ML20044C986
| ML20044C986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1993 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305140269 | |
| Download: ML20044C986 (2) | |
Text
.
{
Ja e nc E's l
oq'Q
=
p n
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. Ele 86
{
'#i
%,...../
May 10, 1993 j
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William C. Parler General Counsel l
i FROM:
Joseph F. Scinto l
Deputy General Counsel for He.arings, Enforcement and Administration i
SUBJECT:
RECENT COMMENT ON MY VIEW OF ETHICS IN NTEU NEWSLETTER I
-3 The basic charge is that it was improper for an NRC attorney to contact an employee in connection with certain statements made in i
the employee's appeal to EEOC and that the NRC attorney.should have contacted a union steward " representing" the employee.
The appeal related to the employee's charge of discrimination against the agency; but the contact was not related to those charges.
It was directed to certain statements in the appeal which may have suggested that the employee was concerned that his privacy rights may have been violated by other agency officials involved in i
processing his complaint. The contact was an inquiry as to whether-the employee wished to have the agency pursue these concerns outside the context of the ongoing EEO proceeding.
l Although the union steward is an attorney in his private life outside the NRC, he did not function as legal counsel to the employee in this case.
Rather, the union steward's participation in this matter was in his capacity-as union steward - a function that may be carried out by persons other than attorneys.
The union attorney who represented the employee as legal counsel in j
this matter at an earlier stage had withdrawn an'd no substitute counsel made an appearance.
The NRC attorney did not contact an individual who was at that time represented by legal counsel.
I see no violation of legal ethics in the contact between the attorney and the employee.
If the union wished to argue that it was some sort of improper-labor practice for the NRC attorney to contact the employee without l
6 120034 9305140269 930510
[g[/
PDR ORG NRCG p
i
-j j
ee he i
-informing the union, I pointed out that the union was well aware of the process for raising that istsue.
The union has not filed a'ULP concerning this contact.
i
.. jj Joseph F.,
Sci o
Deputy General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration
. j cc:
- i 6
l i
s
?
I l
i F
I i
i 6
c',
i P
' I
..r f
?
- s I
b -
r t
i i
- t
.j t