked person by the interview panels, adding tha usually came in around third place. (b)(7)(c) advised tha did not meet the qualifications for the training position that he applied for because his backaround did not meet the ANSI [American National Standards Institute] standard. iwas not aware ot history with DOE, nor was he NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSUR IT T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 15 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIG TION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE INVESTIGATION INFORMATION 7)(c)sadhhdnerhad aware of any safety concerns raised by (b)(

prior to his emnoyment at Enery_ Northwest, and that he did not notice any safety concerns listed on[b) application. (-)()( said that he is not aware of anything that is keeping (b()C) lrom being hired at Energy Northwest (Exhibit 65, pp. 4, 7-12, 14, 17, 19, 29).

(b)(7)(C) related that he first met (b)(7)(C) Rhen worked for him at CGS during the outa e. He commented that(b)7)(C) met eir expectations and that he is eligible for rehire (b)(7)(C) said he had never heard of (b)(7)(c) his prior history, or of his safety concerns prior to his e ent at CGS. He recalled hearing some negative hearsay abou (b))during R-18 i lfrom some of their mechanics.[(b)(7)(c) characteirized the comments as not towardsl ( quality of work, but more concerned with trust issues, such as "you better watch your back if you hire this guy." (b)(7)(C) said he did not factor these comments into his deci si~ ng as he relies on "how he performed while he was here." He added that he interviewedso7(C) n two occasions, as part of a panel of four to five people. He recalled that rated good during the interviews; however, "he didn't score as well as a few other people did.. That's how our interview works. It weeds out the better and ranks them" (Exhibit 68, pp. 4, 6-10, 13).

(b)(7)(C) relate I'.'.0n ini had with during R-17 where was "telling" on another co-worker. (b)(7)(c) Jlooked into the issue and found that the other individual was not wrong and the whole thing was "just a big misunderstanding, but it seemed to me to be

.... . . PJb)(7)(C) 7C, ý(b)(7)(C) kind of a tattle-tae thing; kind ')7)C of one-upsmanship is whattJot the impressio of" brought up another incident involvingl during R-18 SO))(

"felt that maybe there's an issue there of - - a bit of a trust issue." He said that "in those two occasions, neither time did he acknowledge a mistake, or say you know, I could have been wrong... he stuck to hisgun, and I just thought that was kind of weird, So, yes, that did play in my mind dunrt. thintiw ,adding that (b)(7)(C) even brought up one of the incidents during the interview. [°i2(cL J clarified that the ony thin s that influenced him where "what occurred here on this property, not anywhere else." (b)(7)(C) said that he did not think

-anyoneon the interview panel was aware o past with DOE, and did not recall

[I'ZCmentioni DOE safety concerns or his termination during the interview. He saidthe only reason whyFTjwas not hired was that another individual scored higher than in the evaluation process (Exhibit 68, pp. 14-17, 21, 25-26, 30).

1(b)(7)(C) Istated that hewascontacted by *tha nq rgy Northwest legal department to gather documentation regarding (ANJ)He said tha applied to Energy-Northwest approximately 14 times, and was interviewed approximately 4 times, but was not offered a position. He described that a panel of employees conduct the interview and grade the applicant based on the core values of the company, with the goal being to identify the strongest individual.

He said tha (b)(7)(c) was highl ualified but always seemed to rank eithex~hird~or fourth on the interview grading list. l(b)(7)(C) ]looked into the matter and found that (()(C ,just didn't perform well in the interview." He did point out tha worked on site during at least 2 outacies (b)(7)(c) and had a satisfactory record. (b)(7)(C) was not aware of l(b)(7)(C) - pas wi h DOE until they received the complaint letter. said their records indicate that (b)(7)(C) is eligible for rehire and that they recently offeredl(b)(7)(C) a position for the (b)(7)(C) outage (Exhibit 67, pp. 3-9, 11-13, 21, 25).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSUR OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC I ESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 16 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTI TION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE NVESTIGATION INFORMATION (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C)asam c ni, ndt t

ýrecalled tha (b()was hired to work R-1 7 asa ecancan7ta he also worked on site during R-18 (b)( for a contractor, Williams Plant Services. She commented that when hiring new employees, the company looks at an individual's past anp, durinrl te*.porary positions and at their core values and skills during the interview perform,(b)(7)(C) process. Jsaid she typically reviews an application and resume for the qualifications criteria (Exhibit 38), and if the individual meets the qualifications she then forwards that package to the hiring manager. She clarified that prior DOE experience is not considered to be commercial nuclear experience when applying for a position at CGS because DOE experience is lust cleaning up the Hanford site. She advised that she was not knowledgeable aboutl (b)(7)(C) past or his safe Nucnnerns, and that she did not know of him prior to his employment at CGS. She said Iis eligible for rehire. (b)(7)(C) explained that the interviews are conducted by a panel of three to five people with preplanned questions, and the applicant is scored based on their responses. She said they would also rely on evaluations from prior temporary work performed on site (Exhibit 66, pp. 4, 6, 9-13, 15-17, 20-24; Exhibit 35).

(b)(7)(C) la d that she has never meto b -ut(Cfamiliar with th O (blaed)(77F)(Cte)O complaint a she assisted in gathering documents. She noted tha applied for multiple positions at CGS (Exhibit 36). She described the panel interview process and explained that applicants are ranked by score. She said that she was not aware of any bias agains(b)( nor did she have any knowledge ofb)(c) DOE safety concerns. She added that she was not aware of anyone else who knew abou (b)(7)(c) DOE safety concerns (Exhibit 69, pp. 3-4, 10-12, 16).

l(b)(7)(c) tecalled meeting during the outage in(b)(7 She did not recall any references toL(b)(7)(c) DOE safety concerns on his application. She explained that prior work at DOE's Hanford site is not considered commercial nuclear experience, but added that the mechanic positions do not require commercial nuclear experience. She noted that(b)(7)(c) has worked several outages at CGS and many of their new hires originated as outage workers, She said they actually have very few openings at the site due to limited turnover, which usually comes from a retirement. She commented on (b)(7)(c) evaluation from his temporary work (Exhibit 35), and described his scores of mostly s on a scale of I to 3, with 3 being considered the highest. She said tha (b)(7)(cT has not been denied a position due to safety concerns as she was not aware of his safety concerns. She added that she has not heard h negative about (b)(7)(C) Inoted that she offered[bca position during thI"b()J utage but he declined it due to another job (Exhibit 70, pp. 4, 6-7, 11-16. 19-21).

In his complaint also identified Areva as discriminating against him for failing to hire him

.(Exhibit 57). c) applied for a maintenance and a supervisory position (Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 56) as shown in Areva's Activity Report (Exhibit 49). Areva points out in its position paper that Areva has no relationship to Fluor Hanford or DOE. They acknowledged that did apply for a position along with 16 other candidates. was interviewed but was not considered the best qualified candidate for the two openings that Areva was hiring for.

,- ly, there is no evidence to support that Areva hiring personnel had knowledge of (b)(7)(C) DOE safety concerns, nor was it ever brought up or discussed during (b)(7)(c) in erview. Areva also-_ oints out tha has previously worked on site at Areva as a subcontractor i (b)(7)(C) Exhibit 44, pp. 2-3, 5-7; Exhibit 43). Areva also supplied their Employee Concerns Progrm-Policy (Exhibit 45) and their anti-harassment policy (Exhibit 46).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE NVE ATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 17 OFFICIAL USE 0! - 01 INVEST TION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE Y- VESTIGATION INFORMATION

. . .. 7)(C)(b)(7)(C)

Areva produced the ranking chart for the position that had applied for, wher ranked fifth outoLsp n interviewees (Exhibit 48), and alsboprovided the applications of other applicants thal 7 )(C) was competing against (Exhib*it-5Oi.5 5). In an Affidavit, (b)(7)(C) disclosed that she was part of the interview team fo and the other candidates. She stated tha never discussed rotected actiyii'o"m DOE and that she was not aware of any past protected activities by (b)(7)(O) She said was not selected by Areva because he was not one of the most qualified candidates (Exhibit 58, pp. 1-3). In an Affidavit,[James PAYNE, who is now deceased due to a driving accident] also stated that he was part of the it rviewt eam. In the Affidavit,[PAYNE]stated that h a aware of any protected activities bý (b)(7)(c) and that issue was n (b)(7)(C) dussed during c interview. rPAYNE's]Affidavit A

indicated that he first learned of"(b)(`1histleblowing activities when Areva was notified of the DOL complaint. [PAYNE wrote t~hakt(C as not hired because he was not scored as one of the two best qualified for the osition (Exhibit 59, pp. 1-3). Time cards from Thompson Mechanical show that ()(7)(c) did work on site at Areva during 2004 (Exhibit 60 and 61).

(b)(7)(c) related that he met___during _______interview at Areva where was part of the interview panel. He, e applicants are scored and ranked collectively by the group.(b)(7)(C) was aware that (b)( K)ihad worked on site previously for a contracto d not know r of his DOE safety concerns until the DOL investigation took place. ' )( said the hiahest scoring candidates are offered positions, and 2 other individuals were selected as (7 did not score as high as the other candidates (Exhibit 71, pp. 5-6, 9-15, 20).

(b)(7)(C) ýecalledtfb)(7)(c) and from seeing him on site as a contractor in (b)(7). He said they both belong to the same Union,

. ocal 1699: was aware tha (b)( )(K) had applied at Areva but had no knowledge

.(b)(7)(C) as to wh rb)7)(C) snot selected. (b)(7)(c) said that he has no input in the hiring process. He was not aware of any bias involving (b)(7)(C) nor was he aware of any DOE safety concerns (Exhibit 73, pp. 3-8).

related that she was on the interview panel fo but had never met him prior to that. She said that after the applicant's interview, a consensus is reached amongsjthe or up and the individual is rated with a score. Fb)C7)(c) -]did not observe any bias involvingl 7 )(C in his treatment or scoring. Sh was not aware of any DOE safety concerns and it was never brought up during the interview. ( said that two applicants with higher interview scores were offered the positions at Areva, whileIJYcii had a lower score and was not considered one of the best qualified candidates (Exhibit 72, pp. 5-6, 11-14, 18).

resent during (b)(7)(C) nterview s art of the panel. He had no prior knowledge o 'or of his DO sa ety concerns (b)(7)(c) did know tha had previously He indicated ha t(b)(7)(C) was treated the same as all of the other applicants, and he di(-b)(7-)C- not observe any bias involving (b)(7)(c) rom anyone on the panel. He s id the r8nkin was dona,1TeIon appeared negative towardsL(b)(7)(C) said thal(b)(7 ;was not hired because he wasn't the highest scoring candidate" (Exhibit 74, pp. 5-12. 17.7~

The DOL investigation of discrimination against dated)(I (b)(7)(C) found 'that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the Respondents violated the ERA" (Exhibit 62,

p. 1). The DOL investigation found that the "Respondent did not have knowledge of NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOiSURE HOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFF STIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 18 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGA ON INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY- I NVESTIGATION INFORMATION Complainant's(b)l(c) protected activity. Respondents denied knowledge of Complainant's protected activities anc-Complainant was unable to rebut this evidence," DOL concluded that the "Complainant has not met his burden of showing a prima facie case of retaliation.

Therefore, no inference of discrimination has been raised" (Exhibit 63, pp. 1, 10; Exhibit 62).

()alleged discrimination by CGS, even though CGS has hired him three times, and he has also worked on site a fourth time as a contractor. Additionally, CGS offered him employment again in$ but turned down the position due to another job he had. Many of CGS' new, hires are selected from employees who have worked on site during prior outages. (b(7)(C) prior evaluation from CGS is average, and he does not score very high durin anel interviews, which explains his failure to be hired at CGS. No one at CGS knew of'(b)(7)(C) prior protected activities at DOE, so it was not a factor in his not being hired. (b)(7)(C) felt thatf(

did have some trust issue based on his outage $ pj ment where he was involved in "tattle-fib*. hihnvinr nn two occasions and both timeslbý(7)C) Iturned out to be incorrect.

I(b)(7)(C) ifelt tha (b)(7)(C) hould have owned up to his being wrong durinn these incidents and the fact that he did not was considered unusual behavior by (b)(7)(c)

This same pattern of unusual behavior is also evident after (b)()c) *ermination from Fluor Hanford where he filed numerous complaints and litigation against the company for several years, losing ever hearing along the way, but never admitting that he was at fault for his own termination. ( even provided false testimony during a hearing as he refused to accept ownership for his conduct and behavior at Fluor Hanford, where he falsified his time card and entered the company premises after he was suspended and ordered to stay off site.

Additionally, none of the interviewees at Areva were aware of protected activities at DOE, so that was not a factor in his failure to be hired. He was not hired at Areva simply because he was not the most qualified applicant to apply for the position based on their interview panel rating. The way Areva interview panels are conducted, the interview panel team discusses the applicant and collectively ranks that individual. As a result, no one person controls or has a dominant vote in the process; therefore, any one person cannot affect the individual's chances of being hired as it comes down to a team decision. (b)(7)()7 agations against Areva are baseless since none of the panel members were aware -of(b)()(C) Jsafety concerns from four years earlier.

Conclusion (b)(7)(C)

Based upon the evidence developed, the allegation that 1(b)(7)(C) was discriminated against by CGS and/or Areva tor raising nuclear safety concerns was not substantiated.

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU W PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE 0 NVESTIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-0681 OFFICIAL USE 0 LY- 01 INVES ATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE INFORMATION THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, -FCEOF IN STIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 20 OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIG ION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 STIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 NRC Investigative Status Record, 01 Case No. 4-2009-068, dated August 21,2009 (2 pages).

2 Allegation Review Board (ARB) Record, Allegation No. RIV-2008-A-0069, dated June 2, 2008 (11pages).

3 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Occup ationalSafetv and Health Administration (OSHA), Complaint of Discrimination by(b)(7)(c) jvs. Energy Northwest; Areva 4NP, Inc.; Battelle Memorial Institute; Fluor Hanford, Inc.; Fluor Corp.,

dated (b)(7)(C) ](12 pages).

4 Fluor Hanford Inc. and Fluor Corp. position paper to DOL in the Case (b)(7)(C) (5 pages).

5 DOL Notice of Determination letter to (b)(7 )(c) ýadvising that his complaint does not make a prima facie showing (3 pages).

6 Arbitration Decision between Fluor Hanford and the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, Car enters, and Millwrights, Local 2403, regarding the (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) 15 pages).

(b)(7)(C) 7 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washin n, Case No vs. Fluor Hanford, Inc., dated )(7)(C) (2 pages).

8- Hearing before the Commissioner of the Employment Securit ent of the State of Washington F(b)(7)(c) where(b()C claim for beneits is aensea, 9 State of Washington, Office of Administrative Hearinas for the Em yment Security Department, Docket No (b)(7)(C) 8 pages).

10 State of Washington, Thurston ,., County Superior Court, No.* )(b)( 7)(C Ivs, Employment Security Department of the State of Washington, ated (

(2 pages).

11 U.S. National Labor Relations Board, reqardingF s. Fluor Hanford, Case(b)(7)(c) (4 pages).

(b)(7)(C) 12 U.S. NationaAL-abor Relations Board, regarding Case No.

b)()C1(2 pages).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSUR ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF I TIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 21 OFFICIAL USE 0 LY - 01 INVESTIGA N INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY- INVESTIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 13 U.S. National Labor Relations Board, regarding Case No]

(b)(7)(C) 1 page).

14 Letter from Fluor Hanford I(b)(7)(C)

Terminating his employment for falsification of time cards and insubordination (1 page).

15 I ....... indum Flourmemori page).to suspending him for falsification of time cards, dated (b)(7)(b)(page) 16 Employee Status/Change Authorization fo going from suspension to discharge effective (b)()(C) (1 page).

17 Disciplinary Termination Letter from Fluor Hanford (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) 11 page).

18 Employee Record Change for (b)(7)(C) citing Discharge for cause (1 page).

l(b)(7)(C)I

'1 C, 19 Employee Status/Change Authorization fo being placed on unpaid suspension effective (b)(7)(C) 1 page).

20 Energy Northwest's answer to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination by (b)(7)(C) (11 pages).

21 Energy Northwest's position paper to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination byrbh)(e)(C) (10 pages).

22 Documents provided by Energy Northwest regarding their Safety Culture, Safety Conscious Work Environment, Employee Concerns Program, Differing Professional Opinions, Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture, and Non-Harassment Policy (45 pages).

23 ()( on-line application to Energy Northwest, submitted" (24 pages).

24 Email from Energy Northwest (b)(7)(C)

(1 page).

25 Email from Energy Northwest (b)(7)(C)

(1 page).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INV T GATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 22 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 I TIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 26 Energy Northwest Position Description for a Maintenance Mechanic, Job Code BS004, dated July 28, 2005 (11 pages).

27 Mechanic Interview Score Sheet Summary for applicants, dated September 6, 2005 (1 page).

28, Applicant Action Average Weighted Scores, for Mechanic position 002582, dated December 2005 (3 pages).

29 Applicant scores and rankings for Job Posting 002711 and 002737, dated June 21, 2006 (4 pages).

30 Applicant Action Total Weighted Scores, for Mechanic position 002812, undated (3 pages).

31 Energy Northwest Position Description for Maintenance Work Team Manager, Job Code Al166, dated February 24, 2000 (7 pages).

32 Energy Northwest Position Description for Maintenance Work Week Supervisor, Job Code BF224, dated February 24, 2000 (7 pages).

33 Energy Northwest Position Description for a Project Lead - Major Maintenance, Job Code AM230, dated June 27, 2006 (5 pages).

34 Energy Northwest Position Description for a Training Specialist III - Mechanical Program Lead, Job Code AM233, dated June 12, 2007 (5 pages).

35 Energy Northwest Temporary Employee Evaluation Report fo (b)(7)(c)

( as a temporary outage mechanic, along with his hiring package and personnel files (40 pages).

36 Lists of applications to Energy Northwest from (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(C) (1 page),

3 b)(7)(c) resume, undated (2 pages).

38 Email from (b)(7)(c) Energy Northwest to (b)(7)(C)

(1 page).

. (b)(7)(C) s 331.

39 Energy Northwest computer printout oTreiection for Dosi 3331 -

Mechanic, and 3363 - Procedure Writer II, dated[7)(c) page).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE T A PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OF F IN STIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 23 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTIGA INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE 01 INVESTIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 40 Email from ())C)Energy Northwest to ()7)C in response to request regarding his not being hired (4 pages).

(b)(r t b7c rq sh 41 (b reiection of a job offer from Energy Northwest via email on(b)(7)(C) tol(b)(7)(c) of Energy Northwest (2 pages).

(b)(7)(C) ( ae) 42 PADS Access Synopsis Report for generated on 7(1 pages,.

43 Ar Inc.'s (Areva) response to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination b ) Case no. (b)(7)(C) (3 pages).

44 Areva's position pap er to the U.S. DOL, OSHA, Complaint of Discrimination by dated (b)(7)(C) (9 pages).

45 Areva's Employee Control Concerns Program, Policy No. 0242, Revision 2, Effective October 27, 2006 (3 pages).

46 Areva's Anti-Harassment Policy, Policy No. 0222, Revision 11, Effective January 19, 2007 (2 pages).

47 Areva Employee Requisition Worksheet for a Technical Maintenance 5 position, dated (b)(7)(C) lapplication and resume for that position (8 pages).

  • 48 Areva's ranking of the candidates and the interview evaluations for the candidates considered for the Technical Maintenance position (8 pages).

49 ( C e-Talent Activity Report with Areva, dated from (b)(7)(C)

(1 page). )(b)(7)(c) 50 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by (b)(7)(C) l(b)(7)(C) 1(5 pages).

by Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position (b)(7)(C) 51 dated (b)(7)(C) 7 pages).

52 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by dated (b)(7)(C) (5 pages).

53 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by dated (b)(7)(C) J7 pages).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE HOU APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC J;1 STIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 24 4)i OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 01 INVESTI TION INFORMATION

OFFICIAL U NVESTIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 7

54 Application to Areva-for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by[(b)( )(c) dated [)7CJ(5 pages).

55 Application to Areva for the Technical Maintenance 5 position by)

I(b)(7)(C) lundated (4 pages).

56 Areva Requisition INF00066, for a Supervisor, Technical Operations, undated (2 pages).

l(b)(7)(C) 57 Email from Areva t notifyinc him that he was not selected for the Technical Maintenance position, date (b-)(7)(C)*f) 1 page).

58 Declarati r(b)(7)(c) TAre he U.S. DOL regardin complaint No (b)(7)(c) (3 pages).

59 Declaration from (b)(7)(C)

ArevaC to the U.S. DOL regarding (b)(7)(c) complaint No. (b)(7)(c) dated, (b)(7)(C) pages).

60 L ime sheets for his emoloyment on-site at Areva throuah a contractin, company, (b)(7)(C) from (b)(7)(c)

(6 pages).

61 Time sheets for three othe , who were also laid off between (b)(7)(c) Ia Areva (3 pages).

to(b)(7)(C) tfigta th r w s 62 U.S. DOL letter (b)(7)(c)g that there was no finding that the respondents listed in Complain Iviolated the ERA (4 pages).

63 U.S. DOL Final Investigative Report, dated (7)(C)  : (concluded that the Respondent, Energy Northwest, did not have knowledge of (b)(7)(C) protected activity (10 pages).

64 Transcript of Interview withý dated August 15, 2008 (97 pages).

65 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(C) dated October 20, 2009 (32 pages).

66 Transcript of Interview with dated October 20, 2009 (26 pages).

67 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(C) dated October 20, 2009 (27 pages).

68 Transcript of Interview with _ dated October 20, 2009 (35 pages).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF I ES NS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 OFFICIAL USE ONLY -01 INVESTIGA N INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE 0:- NVESTIGATION INFORMATION LIST OF EXHIBITS, Exhibit No. Description 69 Transcript of Interview with dated October 20, 2009 (20 pages).

70 Transcript of Interview with dated October 20, 2009 (23 pages).

kO 71 Transcript of Interview with (b)(dted November 4, 2009 (22 pages).

72 Transcript of Interview with dated November 4, 2009 (20 pages).

73 Transcript of Interview with dated November 4, 2009 (13 pages).

74 Transcript of Interview with dated November 4, 2009 (19 pages).

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE H PROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE 0 TIGATIONS, REGION IV Case No. 4-2009-068 26 OFFICIAL USE ONLY- 01 INVESTIGATI INFORMATION

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML102740533&oldid=2555832"