ML19302D783

Forwards Proprietary Response to Allegations of Discriminatory Employment Action Against Jm Fuchko & Ga Yunker.No Adverse Employment Action Taken Against Stated Employees.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790)

ML19302D783
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/14/1989
From:	Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19302D784	List: ML19302D783
References
NUDOCS 8904040052
Download: ML19302D783 (3)

Text

[.: .

I t me

- .~

i .

' Jgkitt

- i?

ram .m 9j: q March 14, 1989 Mr. Stewart Ebneter Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N. W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Dear Mr. Ebneter:

This letter responds to your letter, dated February 13, 1989, Division by two employees of Georgia Power Company. compla adverse employment action, as requested. Enclosed with this letter is additional background information which we hope you will find The helpful.The ba complaint, by its terms, as investigated by the Wage and Hour Division and g pursued by petitioners, centers or alleged discrimination against the petitioners by failing to transfer the petitioners to a newly-formed Southern g Nuclear Operating Company ("SONOPC0") project in Birmingham and, instead, transferring in Atlanta. the petitioners into the non nuclear security department, located g The petitioners allege this constituted adverse employment action Vogtle and Plant Hatch.and resulted from their voicing concerns related to securi g We note that the petitioners identified various activities in addition to their transfer within Georgia Power in support of their claim; however, we view these additional allegations as ancillary, tangential or proffered in support of their transfer allegation.

The factG*\ te and Hour Division letter, dated December 2, 1988, followed an expedited review by a Department of Labor investigator operating under the constraints of a 30 day time limit that included the Thanksgiving holiday. The petitioners demanded strict compliance with this time limit, even though an extension, we understand, was requested by the investigator, and Georgia Power had offered to waive all issues of timeliness in order to allow a full investigation.

As a result, the Department of Labor's December 2, 1988 and f determination inquiry. was limited to " evidence to date," rather than a full evidentiary The government investigators maintained that budgetary reasons precluded them from traveling beyond Atlanta, so they never spoke with any personnel assigned to Plant Vogtle or stationed in Birmingham. They briefly When corporate counsel suggested meeting with other witne brought to Atlanta, the investigators turned down the offer, a

DD 24 CNU ,

ho'N32 [(rNr$[ //

yW