ML17305A448
| ML17305A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1989 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912200009 | |
| Download: ML17305A448 (12) | |
Text
+~
io LNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR.REGULATORY COHIMISSION I%CION V 1450 MARIALANE,SUITE 210
+
o
~
WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA9i596
+n DEC
-. 7 19sp Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, NPF-74 Arizona Public Service Company ATTN:
Nr. Milliam F.
Conway Executive Vice President P. 0.
Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034
SUBJECT:
MILLINDAVID SIHNONS V.
Dear Sir or Madam:
On October 13, 1989; the U.
S.
Department of Labor's Mage and Hour Division in
- Phoenix, AZ received a complaint from a former employee of APS.
The former employee alleged that he -was terminated because he had raised safety concerns while'performing his duties at Palo Verde.
In response to that complaint, the Mage and HOur Division conducted an investigation, and in the enclosed letter dated November 7, 1989, the Area Director of the Mage and Hour Division found...
that the evidence obtained during the Division's investigation indicated that the employee was engaged in a protected activity within the ambit of the Energy Reorganization Act and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprised his complaint..
The NRC is concerned that a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7 may have occurred and that the actions taken against the foyer employee may have had a chilling effect on other licensee or contractor personnel.
Therefore, you are requested to provde this office, within 30 days of the date of this letter, a response which:
1.
Provides the basis for the employment action regarding the former employee and includes a copy of any investigation, reports you have regarding the circumstances of the action; and 2.
Describes the actions, if any, taken or planned to assure that this employment action does not have a chilling effect in discouraging other licensee or contractor employees from raising perceived safety concerns.
After reviewing your response, the NRC will determine whether enforcement action is ncessary at this time to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
89i22OOOO~r SP~2O-,
PbF".
nDOCI I.I'-"OOO~2q F'C<C
s The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.
L.
No.
96-51 Si
- erely,
Enclosure:
As Stated cc wlo enclosure:
Herbert Goldstein, DOL Edward D. Duncan, DOL william D. Simmons John B. Martin Regional Administrator
bcc w/enclosure:
J. Taylor, EDO Lieberman, OE J.Goldberg, OGC F. Miraql)a, NRR R.
Cunningham, NMSS R.
- Scarano, RV G.
- Yuhas,
.RV M. Cillis, RV R.
Zimmerman, RV S.
- Richards, RV A. Johnson, RV M. Blume, RV REGION V 0 MBlume/d t AJohn on 12/j/89 12/7 (89 rtin 12/7 /s9 YES /
NO
]
E
/
NO j YES /
NO j
YES /
NO j
U.S. Department of Labo Employment Standards Administr ion Wage and Hour Division 3221 N. 16th Street, Sui te 401.
- Phoenix, AZ 85016 (602) 241-2990 November 7, 1989 Hr. Hax Arbolida Palo Verde Human Resources Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 53999, Hail Station 6725
- Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 CERTIFIED MAIL NO.:
P134-328-186 Return Receipt Requested Re:
William David Simmons vs. Arizona Public Service Company
Dear Hr. Arbolida:
This letter is to notify you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case.
As you know, William David Simmons filed a complaint. with the Secretary of Labor under the Energy Reorganization Act and the Safe Drinking Mater Act on October 13, 1989.
A copy of the complaint; a copy of Regulations",
29 CFR Part 24; and a copy of the pertinent section of the statute were furnished to you in a previous letter from this office.
Our initial efforts to conciliate the matter did not result in a mutually agreeable settlement.
A fact-finding investigation was then conducted.
Based upon our investigation, the weight of evidence to date indicates that Milliam David Sittlttons was a protected employee engaging in a protected activity within the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a
factor in the actions which comprise his complaint.
The following information supported this determination.
Based upon the evidence presented by both sides it appears that the complainant was disliked by supervisors because of the safety and environmental complaints he had made.
It is clear that his direct supervisor, Bob King, who scheduled all other Unit 2 Work Control employees for training, failed to schedule the complainant for training.
Mhen the majority of the training classes, that Arizona Public Service Company alleges the complainant should have attended, were being given the complainant was working nights at Unit 1 and was not 'available.
The blame for not getting the training lies with Arizona Public Service Company management and not the complainant.
There has been no evidence presented by Arizona Public Service Company to show that the complainant actually cheated.
The only-thing that has been shown is that he had the possible opportunity to cheat.
The complainant did not cheat on the exam and has been subjected to discrimination by the employer.
"1
This letter is notification to you that the following actions are required to remedy the violation:
1.
Nlliam David Simmons should be. immediately reinstated to his former position.
2.
All expenses incurred by Mr. Simmons related to the complaint, including attorney fees, any medical
- expenses, and conmunication and travel costs be paid by Arizona Public Service Company to Mr. Simmons.
3.
Arizona Public Service Company.is to remove from Mr.
Simmons'ersonnel file and from all other company records any refer-ences regarding his whistleblowing activities and Arizona Public Service Company is prohibited from including statements in any job references which would have the effect of "black-1isting" the complainant.
4.
The wages and fringe benefits, Mr. Simmons would have earned, and the terms, conditions and privileges of employment should be restored.
This letter is also notification to you that, if you wish to appeal the above findings and remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record.
To exercise this right you must, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by ~tele ram to:
The Chief Administrative Law Judge U. S. Department of Labor Suite 700, Yanguard Building.
1111 - 20th Street, NW Mashington, D. C.
2DD36 Unless a telegram is received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the Ave-day period, this notification of findings and remedial action will become the Final Order of the Secretary of Labor which must be implemented within 30 days.
By copy of this lette~, William David Simmons is being advised of the
'etermination and the right to a hearing.
A copy of this letter and complaint have also been sent to the Chief Adm)nistrative Law Judge.
If you decide to request a hearing. it will be necessary for you to send copies of the telegram to William David Simmons and to me at U. S. Department of Labor, Wage 5 Hour Division, 3221 N. 16th Street, Suite 301, Phoenix, AZ
- 85016, phone number (602) 241-2990.
After I receive the copy of your request, appropriate pre-parations for the hearing can be made. Ifyou have any questions, do not hesitate to call me.
, It should be made clear to all parties that the U. S. Department of Labor does not represent any of the parties in a hearing.
The hearing is an adversarial proceeding in which the parties will be allowed an opportunity to present
%heir evidence for. the record.
The Administrative Law Judge who conducts the hearing will issue a
recommended decision to the Secretary based on evidence, testimony, and arguments presented by the parties at the hearing.
The Final Order of the Secretary will then be issued after consideration of the Adminis-trative Law Judge's recommended decision and the record developed at the hearing and will either provide for appropriate relief or dismiss the complhint.
Sincerely, Edward D. Duncan Assistant District Director
, cc:
Qilliam David Simmons Nuclear Regulatory Comnission~
Environmental Protection Agency Regional Solicitor, U. S. Dept. of Labor The Chief Administrative Law Judge Regional Director, ifage-Hour Division Stephen Kohn, Atty for Complainant
I)
~ g