ML12275A471
| ML12275A471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2011 |
| From: | NRC/OI |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 4-2011-024, FOIA/PA-2012-0185 | |
| Download: ML12275A471 (22) | |
Text
CASE NO. 4-2011-024 REQLk 0
<A.
C
'i~ ~L -
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report of Investigation SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Discrimination Against a Procedure Writer for Reporting Nuclear Safety Concerns Related to an Unqualified Worker Office of Investigations Reported by OI:R111 Irtanlon this record %=z dGtd In F, = .... -0d N\\
\OFEFICI L U ON -0OI IN GATIO IN O
Title:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PROCEDURE WRITER FOR REPORTING NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS RELATED TO AN UNQUALIFIED WORKER Licensee: Case No.: 4-2011-024 Southern California Edison Co. Report Date: December 13, 2011 P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Control Office: OI:RIV Docket No.: 50-361 Status: CLOSED Allegation No.: RIV-2010-A-0145 Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C)
-IC (b)(7)(C) Special Agent' (b)(7)(c) Acting Director-Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Field Office, Region IV NOT DISSEMINATE, PACE IN THE PUBLIC D CUME ROOM OR DI CUSS THE CON TS 0 HIS REPORT OF NVESTIGA N OUTSIDE NRC' THOUT HORITY OF E APPROVI G OFFICIAL OF IS REPOR . THORIZEDDISCL UREM RESULTI DVE E ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ANDIOR C PROSECUON.
OF,0FI AýLUS Y -O~l 1ý AT MiA N
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on March 4, 2011, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region IV, to determine if a (b)(7)(c) at Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), San Clemente, California, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns.
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation that a supervisor III at SONGS was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
N FOR PUBL CLOSURE WIT T APPR AL FIELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 1 FFICI US VESTI TON INFORMA
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY OIT FOR P LDISCLOSU I-THOUT
- VAL OF FIELD OFFICE OFFIC Case No. 4-2011-024 2 OFFIC EO Y INVES ,10 A N
FIAL Ol IN EIGAT I OR ON TABLE OF CONTENTS Pavqe S YNO PS IS ........................................ .................................................................... . ......... 1 TESTIM O NIAL EV IDEN C E ................................................................................................ 5 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE .............................................................................................. 7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION .......................................... 9 A pplicable R egulations ............................................................................................ 9 Purpose of Investigation ......................................... 9 B ackground ..................................................................................................... . . . . .9 Interview of Alleger ............................................................................................... . . 10 Agent's Analysis ....................................................................................... . . 11 Conclusions .............................................................................................. . . 18 LIS T O F EX H IBITS ........................................................................................................... . . 19 NOT FOR PULIC DISCL URE WIT ,APPROV
,T FIELD OFFICE E R FFCOF ESIRGOV Case No. 4-2011-024 3 OFFICI E ONLY INVESTI N N
'K IC - E0 L 0 ý E & NF IMlO N
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY IT FOR P IBIC DISC zeURE WiT APPRO L F FIELD OFFICE RFFIC Case No. 4-2011-024 OFFIC L ON - INV4 TI INF ATI N
ICAL L II ES ATIO R ION TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit
_b)(7)(C) Isan Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), San Clemente, California ............................................................... 12 (b)(7)(C)
SONGS ................................... 14 I SONGS ............................ 8 I(bx,)( (c) ISO N GS .......................................................... 10 (b)(7)(C)
O NG S ............................................................................ . . . 11 SO NG S ........................................................ 25 (b)(7)(C) ISONGS .............................. 24 1(b)(7)(C) S O N G S ............................................................... 9 (b)7)(C) ISO NG S ............................................... 29 (b)(7 )(C) SO N G S ....................................................................... . .. 3 IOT FOR P I~lC DISCLO/ RE WITH J.T APPRO L0 ELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 5 FFICI ONLY ST O MATI
FICI US - NV I ION FO ON THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY T FOR IýC DISCL KRE WiTH IT\APPROV 0,IELD OFFICE DIETf, ýIC- FI SZ ý RE Case No, 4-2011-024 6 0 i ý`li iill:
SFlIA SE N -0OI STIG I INFO TION DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit SONGS Nuclear Notification b7)(c) dated July 9, 2010 ............................................. 4 2007 Performance Partnership Agreement for undated ........................................ 5 2010 Mid-Year Performance and Development Plan forlGc dated August 30, 2010 .................................................................................................. 6 2010 Year-End Performance and Development Plan forI...
da ted March 1,2 0 11 ................................................................. .......................................... 7 Email fromJ (b)7)(c) 0oProcedure Group Personnel, dated July 9, 2010 ............. 13 Fact Finding Summary Form Re: dated September 15, 2010 .............................. 15 Letter of Reprimand Re:* dated February 20, 1998 ............................................... 16 2008 Individual Contributor Performance and Development Plan fod(b)(7)(C) dated January 15, 2009 ............................................................................................... 17 2009 Year-End Performance and Development Plan for7) dated February 22, 2010 .............................................................................................. 18 Reinstatement From Suspension Letter Re:bZ ated September 27, 2010 ............. 19 Performance Management Improvement Plan Re:[Cb(7)(c) dated Septem ber 27, 2010 ........................................................................................... 20 Performance Improvement Plan Re: dated September 22, 2009 ........................ 21 Southern Califomia Edison (SCE) Professional Conduct Policy #301, dated June 3, 2010 .................................................................................................... . . . 22
-Email from to
[r i j d a)(C ted August 19, 2010 ........................................................................... 23 SCE Corrective Action Policy #302, dated June 3, 2010 ................................................. 26 Email from(b)(7)(c) ltto I dated December 3, 2010 ............. 27 SCE Em ployee Discipline Policy, undated ........................................................................ 28 19T FOR P, L.C DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APP VAL OFFELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 7 C1-A4 Y INV G ONI 10
FlAL EQO OlN IGA'T, FO ON THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR/ LIC DISCLO E WiTHO APOVAL OF* LDOFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 8 OFF A SE ON - 1INVES FO ATION
,FFI SE -O ST AON I MA N DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (2010 Edition) (Allegation No. 1) 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (2010 Edition) (Allegation No. 1)
-Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated on March 4, 2011, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region IV(RIV), to determine FT[ -
,(b)(7 )(C) lat Southern California Edison's (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), San Clemente, California, was the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns [Allegation Nos. RIV-2010-A-0122 and RIV-2010-A-0145] (Exhibit 1).
Background
On September 2, 2010 (b)(7)(C) ( )NRC:RIV, located at SONGS, received an allegation from (b)(7(C in whici(b)()C) eported that he had been subjected to discrimination for reporting sa ety concerns re a e to an unqualified worker supervising a work group.
(b)(7)(C)- ;alleged that he had been subwected to discrimination because he generated a Nuclear Notification (NN).F~)7)(c)
(b)(7)(C)I
-7. advised that he also notified his supervisorlb()c
/)SONGS, that itwas inappropriate to assign a non-supervisory andunqualified individual to oversee a workperfor-mance mid-yea result of reportino group. As a anoraisal concernsl ý~*-
b)(7XC) w*qbelieves that he guhtinuently received negative onJ(b)(7)(c) l(b)(7)(C) +7+_,A (br su,,* oe nda e w itho ut y 0I ona b)(7)(C)
" [ s ate th t )
I(b)(7)(C) ISONGS; and b)7(C ISONGS, retaliated against him for reporting concerns and documenting the concerns on a nuclear notification.
I)(C]
On September 30, 2010, the Allegation Review Board, RIV, convened to discussi
-"c allegation that he had been subjected to discrimination for reporting safety concerns related to an unqualified worker assigned to supervise a work group.
On, October 5, 2010,Lb 0 Z was contacted by the NRC and offered an opportunity to
"-7rc, participate in the NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in an attempt to resolve his dispute with the licensee.
N'T FORUIC DISCL URE WIT T APPRO LF FIELD OFFICE ODIER, OF -n"1 Case No. 4-2011-024 9 OFFIC E ON NV A NFO TION
nn Pp*hn tary 14 2n31 1 1(b)(7)(C)
J(b)(7)(C) RIV, notii 4 IIV. that ADR had failed and requested Ol:RtV initiate an investigation to determine (b(C) had been subjected to discrimination for raising safety concerns (Exhibit 2).
Interview-of Alie~er- 467)7c) ,Exhibit 3)
- was interviewed by OL:RIV on March 24, 2011 at SONGS.FPstctI that on Jsul 9p. 2010 he wrote f)(b7)(C) at e (Exhibit 4wy (b i3 stated 8.(cC he was a] _]and during the time frie s upisl o r 9 0w there wetoh fi l indfoiduasprese hoculd no havefed in fo (b)(7)(C) au in his absence. Howevery Istatedn(b))(c) saeJSONd he r a tioned tim e frame. (b)(7)(Cu Istated, "This personla()(C) n(b)()(C)gdurin E"7
'at good at it. Shes d a gre(b)(7)(c) b7(b)(7)(C ) t at herest level And I thought this was way i
over the line, so I told my supervisor that and he just turned ih aroundai and walked away'! (Exhibit 3. r). 8.b)Tc stated he felt that since qualified supervisors were available has spenwrt toheshl fli in fo(b)(7))(C) if[.. aid that'sC should not lattmckehaveevidene been left charke managin dofsintanng, because oery she had no supervisory experie b )(7)C ) he further advisweld(om)(c)
(stsated the was not going to take direction from at1(b)( 7
)(C) ibecause I am ao(b ea7)(c)
(Exhibit 3, p. 11).
twoha he. stte SONGS.
F7) stated that because offered a df j nt (b)(7)(C) charge in hisdin absence, he (b)(F)(c) awroter [sheaiv (b)(7)(c) ilade hed (e)(7)(e evr ence of training, managing or
'T~eading. According toJ~)7()Ii o want authority or responsibi ty.et she was still placed in a fill in supervisory positim h(b)(7)(c) stat ths e o he had twopsnarate mee b with ou SONGS.
. 7ih) . .. SO( NGS Sooutsad collect h persona ~is of thee proC)&edure group, to wh an(bt)hpesnnlbilig.()7)C tc stated he welcomed the opportugity i~Q to leavepersonel the group. U pdin J)(7)(c)istatedsheintevieset to meet)(C r him h a hrtraining, up for ih, and offered him )(7C)7 a job [NFI] 1()7C in group (Exhibit anotherpefomncan voato 3, pp.o 12-1810 a
- okr i(b))(7~C) wstlthwokrev i l a different job from-N) 5w " desk on a Friday afternoonthat F67ý77stated [N after being I]when heoffered received a telephone call fr (b()C who told him to collect his personal belongings and go to the personnel building.Jb(c Istated he went to th personnel bu din7)o met who was there with ... Jn(b)(7)(c) (b)(7)[C) stated
- informed him he % () uspended for 1 wee- beca-use- of Dad sl)(71
- performance, and V'iolation of a work rueI* -b()C 'Ias told tewrrle vilfn =
narks hmaeh mad
' (b)st(7te)or(C) dispar aboutI (b(7() 5rig one,. of hsmeings witl (b()C
((b)(7)(C) statedl ui Cnvrtodhm thermeetings
! that heJ made disparaging cments a outF C /also claimed one Of the reasons cited for his suspension NOT FOFRP.QBLIC DISC.ýSURE VVITýýPROVAL PE-_IELD OFFICE Case No, 4-2011-024 10 0 -1 N
happened with regards to his interaction with or concerningb7c (Exhibit 3, pp. 54-58).
-- C, 1(b)(7)(c) added that when he returned from his supension, he was laced on a performance improvement plan (PIP), which was monitored byl(b)( 7 )(c) Exhibit 3, p. 59).
AGENT'S NOTE: (b)(7)(c) dates of suspension were from I(b)(7)(c) 7 rc, 1(b)(7)(C) I According toF(bX7)(c) he received ,--rs "needs improvements" on his 2010 mid-year erformance appraisa (Exhibit 6). Ib)(7)(C) stated, "There's no love lost between myself and (bj(7*
(b)(7)(c) ... nd myself andl-s jc jBut in te g my job, 1do my job very well and I do speak out when I see something that is wrong."r"
- ladded, 'there's nothing in my history that ever - thit 'd suggest or justify the eight needs improvements I act at midyear (Exhibit 3, p. 29). [
7 A Jstated he never received any indication fro )(t) ob)(
anyone else about oor performance before he received his mid-year appraisal, which according t=(b)(7 )(C) 1was required by SCE. [I7)(Cj added that his 2010 year-end appraisal (Exhibit 7) was muc like his mid-yebar, ex t he had six "needs improvements" instead of eight (Exhibit 3, pp. 40-43). According t both his 2010 mid-year and year-end appraisals were prepared and presented to him b (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) b()C Istated that on July 9, 2010, he wrote b)(7)(c) then in August 2010, he received nis mio-year performance a raisal which contained severa 'needs improvements." Then. he
-7c, was reasons he was from(
suspended Surc) of.J"b) =Fel tF~ ad 20 still u~nsure t for, according(to7(C'
- a the subsequent suspension, were based on the-fact that he (b)(7)(c)
J(b)(7)(C) P(Exhibit 3, pp. 94-95 108).
Agent's Analysis This investigation was initiated to determine if[7))was the subject of employment discrimination by SONGS management for raising a safety concern.
Protected Activity I) Iclaimed he raised a concern tolb()c) about (b g unqualified to act as fill in supervisor in hi (b)(7Xc) absence. it documented his concern in (b)(7)(c) Ion July 9, 0. hese would constitute protected activities.
Management Knowledge I(b)(7)(C) Istatedl)( ) Iworked directly for him in the procedure group from 1(b)(7)(C) ccording tol(b)(7)(C) ]never ised any safety concerns to him. Regarding the issue concernin 7 (~~b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(c) ))C C,. never-raised that issue as a safety concern to hi .(b)(7)(C) s id ionly told him heF 7 ) was not going to take orders from al( (Exhibit 8, pp. 10-13).
b C) I qnld hs.read written by(b)(7 )(c) 1(b)(7c) round the week of July 19, 2010. ol)(i(c 'stated he was in training the wee o u y 12, 2010, so the week of July 1'9, 2010 would have been his first opportunity to read the notification.
N TFO LIC DI LOSUR HOUT APP VAL OF D OFFICE
'ýý DI TO ,0IC N $ TI IN, 0 Ný Case No. 4-2011-024 11 FF1IA SEQ O I lNV T TION 0 N
,cF_ý o.ý ý AT, ...MATION stated he discussed the notification with ~ but never discussed it withl(b)7)C Exhibit 8, pp. 16 and 17).
(b)(7)(c) Istated he became familiar with43)777) in 2010 when heýý7(c became the Istated that as th _(b))(c) he was responsible for the procedure group, which is wh ())((c) worked during that rai'sed 'a concern about an time frame
({Exhibit 9. pp, 8 and 9). When asked if he was awareb)zc
)(7)(C)stated, Ic
-ho(b") complained isor thtsh b)(7)(C) _F In'~dnt "Yes have-been put inis that all I know charge" (Ex ibit . ... 9, p.
" 10).1(
,1 . stated(b)(7)(C)
... l." dgraising ai (b)(7)(c) that concern would have been hearsay from ther individuals, Is 1 n er raised that concern directly to him. (b)(7)(O) stated, however, he was not aware (b)(7)(C) had written
[(b)(7)(C) I(Exhibit 9, pp. 10-11).
Ib()C said he dirlnt aIa~e much interaction withE7b)77)c tiddina that at the time of the incident involvinqlb*/c hp/)cA Iascaroe of th* ))I E(b()c Inve )stated i Isaedqx~c (b)(7)(C) raiseda never raised
"-7c. anyafet concerns directly to "then
()7)Cwrotep)TC him. (b)(7)(C) subseau~~lIstated I heoke talked to t6E!and 7)c)July 2010 after Ib 'in ]andhefelt theew*,aprobl1em in the procedure group, tx7),creiterated-,-howeverLh )(MP C)never approached him with any safety concerns, including the issue involvingl(b)(c) (Exhibit 10, pp. 6-12).
C stated he had known for several years, and)'()(c) had worked for him in some capacity since )(7)(c) stated that in 2007 when h was moved to the pro u re group, he requested t 7)(C)
(bat1()( move there with him -said he considere (b)(T)C) -to be (b)(7)(C) an intelligent, hard working emp oyee (Exhibit 11, pp. 8-10) ecalle raising .
r(b)(7)(C) (b)(C) concern years ago re rdisafety na the,(b)(7)(C) ut could not reca any other
" safebL.flJncerns
... ever raised id not raise thet- nnnnrn bhn, if M b -t--(b)(7)(c) (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7(C) jo-him-,_but-accordinhim b ac d heliec (b)(7)(C) alga isu throughl(7i c (b)(7)(C) stated he was aware( also I (tated he relayed the in'ormation regarding ()(land had no further involvement in that issue (Exhibit 11, pp. 11-16).
Adverse Act
[(b)(7)(C) Ias given a negative 2010 mid-year performance appraisal in Auqust 2010, and was s'
subsequently suspended froml(b)(7)(C) ýExhibit 3).
Nexus: Was (b)(7)(c) Discriminated Against as a Result of Engaging in a Protected Activity?
(b)(7)(c) D stated he directly in the procedure rou from (b)(7)(C) ub)p)(C)ere (b)()c to be al(b) c) and (b)(7)(C) b)(7)(C) I(Exhibit 8, p. that on July 9, 2010,
- hen he placed(b)(7)(C) w in charge of the procedure group in his absence, her only responsibilities were to handle his everyday duties, not to handle any procedure reviews.
Accordina td(b)(7 )(c) Iall procedure reviews during that time erbod were be handled by (b)(7)(C) SONGS (Exhibit 12). 1)(7)(C j stated he FOR LIC TTDIS OSUR ,THOUTA ROV,0 IELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 12 FFIAL EQ IIN S T NFO ATION
told everyone in the to e (rnu7n halCZas not going to review any procedure wnre STRTad. lso sent an email toaI ar:up confirming that I(b)(7)(c)
-7c.r (Exhibit 13). st'edL Ihad a problem with 7(c) being in charge in any capacity.(b)(7)(c) Fstated none of the other employes within the Drocedure group had an issue witf(b)(7)(C) tilling in for him (Exhibit 8; pp. 9-14). r(b7)(c) tated he wanted to give everyone in his group experience at filling in as supervisor.
According to (1)(7)(C) Ihis selection process for fill in supervisor was simply to give everyone an opportunity to act on his behalf. F)(7 )(c) Isaid there ere no oartimular qualification rQn uir*.mnts within his department to act as fill in supe rvisor(b)(7)(c)I reiterated that 7 )]c) was to handle his day-to-day activities, while reviewed any procedures turned in by any of his staff. (b)(7)(C) stated ( had h)(7)()
been in charge previously in his absence (Exhibit 8, pp. 14-17).
Regarding (b)(7)(c) suspension in September 20101)(7)(c) stated that when he first became supervisor of the procedu nrrmn hi- niad occasional outbreaks betweend(b)(7)(c) and other employees in the group. stated the outbreaks he noticed happened just prior to the incident involving (b)(7)(C) Iso stated that during his mid-year 010 erformance appraisal review wit (tated hink he Iwas a qualified supervisor. (b)(7)(c) stated mid-year 2010 performance appraisal was not favorable (Exhibit 6) (b)(T)c) stated (b)(7)(c) mid-1(b)7C 9nln n~rfnrance appraisal contained numerous "needs improvements."
LJ1...............staedhoeve, hatnoe of thn "needs iimprovements" areas were Derforrnance based; they were all in the areas of ýb)(7)XC) behavior. According to
~~7)(C)the 'needs improvements'~ )C ived came after numerous warnings.
t)( jj..jtated that, although he tal~ke~d t ()(7)c) about hisbhvn itinthe 2010 atime frame ,CE:a no official means to document such meetings fb)I (CCj considered (b)(7)(C) very k e in the area of procedure writing (Exhibit 8, pp. 18-25).
n said, "His*b)() __behaviors just weren't - they weren't reflective of a nuclear professional" (Exhibit 8, p. 25)
(b)(7)(C) ,(b)(7)(C)
I tateo 7771demeanor and the wav he acte1d towards his peers and co-workers wa th t(b)(7)(C) r ni suspension.
.. . . at ___.G stated he reported c7) n (b)(7) nd7l t ')who then directed him to initate suspension actions agiainst
-7( [(b)(7)C) 2! !stlated he.worked with (b(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) SCE. to initiate and affect I°.ThJ t..JIsuspension. (b)(7)(c) state he was
",tasked b5(b)(7)(C) o conduct a fact-finding inquiry regardind(b)(C) actions prior to him 1(b)(7)(C) taking over as the supervisor for the procedure group (Exhibit 15).
AGENT'S NOTE: During th g inquiry conducted b*(c) "
regarding )7)( l ast performance,] )(C) ncluded information from etter of reprimand from February 20, 1998 (Exhibit 16), and I(c) performance appraisals from 2007 through 2010, which contained "needs improvements" in the areas of behavior (Exhibits 5, 17, 18 and 7, respectively).
N FO LIC DI OSUR HOUT OVAL LD OFFICE T IC Case No. 4-2011-024 FFIALSE O I 13E G NN
(b)(7)(C) stated that aftera ation was gathered and reviewed, it was determined by all parties involved to suspendr1(b' 7 )(C Iforb nnf(C k time eriod, which wa rione frnm l(b)(7.._..)(C) ,J stated that upon (b... ,C return frpm suspension, he was provided a Reinstatement from Suspension letter (Exhibit 19).
" 1 (c(7 . Al,,n placed on7 a PIP, which helIb)(7)(c) ladministered (Exhibit 20).
(stated, )ýc)asultimately susnended hemue he w s in violation of SCE Policy #301, Professional Conduct (Exhibit 22). L(7'(cL jaddedt ]was also suspended for "not acting with integrity and forthfulness (sic) and, in cases o insubordination with supervision, and for derogatory comments that he made to another employee about another employee" (Exhibit 8, p. 29).
Regarding PIP, which was a ered tcI7,cC upon his return from his supninJb()C stated I wsutmalreleased from that PIP inJune 2011 because is behavior had improved. (b)(7)(C) statedFn neofthe actions taken n(b)(7)(c) were as a result of him raising safety concernsJ (stated 7(bb)(7)(C) nevor raised a szafetv concern to him; he found . out abou (b)(7)(c . (b)(7)(Ch e witt(
via ijstated the actions taken against Cwere not performance based, rather they were behavior based (Exhibit 8, pp. 41-47).
AGENT'S NOTE: F. '7 ,had been placed on a PIP earlier in his career, again for behavior issues, which was administered from October 5, 2009 until January 4, 2010 (Exhibit 21).
7 1tated he had known b) for many years as an employee at SONGS. According to
~~he began noticino unrchararistic behaviors being exhibited by(b)(7 )(c) beginning in 7Cr approximately 2007. 9C state (b)(7)(c) e an disrupting meetings, using foul language and inappropriately challenging other employees ]7)_new of no reason wh $j7j behavior 11-13).
had changed (Exhibit 11, pp, L__jwajjgg* r with the incident whnr(7(c)w placedihr ibc absencel )( tated he encourage (topl)(C) in charge because she (b)(7)(c) needed development-in4he- area-of supervision -rd I i not have the
-1r.; __ _ cal duties .= b)(7)(C) r o;btsecudd h qualifications to perfo rntbeWchnic oe 0). . but she could do the day-to-day supervision ktated (b)(7 )(C) *vas assigned during that time frame to handle any procedure issues that may have arisen xh bit 11, pp. 17-19).
Regardings(b)(7)(c) Jsuspensio b stated a decision was made by management, including (b)(7)(C) him, to suspen (b)(7)(c) (b)(7)(C)(b ver I behavior that had been ac* 7)C vb)(7Xc) from
..... 2007 to _20_10. Regardin
)(C)_ !!. behavio r. aid, 'from 2007 to 2011 he 1(b-)(-7-0 1kind of rode thisrolIeraaer of unprofessional behavior 11, p. 23). Conce ite incident involvin nd the subsequent comment C) made about he said. this kind of
...,)C put the
.(xii.4,.*..3J..
)(b)(7)(C cap on i an it was sae the time to take action and sen of (b)(7)(C))
(b7C a message that Jsuspension wereTsgt to stop'.
handled by (b)(7)stated tb)) 3 performance was never an issue in his suspension, it was nis :ehavior *(!j) sta e the suspension given tcF(c) 1,asbeause of a culmination of his be.r rv e ars, d tory comments maIe y to other employees, includi (b)(7)(C) e(b)(7)(C) saartb)(7)(),*'ý4ýb()C (b)()(,) uspension zaddjnn
- go oo with the nuclear notification- ( . ha, (b)( ro"e regarding [tx)(C J
`,,OT PUBLI .SCLOS WITHQO PPRz L OF F OFFICE OFFE0 I , NV Case No. 4-2011-024 14 OF LU 0 Y- Ph'- I RM ION
stated he had known for m w)r( as an employee ab)(7)(C considered to be very professional. said that while heJ 7 )(c) was over the procedure group, he had very little contact wit (b)(7)(C) ntil J Iy.2010, when he began receiving complaints about(b)(7)(C) Jfrom (b)(7)(C) andl(b)(T) C) Jstated (b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) . land . egan tellin him()(7)C) as creatin) a ne ative atmosphere in the group %1(7)(C) Istate e spoke wit (b)(7)(C) who told him h ((b)(7)(C) elt his supervision (b)(7) __ andl -.
l(amely.b)(_c9- not qualified to do their jo s Exhibit 10, pp. 8-13).
twere
.iwt~nn,;1,,l(b)(7)(C)c Isaidl(b)(7)(c)* a ked to him about (b)(7)(c) bein placed in charge in (b)(7)(C) stating,.... "You put this person (b)(7)(C)(b)absence, in charge, that's not even qualified to be a procedure writer, much less a supervisor, an you put them in charge. The only reason they are here Ireferring tol(b)(7)(c) Ithe only reason they've got this far, is because she (b)(7)(C) ýExhibit 10, p. 13).
b) Jstated that after that conversation with ( he,th7C)hheindinF(bX7)(c) nother job in another division would be the best alternative. However% . stated his e time, JIbZ2)(Ci...htold him moving 'as 77cO not the appropriate action because bL-ast ofI:c actions and inappropriate comments reaardi2n¶((C Iherefore, accordingt(b)~)c) t a C- decision was made betweerd(b)(7c)( Human Resources himself to proceed with suspension actions against(b)(7)(c) (Exhibit 10, pp. 14-16) .1 (b(7)(C) 1 stated he conducted inquiries with the guidance of HR and suspension actions c) were initiated[(b(7)(c) Jsaid he drafted an email regarding his conversation witl 7)(C[
(Exhibit 23).
According to7_T7 olacinaFezx tin a fill in supervisor role was purely the prerogative of the supervis =(b)(7)(C) stIat.bedhe were no SCE qualifications necessary in the procedure goup to fill in for a supervisor. 7)(I stated the procedure group was considered an administrative position; therefore, there are no qualifications required to fill in for a supervisorl (b)(7)(C) however, that other departments, such as maintenance or any other department where work on plant. eau(iom ent is conducted, do have SCE requirements for ervisors (Exhibit 10, p. 17)J(b)(7)c) added that none of the actions taken against 7( were as a result of him raising a safety concern (Exhibit 10, p. 27).
1(D)(T)C) Jstated he did n~ot have a gireat deal of contact wit (b)(T)C) luntil 2010, when he f(b)(7)(C) _became the (b)(7)(C) Jstated he had not had any bad e)princs withJ !A *hile he was in charge of the procedure groupJ statedl he
"-C was aware of the concern raised bb)(
F~)7)(c- rearding anI Ibut, according t *b()(C) ter I)(7)(C) are no SCE required qualifications to act as fill in supervisor for the procedure group, (b)(7)(C) stated that choice was up to the supervisor at the time (Exhibit 9, pp. 10-14).
b(D)(7)(C)
Regardin"(b)(7)(C) a i spenionhe Lus'n'n (D)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C) AID)(7 (C)ko pr-- tn - ndb7)(C) was h initiated byissues a having wtl I bulk of the issu dealt with by(-an 7 )c) vb---]stated he met
- 7c., with ~ 7
)~C) from H sues with her, and she recommended he proceed iith a suspension againstl"" E(stated hbe s)ke ywith [(b)c() j and
¶(CD-h agreed that a suspension was in orderI [stated, from what he recalled.
that Y`)'(7)( Was suspended for unprofessional behavior, comments he made towards a OT F PUBLIC ISCLOS - WITHOU PROV OF Fl OFFICE
"ý R OF FIS E VER IV Case No. 4-2011-024 15 OFFA USE N -01 0 N
(b)(7)(C) (b)(7)(C) supervisor, and insubordination, I further statect I.jprior performance appraisals were also the basis for his suspension. (b)T?)C) added(b)(7)( ech) ance was 4ine ahtIt there were several occurrences o unacceptable behavior noted. stated that
-Iwas also placed on a PIP upon to work, again, not for technical performance, bIut because of unacceptable behavior ... C* jsta Mone of the actions taken against I(b')(7c) lWas because of the concern he raised aboul b)()(c) Exhibit 9, pp. 18-29).
Ib)(7)(c) Istated he supervisc~r(b)(7)(C) in 2006 and 2007, wher F777c1was 4 in the refueling (br(7u(C) Ic lderd E Ptdt*be a "very thorough" and "sharp" emlovee bcstated (bX7F(c) behavior changed in approximately 2007, and he(b)(7)(c) stated he was not sure what happened to changel(b)(7)(C) said became "Q cuncooperatie*.anadriquired a great deal of coaching from himi(b)(7)(a) completed I (b)(7)ii) ear performance appraisal. Accor ding tono the unmet sections in[*Z(C 2007 mid-year perfo al were attitude and behavior related, not performance related (Exhibit 5). (b)(7)C ) stated he was not aware of the safety concern raised bb77-c) or was he aware of (b)(7)(c) uspension (Exhibit 24, pp. 8-23).
(b)(7)(C) stated she had known (b)(7)(C) or q f years, and had wor im in the b l a w th b)7 )(C) (b)(7)(C) wrocedure tro hande as proxmately 2007n re eated she was aware sated t(bo)(7)(C) - s d tqtinfy 2010 (b)Tc) lasked her to fill in as supervisor for him in tstated his absence.
iiilydclined sthe offer.
FE~s~tated tehad never filled imas a superviso HoweverF~)777c n the nrIn.durP.,
Itated Ib)(7)(c) group told she.#qand orI her before, nly have to basically answer the telephones and relay any messages t ngt ol b
would be there to handle any su pervisory and procedure relas ted she SthenJ~xT(c acceted the opportunity to act foneeded
,!told the 'other members of the group she" tohisbenc b il*in 'ojl for him(*()c earx lay, "2will not take direction from al
)Exhibit 25, pp. 7-9).
I(b)( 7 )(C) Itate(b)tmc i 20(107(c) (Ishortly afterwards.d tadded, "srdidn't ook apt itias Iwas filling in as supervisor, .rL civing direction to anvbrad, else. Itwojs going to be the point of contact" (Exhibit 25, p. I()).[ (b)7c)M ' dded that 1(b)(7 (C)
- IJsent an email to the (brn)C).,r gruqxpanngta se ýJ()c would be the day-to-day D~g'nt of contact, and was not L t would.
aware e handle of anyshe matters special di no concerning trainingn needed procedure to fill md(Exhibit u in iafo*())c 13)(bzc) wrifhieairb t... absence she Jin his stated (Exhibit 25, pp. 12-15).
I~b)7)() [tated she did not kn0ob)777c)but was made aware of his behavior by J(b)(7)(C) Iometime in 2010 [NFI],I(b)(7)(c) I-stated the information she received i(b)(7)(C)
"1rarn 'mai"ly w 'wa co __________
lconcertoa.
his behaviorI Isaed she assisted tat7(
rP*ad~nlbi7)c (b)()(C)(b)(7)(C) wsm i in trying to helpI( improve some of his behavior deficiencies (Exhibit 14, pp. 6-8).
Regrdnc Rea(7)(C) ' Iuspensionl~,x (b)(7)(C) I~~e d she c tind t h _£9iudt eev nomto a b)()(C (b)(7)(C) (b( (b)(7)(C) aboutb t *)5"-vlor ,,. from both t (b)(7)(C),- and [ Specificallyl 17jj )(c) 'said the informationhe e received was that ( was very closed off, not - doesn't interac, doesn't engage with the team, very negative and sometimes based on his tone and the - his behavior during meetings, he shuts down meetings where other people want to participate" T USC UR E UT AP AL IELD OFFICE CT SCFFIC IN=E TI1OýNS,=10O Case No. 4-2011-024 16 OF E Y 1 TI RM ON
(Exhibit 14, p. 10)] ta tar Ij( she never directly spoke withl(b)( 7)(c) rather the (b)(7)(C) information she obtained was fron,.Jand (b)(7)(C) stated that because of ()(7)(c) past ry, nermance appraisals regarding his behavior, and
-c7 the information provided bc Lnd" 7 )c he decision was maaP h; rpviw board to issue a 1 week suspension tob)(7C) Regarding the review board,I"'""' C) said, "it normally consists of employer relations, somebody from the law depamen, representation from nuclear safety concerns or employee concerns program and the line manager" (Exhibit 14, p. 18).1(b1)Tc) stated the terms of suspending someone was outlined in SCE's Corrective Action policy, referred to as Policy #302 (Exhibit 26).
~
AGENT'S NOE:(b)(7)1(C) -]provided an email to OI:RJ foi(b)(7)(C) ..
AGENT'S NOTE: a_ emal t0 RIV from wherein (b)(7)(C) _ eld a-meetiher (b)(7)(c) allegedly stated he did not thinilb g as qualified to be a supervisor (Exhibit 27).
(b)()statedal e appropriate steps were followed in e Employee Discipline manual with regards to on (Exhibit 28) 1(b)(7)(C) stated the ct thatl I
- 1C. raised the concern about (b)(7)(c) llina in as supervisor for did not factor into m=n~rl ment's decision to suspendl[)(7 ) j Istated the decision to suspend
( was based on behavior he exhibited over a period of time (Exhibit 14, pp. 42-45).
c was interviewed regarding these allegations, but stated he wasl(D)(7)(C) nprior to I(b)(7 uspension. and could offer no direct testimony to t events that transpired IC --(Exhibit 2i)Tb)(7)(C) I SONGS, w antryege.r arding captioned investigation./bxzxc) (advised from SONGS in IL)(7)C) j and could offer no direct testimony rgar (b)(7)(c) allegations (Exhibit 29).
In summary,c b)(7)(c) claimed he was given a bad 2010 mid-year performance appraisal, and suspernded,_f_~b()C)
,subsequentiv 1(b)(7)(C) r'owever, testimonial and documentary eviden0e-sho-wed were herai sp nf I(b)(7)(c) 1201 0 mid-year performance appraisal and subsequent suspension behavioral patter ehibited by* or a numbr of yer.ocordin ~ol Ib()C andl ( )(C) nerfomance appraisal contained a number of "needs improvements;"
however, a review ot=()7() 1performance appraisals between 2007 and 201L howedjnee ds All of the areas that reflected "needs improvements" inI(b)( 7 )(c) /
improvements" also.
-7 performance appraisals were regarding his behavior and interaction with management. one of the "needs improvemens" were in the areas of his technical expertise. In fact, all supervisors interviewed stated1(b) 7)(C) was vehat he did. Additionally, hi suspension came a~ s about his behaviorj1b)(z)c) ierogatory comments abou c as reported bYF777 coule with thC e unaccep ale ehavior as documented regardi(b)()(c) Iwere the atalvsts 1(b)(7 ()(C)
C) behind ) on. None of the supervi b)(7)(C)iteriewed ib)(7)(c) r(1b)(7)(C) stated '
w(ritten by or the concern raised byl Ireaardin) C
[b)(77(C) ere in any way part of the b'asis for](b)( 7 )(C) lbad 2010 mid-year performance appraisal, or his subsequent suspension.
N F DUBLIC [SCLO WITHO TJPPRO AL OF FL* OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 17 0 FI A SE -O STI F TION
OFFI IALUSEO 0I ES TI NF Conclusions
__ Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, the allegation thaLas the subject of discrimination for raising safety concerns was not substantiated.
NT* FO ,UBLIC B CLOS WITHO PPRO ý, OF FIELD OFFICE
'ýý ORCFýFIS TI Case No. 4-2011-024 18 FF1 A SE OIIN ION
FF ON -OI1 IN STIGA INN LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated March 4, 2011 (2 pages).
2 RIV ARB Summary and related documents, dated December 10, 2010 (10 pages).
3 Transcript of Interview withl~)*C) dated March 24, 2011 (135 pages).
4 SONGS Nuclear Notification dated July 9, 2010 (6 pages).
5 2007 Performance Partnership Agreement foI undated (7 pages).
6 2010 Mid-Year Performance and Development Plan for* dated August 30, 2010 (7 pages).
7 2010 Year-End Performance and Development Plan fo dated March 1, 2011 (7 pages).
8 Transcript of Interview withl(b)(7)(c) dated September 28, 2011 (53 pages).
9 Transcript of Interview withl Jdated September 29, 2011 (37 pages).
10 Transcript of Interview wit I dated September 29, 2011 (29 pages).
11 Transcript of Interview wit= 1ated September 29, 2011(40 pages).
12 Transcript of Interview with* dated September 28, 2011 (43 pages).
13 Email frorrzc -toProcedure Group Personnel, dated July 9, 2010 (1 page).
14 Transcript of Interview withl (b)(7)(C) dated September 29, 2011 (47 pages).
15 Fact Finding Summary Form Re[_7_cj dated September 15, 2010 (4 pages).
16 Letter of Reprimand Re m dated February 20, 1998 (1 page).
17 2008 Individual Contributor Performance and Development Plan for )(C) dated January 15, 2009 (12 pages).
TF PUBLI CLOS WITHOI-T APPI',AL OF IELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 19 l 0' OFF LU LY 0 E INON
,FýICK"SEdNLY-fIIWV IG O ýN M ION LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 18 2009 Year-End Performance and Development Plan for dated February 22, 2010 (14 pages).
19 Reinstatement From Suspension Letter Re: dated September 27, 2010 (2 page).
20 Performance Management Improvement Plan Retj dated September 27, 2010 (3 pages).
21 Performance Improvement Plan Re: dated September 22, 2009 (6 pages).
22 Southern California Edison (SCE) Professional Conduct Policy #301, dated June 3, 2010 (5 pages).
23 - I;,ý.()7()Jb()C an b()C)I (b)7)( dated August 19, 2010 (1 page).
24 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(c) dated September 28, 2011 (33 pages).
25 Transcript of Interview withl7)(c)"ated September 29, 2011 (25 pages).
26 SCE Corrective Action Policy #302, dated June 3, 2010 (5 pages).
27 Email from c (oc and1(b)(7)( p ated December 3, 2010 (2 pages). n 28 SCE Employee Discipline Policy, undated (32 pages).
29 Transcript of Interview with (b)(7)(C) dated September 28, 2011(39 pages).
OT F PUBLIC DISCLOSUITHOUT-ROA F FIELD OFFICE Case No. 4-2011-024 20 OFF Ci LY - NVES ON FOR