ML20043E525
| ML20043E525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1989 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Joseph Kelly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043E518 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-540 NUDOCS 9006130088 | |
| Download: ML20043E525 (20) | |
Text
-
QWT2 M;
MR T IDE Mr. James A.F. Kelly
$r. Physical Security Specialist Security and Emergency Preparedness $oction Reactor Programs Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safegoards Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Notice of Proposed Suspension for 30 Calendar Days
Dear Mr. Kelly:
In order to promote the efficiency of the Federal service, I propose to suspend you f rom your position of $r. Physical Security Specialist, GG 0BO-14/6, Security and Emergency Preparedness Section, Reactor Programs Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for 30 calendar days. This action, if taken, will be effective not earlier than 30 calendar days from the date of your receipt of this letter, not counting the date of receipt. This action is proposed in accordance with Article 39 of the Interie Collective Bargaining Agreement between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss' ion and the National Treasury Employees Union and $ United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 75, Subchapter 11.
The background and specific charges on which this proposal is based are set forth below.
BACKGROUND You began your career with NRC, Region IV, in Arlington, Texas on May 19, 1980 as Chief. Physical Security Branch, GG-080-14 in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. On July 8,1984, as a result of a reorganization, your title was changed to Senior Physical Security Specialist, and you have served in that capacity since that time.
Sometime during 1984, the Houston Lighting and Power Company (HLAP) sought to fill the position of Manager, Nuclear Security Section, Corporate Security Departnert, HLAP. Mr. Glenn G. Parker HLAP, suggested to you at that time that you might be a itkely candidate to fill the position. Sometime 1:ter, you submitted a resume to Mr. Parker with a request to be considered for that position. However, by that time, Mr. Parker and others had decided to select Mr. Andrew 0. Hill to fill the management position in nuclear security at the 9006130088 900416
~
GARDEB9-D40 PDR
% - BR c x H. "A"
u r
v m: m w-1 I
a.
10 CFR 0.735-22(a) states:
Solicitation, negotiation, or arrangements for private employment by an employee who is acting on behalf of the NRC in any particular matter in i
which the prospective employer has a financial interest are prohibited.
With the authorization of his supervisor, an employee may be relieved of any assignments which, in the absence of such relief, might preclude such solicitation, negotiation, or arrangements.
4
' On or about August 10, 1987, you contacted Mr. Larry G. George, an HL&P supervisor. As a result of that contact, Mr. George believed that you asked whether he (Mr. George) thought upper HL&P management would consider you for the position recently vacated by Mr. Andrew Hill (Manager, NSD, STP/HL&P). He told you be did not think so. During the same timeframe, you also spoke with Mr. Charles Kern, an HL&P manager, who believed that'you had asked him whether HL&P would consicer you for that position. These conversations occurred shortly after Mr. Hill was removed from his position. At the time, Mr. Kern was acting in the security manager position on a 60-day appointment. Both Mr.
George and Mr. Kern felt certain you were asking about employment at HL&P for yourself.
You did not request from your supervisor, or any other NRC manager in your supervisory chain, authorization to be relieved of your inspection assignment at STP, which is required under 10 CFR 0.735-22(a).
Clearly, STP/HL&P in August 1987 had a " financial interest" in the matter of the NRC Region IV physical security inspection because STP/HL&P was eager to L.
load fuel and obtain an operating license. Receiving acceptable findings from the NRC physical security inspection was necessary to obtaining this 11 cense.
Thus, any solicitation by you for employment at STP/HL&P outside the provisions of 10 CFR 0.735-22(a) would be a violation of that provision.
" Solicitation" is further defined in NRC Announcement No. 96 dated July ll, 1986(distributedtoallNRCemployees):
l
" Solicitation" by an NRC employer, encompasses any contact with a particular potential employer, tr.cluding a telephone call or the submission of a lettee of inquiry or a resume, that reasonably can be construed as indicating an interest in obtaining a position with that employer.
It is my opinion that your actions can reasonably be construed as indicating an interest in obtaining employment for yourself with 5TP/HL&P.
b.10 CFR 0.735-49a states:
An employee shall avoid any action whether or not specifically prohibitea by this Part 0, which might result in, or create the appearance of:
G SED g
to N
n y-m, en,-
n.
m---
('i
~
\\
1 t
(a) Using a public office for private gain.
In August 1987. $TP/HL&P was especially vulnerable to any suggestion and influence by NRC inspectors because of their urgent desire to obtain a license to operate. You, as an NRC Region IV inspector, were in a critical path position to $TP/HL&p obtaining that license, because of your authority to influence the outcome of the security inspection module which had to be completed with acceptable findings in order for STP/HL&p to obtain that license. Because of this vulnerability, your employment inquiry might have resulted in or created the appearance of using your pub 1tc office for private gain.
c.
10 CFR 0,735 49a states:
An employee shall avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by this Part 0, which might result id, or create the appearance of:
(f) Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government.
I You were well aware of the rumored allegations that y.ou were biased in your security inspectiene. You knew of Mr. Martin's concern over the perceptions that.tbe inspections may be biased, and that Mr. Martin intended to forward the matter to OIA for investigation. Notwithstanding this knowledge, and the strained relationship between STP and RIV security staffs, you undertook actions which were construed as being a solicitation of employment with STP/HL&P. These ections gave credence to the rumored allegation that you had a continuing interest in Mr. Hill's job and that you sought to cause Mr.
Hill's removal by discrediting the STP security program. It also lent credence to the rumored allegation that your Jarlier rejection by $TP resulted in an inspection bias. Any activity on your part which could lend credibility i
to the allegations that the Region IV inspectors were biased would adversely affect the public's confidence in the NRC.
Charee No. 2: Inappropriate conduct in your official dealings.
10 CFR 0.735-49a states An employee shalt avoid any action whether or not specifically prohibited-by this Part 0, vhich might result in, or create the appearance of:
(a) Using a publir office for private gain.
l 5
l em 4
W
~,, _.. - -,, _
._..,y
t y
-. mpur y
l
[
.g.
You responded to the rumored allegations by confronting $fP management officials about thee in an effort to have thee stopped. On July 20, 1987, you i
met at the $TP site with Mr. James Geiger, an NLAP manager, for the purpose of i
addressing the allegations. Your supervisor, Mr. Lawrence Yandell, and Mr.
Ronald Caldwell, Region IV Physical Security Specialist, were present, along with Mr. Michael Powell, an HL&P supervisor. You said during the meeting that you were concerned about the allegations that Region IV inspectors had biased the security inspection at STP because they had applied for employment with STP security and been rejected. You indicated that you heard that Mr. Andrew Hill, Manager, Nuclear Security Department, $TP, had told his staff this story as an explanation for why the security inspection findings were so poor. You said that you had in fact provided a resume to HL&P around 1984. You also met subsequently with Mr. Jerome Goldberg, an HL&P manager, to discuss the allegations. During this meeting, you asked that he do something about this situation.
l You told Mr. Geiger, Mr. Goldberg, and Mr. Martin, that you were seeking an apology from STP/HL&P, and that you were prepared to file a lawsuit against HL&P for slander. You also requestec that Mr. Geiger write a letter clearing your name.
Mr, Geiger and Mr. Powell were uf the opinion that you were conducting yourself in an official capacity in your dealings with them; thus, your statements represented to them an official NRC posture with regard to the allegations.
It was inappropriate of you to pursue with utility ma'negers any course of i
action which would create the impression that you were speaking for the Agency in response to such serious allegations. Your demands for an apology and your threat of a lawsuit was clearly inappropriate, confrontational, served to.
increase the already existing tensions between the $TP and RIV Security staffs and may have resulted in or created the appearance of using your public office to obtain your personal demands.
Mr. Robert Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV, will be the deci' ding official in this proposed action. You may reply to this notice orally or in writing, or both, to Mr. Martin. You tay also submit affidavits and other documentary evidenc ta support of your reply. You are entitled to be represented by an atte.ney or other representative of your choice. I as providing you on add'.tional copy of this notice for the use of your representative if you so choose. You are not entitled to a hearing or examination of w'snesses at this time. You will be allowed 14 calendar days from the det; of your receipt of this memorandum to submit a reply. You will be given 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of official time for use in preparing your answer. You any request the time from me or in my absence, 9. John Montgomery, Deputy Regional Administrator. Your written reply, if any, may be mailed to Mr.
Martin at the following address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas 76011 or delivered personally.
i I
If you wish to make an oral reply, you may make an appointment to do so by calling Mr. Martin at 860-8225. The material retted upon for this proposal 1
l 9
4
.-4,
,-,-3
~ ~ - - - - - _
,y m
- . cry.se
-w--. 9,vv--,p...,
w 7
[
'D r
i 6-L notice is enclosed. If you believe that you need additional time to submit your answer and secure affidavits, you may request it of Mr. Martin. If such I
time is allowed, it will be confirmed in writing. If you care to discuss the personnel regulations partinent to this action or to obtain additional information on how to "eply, you may contact Ms. Huel Meadows, Senior Labor j
Relations Specialist, Office of Personnel, FTS 492 4692.
In accordance with Atticle 37.2 of the Agreement, you are hereby notified that because of the stric.isness of these charges, your within grade increase to, j
GG-14/7, which otherwise would be due on May 7, 1989, may be denied.
A-decision about this matter will be made and delivered to you when a decision on these charges is made, i
Since you are a veterans' preference eligible, this action is being taken l
under the provision of 5 U.S.C. 7513 and you are being given all the rights i
and privileges thereof.
No decision to suspend you has been made or will be made until the time allowed for you to answer has expired. Any response you make will be considered carefelly by Mr. Martin before he makes a decision..Whether or not I
you choose to respond, a written notice of decision will be delivered to you at or before the ef fective date of the action, if one is taken. During the I
advance notice period, you will continue in a duty status.
l Ortdiul !.!r.d b/:
R.L. BAN 3 ART Richard L. Bangart Director Division of Radiation Safety I
and Safeguards Eo'. l o sure :
r.,IA Reports dated 9/26/88 and 12/21/88 bec:
M. Fox, LR l
0, Dambly, 0GC W. Meadows, LR R. Martin, RIV, w/ attachments l
l DISTRIBUTION LR r/f NAME: KELLY DISK: HUEL2 LR:0P*
LR:0P' OGC*
RI i
HMeadows MFox D0ambly R ngart 4/3/89 4/3/89 4/3/89 4/7/89 l
- Concurrence 4/3/89 l
4
-. - - - ~..
V i
. V%. yy?T
, Tmy';"n-~ ~~ ~ * ~ vn myy m om A
1
(
i l
i James Kelly and National Treasury l)l 1
1 l
EmployeesUnion(NTEU)
))
FMCS No. 89 23367 v.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission h)
(NRC) 1
,/
l l
NRC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF NTEU l
FOR A PRE. HEARING DISCLOSURE ORDER i
i The NRC (the agency) by its attorneys hereby opposes the Motion of l
NTEU (the union) For A Pre-!iearing Disclosure Order in This Arbitration on the following grounos:
1.
The Motion seeks disclosure of documents regarding which it j
has establi',hed no relevance and necessity as required by i
5 USC 7114(tt)(4)(8). Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues in this case.
I
~
2.
The Motion seeks discovery which is not allowed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement between NRC and NTEU.
J 3,
The testimony of Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe at the hearing l
in this case would be unnecessary.
Therefore, the Motion should be denied. Nrthermore, the Arbitrator should issue an order prohibiting the NTEU from calling Sharon Connelly or Donna Rowe as witnesses in this case, d
A
}
s
% 33.,,
. c y,
,y j
y.. 3 e
1
+
(
l t.
In support of this motion is the accompanying Memorandum of Law, and affidavit of Greg Benoit. The NRC also requests that the arbitrator pro-vide the opportunity for oral argveent telephonic 411y on this motion.
.rpectfully su itted.
James i. Cradot;k 5
Attorney
. Bradley ewell Office of the General Counsel Dated at ockville. Maryland this ay of October, 1989 t
l l-1 P
g a
V
.2
3
..u.2.. y;.......m...;gp.
- c..
7-
~
!NP0ASTIONPOR[0B ONAL AllNIN!STRA704. A !V i n n i e w,u o r,. N. s i.it
,e, si.n r
.<<ent..
i t while serving 1[ official 3/4L (!r propsteet y tisspenstea\\
reprie.nd,
Accepted edi 646 tickets from licensee.-
. 7/4) R!y' d in s n) p ection taken
- 30. day suspensie superviser, retWnded to licensee that he back.date 4/31 It proposed (not recorded) 4ction takent 7 day suspension i
Licensee repo ted contacted them to discut 3/86 t!!!
n: pone ng owsu t and discussed potential a sification of records
,repteding sefety issue not hereto ore known to Region !!!.
proposent removal action taken: r.moval I
g i
h In'otmplic;; in ty$ IM.'$ 'm dhtcd rn._.iltno_f.,{.f. * 'I& hWua ci :n!c.'mW 4
om M Ho g.
as m
immi d
nl
,1 l
o,a
.u.4... c.
. 7. m.. a.,.
.p y. -.
- w. n==/./ ny=.4= amrs=m,an s u m w,n.,. w
....n...,,...
i t while serving if.fficia)
' 3/86 (!{
.s
,4
,e ir.. e u.s. <r u..n.
. u.i
,.n
,,)
, u
., S.,. o n.4.
i di a
,vi.or,,,, w n.. u..n..e ts., se.su....e n., es. ec.e i.n
..u n s.k..,
7.,..
Licensee re rted
.cnts.ted them to discut i
3/66 t!!!
s p.ne ng awsv t and discussedTpotential lification of records l
, reg...ing..foty 1889. not hereto 4cre known to Region !!!,
l prop..e.1 res.v.1
- 4. tion t.k.n r.nov.1 i
\\
/
l l
1
~
l Md 6
i j
Informatier. In tyg,7,,w,3,m ggtcd rn_.1[9 9__,f."'$f0'ue10i'nfora::tbn
- 018 N Ho C-I i
1
r -j q w - m 7,.- y p 3
.,..r
.. m. ~, m w-n I
James Kelly and National Treasury l
EmployeesUnion(NTEU) l l
h FMCS No. 89-23367 v.
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission l l (NRC) 1
)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NRC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRE-HEARING DISCLOSURE ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION The NTEU in its motion seeks an order that the agency produce 'any and all materials concerning allegations of... improper or unsatis-factory investigative conduct... against any NRC employee..."
(emphasis added) by Sharon Connelly or by Donna Rowe, as well as materials constituting " proposed and/or final discipline or reassignment issued to or concerning" Sharon Connelly. Sharon Connelly has the Director of the OfficeofInvestigationsandAudit(01A),whichcondwetedtheinvestiga-tion in this case, as referenced in the Proposed Disciplinary Action dated April 7, 1989. (EXHA). Donna Rowe is the CIA investigator who conducted the investigation.
The union states further in its moti)n that it seeks this information because it is " relevant and necessary to 1@eaching the credibility of key e
-r
,e y-,,
m.r.2.yw p y g-ymqw i
4
.t.
documents and witnesses relied upon by the Agency....* 1/ This is the third attempt by the union to obtain these materials. On April 14,1989 the Union sought the same materials as part of a request under 5 USC 7114(b)(4), claiming that the 01A investigation was " biased, unfounded.
incompetent, and otherwise unobjective" (ERN. B). In its respionse dated May 1,1989 (EXH. C), the agency denied the request, noting that Kelly had already received " voluminous materials' *in excess of 1500 pages of investigative materials," yet the union had " failed to cite any instances" showing the " improper or unsatisfactory investigative conduct' claimed, and therefore, had failed to establish the relevance and necessity required by the statute. On July 25 the union again sought the same information (EXH. D) citing issues of 'cespetence or integrity' and two unrelated cases Lhg,and Fortuna, as grounds for the request. Again, on August 10, 1989 the agency replied that relevance and necessity had not been established.
(EXH.E) The agency noted then that the issues in this case concern the conduct of Mr. Kelly which will be decided solely on the basis of his testimony and that of others regarding his solicitation of employment and other improper conduct. (See EXH F. Final Agency Decision dated June 26,1989) As will be discussed below, the inforsation sought concerning Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe has nothing whatsoever to do with those issues nor could it in aviy way advance the trial of the relevant facts in this case.
Furthermore, Ms. Rowe and Ms. Connelly performed investigatory functions only. They had no authority to institute discipli tary 1/
The " key documen'ts and witnesses' are not identified by the union.
I
t
,%.,,,7..,,_, y,,,,g j
~. ~.
l 3
proceedings against Mr. Kelly. Thus, their motives, particularly involving other investigations, are totally irrelevant. For these reasons, the information sought concerning Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe is neither necessary or relevant.
!!. JURISDICTION The union asserts in its motion, arbitral authority to issue the 1
order requested in case precedent U allowing discovery of relevant materials, and in the collective bargaining agreement (contract) between i.
the parties. (Memorandumpp.5-6). The agency will not dispute that relevant materials should be exchanged under $ USC 7114(b)(4)(R) and that the arbitrator can rule on the issue of relevance and necessity. However, the union must demonstrate relevance of the materials sought to the case at hand. Furthermore, there is no authority for discovery in the contract as the union argues.
!!I. !$5UES TO BE DECIDED A.
Whether the materials sought are relevant and necessary to this case.
I y
We must note that the union's characterization of Cornelius v. Mutt, 472U.S.648(1985)(p.6 Memorandum)isadequateonlyunttithe.
statement is made that the MSP8 regulations on Discovery should be transposed to arbitration. Cornelius v. Mutt says no such thing.
The Court dealt rather with the arbitrator following the same substantive law as the Board. 472 U.S. at 652. The Supreme Court was concerned that arbitrators follow the "same twies governing burden of proof and standard of proof that pvern adverse action before the Board." Thus the " harmful error rule followed in MSPB proceedings has equal application in grievance and arbitration proceedings on adverse actions. 472 U.S. at 648, 661. Cornelius v.
~
Mutt has nothing to do with Discovery.
1 m...
..e we
. w yatym s.9m m gy.
4 I
. 4 B.
Whether the asterials sought are discoverable under the collective bargaining agreement between the parties.
C.
Whether the asterials and testimony sought are necessary for the advancement of this case.
IV. AR9tMENT A.
The union has failed to establish that the materials sought are in any way relevant and necessary to this case.
The Federal Labor Management Relations statute. 5 USC 7101-7135, statesatsection7114(b)(4)(B)thatanagencymustprovidetotheunion
' data" which is " reasonably available and necessary" for the union to carry out its representational duties. This provision of the statute has Men construed to allow the union access to documents which are relevant ani necessary to a particular case the union is pursuing. However, there is no presumption in the federal sector that the documents sought are relevant and necessary. Rather, it is the unions burden to establish relevance and necessity. AFGE. AFL-CIO v. FLRA. 811 F.2d 769 (2d Cir.
1987).
This the union has failed to do. In its Memorandum at 7 9 the union argues that it wishes to attack the ' credibility" of the investigation, stating that there are issues of bias in the investigation. None of this is relevant or necessary to this case, nor has it been demonstrated to be so.
First of all, as the previous requests and responses under 5 USC 7114(b)(4)(B) show, the union has to date been provided with in excess of i
I
[
',7 "t% l' PN*P " '"
3Mewer. 49py;;g-t l
.g.
1500 pages of discovery in this case. The investigation M itself is quite voluminous. Despite having this plethora of infomation in its hands, the union has yet to demonstrate er even articulate any instance or inference of bias or othemise lack of competence or credibility on the i
part of Ms. Connelly or Ms. Rowe while investigating this case. Likewise.
l the union has failed to demonstrate how the bias of an ' investigator' l
would be relevant in this case.
l As Mr. Martin's Decision letter (EXH. F) shows, this case is solely about whether Mr. Kelly improperly sought employment with an NRC licensee and improperly represented himself to en MRC licensee. These issues will be determined through the testimony of NRC officials and licensee officials, all of whom have given gern statements which are included in the investigation. Whether Ms. Connelly or Ms. Rowe allegedly have conducted biased investigations in other cases, or have been othemise subject to disciplinary actions not related to the present investigation, has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
The MSPB has held that discovery will not be granted if the infoma.
tion sought is not relevant to issues under appeal. Johnson v. Dept. of Tggggg, 7 M$8P 649 (1981). Also, discovery relating to general agency management has been denied absent a showine 1.htt the infomation sought is relevant and material to the issues of the appeal. Carter v. Dept. of Labor, 29 M.S.B.P. 500, 502 (1985). The discovery sought, therefore, must be ' relevant to the issues involved in the appeal." 5CFR1201.72(b).
l l
l y
The investigation is a part of the case file which will be distributed shortly. See enclosed Case File Index (EXH. G).
l l
,])
.q
)
6 Since there has been no showing whatsoever of relevance, one can only sumise that the union has nothing more in mind that an attempt to embarrass Ms. Connelly about issues having nothing to do with this case.
The same is apparently true regarding Ms. Rowe although nothing has been alleged about her 'outside* conduct. This is above all else patently unfair to both women. These tactics should not be condoned. The union's motion is not only a fishing expedition, it is an attempt veiled under discovery to bring into this case extraneous and irrelevant issues in order to cloud and obfuscate the real issues.
B.
The union's motion seeks discovery which is not allowed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement between NRC and NTEU.
The union has asserted the applicability of several contract provisions to its discovery request (Memorandum, p. 4-5). The contract should be construed by the arbitrator with deference to the intent of the parties. See Elkouri and Elkourt. "How Arbitration Works" (4th Ed.),
- p. 348. In this instance the intent of the parties and therefore of the contract, shows the union to be in error.
The union asserts that the contract, Article 51, section 51.5.3.
gives the arbitrator the authority to rule favorably on its action.
(Article 51enclosedasEXH.H) Its reliance is aisplaced. As shown by the attached affidavit of Greg Benoit, former Chief of Labor Relations, NRC (enclosed EXH.1) that section, when negotiated, was intended only to apply to matters of evidence at trial, and not to pretrial discovery. The language itself appears to make this quite obvious in that it gives the arbitrator the authority only to " rule upon offers of proof and receive
~ ^ ' - " - -
r
,.75 yr ve=9 v.w yw.e $
g,
\\
7 4
[
relevantevidence"(Sec.51.5.3(2)). Nowhere is there language vesting discovery authority in the arbitrator in article 51. $/
The vaton also raises Article 51, Section 51.5.4. That section states that the arbitrator shall g,$, have the authority to " require the productive of documents not offered in evidence by either party." The
~
vnton states that the section is inapplicable here because the union seeks to " offer the documents it seeks into evidence at the hearing" El (Memo-ranoum, p. 4 fn. 1). Again the union is in error as to the contract's L
intent. As the Benoit affidavit shows, the section noted, 51.6.4(2) was a compromise. It was reached only after the union had sought a discovery provision in the contract and is intended to mean that the arbitrator could consider gnly documents offered at the hearing and could not require the production of others. Therefore, the contract demonstrates that it was not intended to allow for the discovery sought here by the union.
The contract provision most relevant to the union's request is At'icle 45 (Enclosed EXH. J). Article 45, section 45.6.2 states that unionrequestsfordocumentsunder5USC7114(b)(4)shall"containa statement showing clearly the reasons why the documents are sought and demonstrating how they are relevant and necessary to the union as y
exclusive representative." This clearly establishes the union's burden in i7114(b)(4) requests,whichhasnotbeenmethere. Article 45 also has a e
/
The contract does give the arbitrator, analogous to the Administra-4 tive Procedure Act. 5 USC 556(d), the authorlty to limit testimony which is "innaterial, irrelevant or unduly repetitive". Sec.
51.5.3(3).
5/
This is interesting since, as noted above, there is no indication that the union knows what the documents or " materials" it seeks are.
~
7 J e e t.r t v 7 ~
-e+' CP
- P'*
f raw e***
v
-S-6ecthn which requires I 7114(b)(4) requests to be case specific. Section 1
45.6.3. This was intended to prevent ' hypothetical
- or ' fishing expedition" types of requests by the union. (Benoit.EKH.I, par.7). As shown above, the union, in seeking information about other unidentified f
i investigations, has clearly failed to meet this requirement.
Therefore, tha n is no basis in the contract for the discovery sought, and the arbitrator accordingly has no authority in the contract to order the documents produced since the relevant and necessary test has not t
i been met.
j C.
The Materials and Testimony Sought Are Unnecessary For The Advancement Of Any Issues in This Case.
The union states the issue of the credibility of Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe N s " crucial to the agency's and the union's case.' (Nemoren-i dumat8.) Nothing could be further from the truth. The credibility of Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe has nothing to do with this case and to seek their testimony is an unreasonable and unnecessary attempt at a venture into the irrelevant.
The discovery sought is not only irrelevant and immaterial but also unduly repetitious.
As discussed above in part A the issues in this case involve whether Mr. Kelly sought employment from and otherwise taproperly and in violation of NRC regulations dealt with an NRC licensee. As the proposed discipli-nary action of April 7,1989 (EXH. A) indicates, the agency will show that 1/
The union stated in its second 7114(b)(4) request that it wished to call Connelly and Rowe as witnesses. (SeeEXH.D) m
--.,---+-...,,-m.,
-,.4y-,,
.m
...s._,,,,.
.~, -
w
1 Mwyq g.Qd T9 M.
,f W.tyls ms e
- es e
g 1
g.
Mr. Kelly sought employment with Houston Light and Power Company (NL&P) in August of 1987, when there was a great deal of tension between licensee personnel and NRC Region IV security inspectors. Further, some of the tension emanated from reors that Kelly and other NRC inspectors were biased against NL&P. Also, in July,1987, Mr. Kelly improperly met with HL&P management personnel, giving the appearance of both being on official i
business when he was not, and using his public office for private gain (seeproposedactionat5). The final decision sustained these charges.
To prove its case at hearing, the agency intends to call agency witnesses regarding the atmosphere which existed at the South Texas Plant of Houston Light and Power Company, as it relates to this case, and HL&P personnel and agency personnel regarding Mr. Kelly's job inquiry and subsequent meeting with HL&P management personnel. The record makes it quite obvious who would be called at a minimum: Messrs. George and Kerr of HL&P regarding the job inquiry, Mr. Martin, Mr. Bangart, Mr. Yandell and Mr. Caldwell of NRC and Mr. Geiger and Mr. Powell of HL&P, all about i
the tension between NRC and HL&P and the July meeting. All of these people have given sworn statements which are in the investigative files
?
which along with their testimony will be made a part of the recoNI in this case. They and and other witnesses called by the agency will testify to the relevant issues in this case.
Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe have nothing to add which would be relevant to the issues at hand.
The question of their bias is obviated by the fact that there are l
sworn statements in the file from the witnesses who will testify at hearing. Even asseing that it could be demonstrated that the t
>, 774 q;,;gygg w, - -
=,
u 10 -
investigators were biased in some way, that would have no bearing on the credibility of those witnesses testifying ss to Kelly's wrongdoing. The credibility of those witnesses, and not that of Connelly and Rowe is at issue. Furthermore, to the extent that the CIA report draws conclusions about the propriety of Mr. Kelly's conduct, the arbitrator is the final k
decisionmaker with respect to the propriety of Mr. Kelly's conduct and i
thus any bias in the report's conclusions are irrelevant.
The only relevant testimony Connelly or Rowe could possibly have is j
that they took statementt and depositions from witnesses, as the investi-gativefilewillshow.1/ Those witnesses will testify at the hearing, and their sworn statements will be made part of the record. Therefore.
)
aside from being irrelevant, their testimony is totally unnecessary.
CONCLUSION i
For the reasons stated the arbivr*. tor should deny the union's motion and issue an order excluding Ms. Connelly and Ms. Rowe as witnesses pursuant to the contract, article 51, section 51.5.3(3).
1 espectfull subt tied.
6:_
J s5.'Cradock.SeniorAttorney Office of the General Counsel Dated at Rockville. Maryland this 23rd day of October,1989 1/
This becomes obvious by an examination of the enclosed September 26 1986 Investigation Svenary and Index (27 pp.), and December 21,1988 transmittal of supplemental investigation (EXH. K) which give a good indication of the nature of the investigation and content of the investigative files.
l t
, v.,em-v-s g g
w7
.---r
_7w.
)
i r
E
- 1 James Kelly and National Treasury l l l
EmployeesUnion(NTEU)
)i l}
FMCS No. 89-23367 v.
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l l (NRC) 1
,J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of "NRC'S OPP 051T10N TO MOTION OF NTEU FOR A PRE-HEARING DISCLOSURE ORDER" and
' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NRC'S OPP 051T10N TO MOTION FOR PRE-NEARING DISCLOSURE ORDER" to be served via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 23rd day of October,1989, to:
l Don B. Hayes, Esq.
223 North Crockett, #370 Sherman, TX 75090 l
Walter E. Dressler, Assistant Counsel The National Treasury Employees Union 3636 Executive Center Drive, Suite 201 1
Austin, TX 78731-1617 a I E. Cradock I
l
~
n
-e
,n a-
- -- -----.---~ -
v e
a ATIAONENTS I
4 E-a.
__