ML20083P252

FOIA Request for Correspondence Between Util,Hj Kaiser & NRC Referenced in Encl Ohio Civil Rights Commission

ML20083P252
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	02/29/1984
From:	Harding C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FOIA-84-153 NUDOCS 8404190439
Download: ML20083P252 (4)

Text

.. O February 29, 1984 3426 Valley widge Terrace SW A tlanta, Georgia 30331 Director of Rules and Record Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACI REQUEST Washington, D.C. 20555

[CM -/ p_jg

Dear Str:

U $ ~ f .- f y Under the freedom of information act I request all correspondence between Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, Henry J. Kaiser, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that has been referenced to in the enclosed copy of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter. This is in reference to the construction of the Zimmer NU clear Plant at Moscow, Ohio.

I call specific attention to the paragraph (circled) that states "the layoffs were precipitated by their client, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, who was responding to : directions from the Federal Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission". Also the correspondence that references " Respondent client Cincinnati Gas and Electric informed, their company in November 1983 that a new company was being assigned to complete the work project at Zimmer Nuclear Plant which his comp any had orginally been assigned.

Sincerly, Cha CC: Ohio Civil Rights Commission .HardiE(g x

8404190439 840229 PDR FOIA HARDINQ84-153 PDR

I,.*

sl ttirtl41:9 I . 01 U s t G... e r n..: l N

'l

. l., i . I ,

c CE\ Ilu 1. 01 H n 50GTHlfEST REGIO.\ II. OFFICE 220 h*s2ns t urme Mawnry Ofpte Duit.hrr; - nJ IIw Coluon hus. oho 41213 21 EB 19Bk w Rac si,cc:

I 6 I4 J.* 6 . '3 Oncannari. Ohio 2520 1 51345:-3344 Charles Harding Henry J. Kaiser Canpany dba 3426 Valley Ridge Terrace SW Rayrmnd Kaiser Engineers Atlanta, Georgia 30331 Box 200 Moscow, Ohio 45153 Clertront County (07)2110683(1292G)1183, 057840301

'Ihe Ohio Civil Rights Ocnmission makes the following determinat. ion concerning subject case.

Respondent is an auployer within the treaning of Section 4112.01(A)(2) of the O'lio Revised Code, 701(B) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as nwnded and by Section 11(B) of the Age Discrimination in B ployment Act of 1967, as amended.

Timeliness and all other jurisdictional requirar.ents of the cha" . have been tr.e t .

'Ihe Charying Party, a Black male, was at the time of filing, a person fif ty six (56) years of age who was born on July 30, 1927 and has standing to file a charge of discrimination under the Ohio Revised Code, Sections 4112.01(A)(14),

4112.02 and 4112.05(B). 'Ihe Garging Party has not cmmenced a civil action as required by Section 4112.02(N) of the Ohio Revised Code.

'Ihe Gorging Party filed an af fidavit with the Ohio Civil Rights Camission on Novenber 7,1983, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unlawful discriminatory auployment practices because of his race, age and retaliation on Novanber 6,1983.

'Ihe Garging Party alleges that he was tenninated on Novarber 6,1983 due to

! a reduction of work force. He alleges that others in the protected age class l

have been laid off, while younger and Caucasian anployees have been retained.

He alleges that he received frun his Caucasian supervisor, Dane Dame.vood, the highest efficiency rating and pItxiuction in the Records Management Department.

He alleges his termination was the result of his race, age, and having filed a previous charge of alleged race discrimination filed with the Equal Enploy-rnunt Opportunity Cmmission on August 5,1983.

'lhe Respondent denies anij innlawful discriminatory act against Charging Party.

Paspondent's Representative, Bruce E. Allen, Director of Inbor Relations and Safety, asserts that Garging Party was laid off frun his position of Assistant Quality Assurance Analyst on Novanber 4,1983 as a result of a general lay-off due to a work reduction. 'Ihe lay-offs were precipitated by their client,

.. . ^- ,

Charles Harding vs. Henry J. Kaiser Cmpany dba Ray:rond Kaiser Engineers {

(07)2110683(12926)1183, 057840301 '

l' re p --

~ ~ ~ -

j Cincinnsti Gas and Electric Conpany, who was responding to directions frun t Federal Nuclear Regulatory Comnission. He asserts that Charging Party's lay ff was in no way notivated by his race, age, and/or retaliation. Further, y,ounger and caucasian mployees were also laid off and blacks were also retained within M.JEame department. ,

Investi- ion-trf-the-Ohio Civil' Rights Comnissio'n substantiates -the following:

~

'N f Re'pondent's client, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (OG&E),inforrned theirh (ccupany in Novurber,1983 that a new company was being assigned to complete the hork project at Zinmer Nuclear Plant._which his. company-had. originally been assi d.

M,=. -

m f CG&E also made the decision that in January,1984, due to two (2) other n'utigar plants nearby shutting down, they were closing down the plant as a nuclear poke.r facility and would convert the plant to a coalbuming facility. As a result of' their work project being reassigned, Respondent had a lay-off on Novmber 4,198 d on January 20, 1984, to reduce staffing. Respondent, within a few rnonths 11 no' longer _be present at the Zinmer facility. , _ _

~___ - . _ .

As a result of Respondent losing their assignment, they laid off eighty-one (81) mployees frm the Quality Assurance Department on Novmber 4,1983. Included in the lay offs were three (3) blacks and fifty four (M) caucasians. 'llvelve (12) of the unployees were within the protected age group, forty (40) to seventy (70) years of age, and forty five (45) anployees were laid off who were under forty (40) years of age. 'Ilventy four (24) anployees were tenporaries for which there was no docuTentation regarding age and race.

In addition to the aforenentioned lay-offs, Respondent retained in the Quality Assurance Department, three (3) blacks, and twenty (20) employees in the protected age class,and seven (7) of whm were in Charging Party's age range; fifty two (52) to sixty two (62) years of age.

Respondent states that Charging Party's termination was based on the need to reduce staffing. 'Ihe. supervisor who made the decision was not aware that Garging Party had filed earlier charges of alleged discrimination. 'Ibe supervisor placed the mployees on a lay off list in an ascending order of retainability based on their uncaipleted work, work skills and capabilities, and future rmaining work. Garging Party was laid off on Novmber 4,1983, based on the aforenentioned criteria.

On January 20, 1984, Respondent laid off an additional one hundred and seventeen (117) enployees from the Quality Assurance Department. Out of this total, twenty (20) persons were in the protected age class, all caucasians, one (1) black, and ninety-six (96) caucasians not in the prutected age class.

1 Respondent currently has mployed in the Quality Assurance Department a total of fourteen (14) mployees; one (1) black and thirteen (13) caucasians. Included in the total are three (3) mployees within the protected age group, i

4 i

i

' * , ,, ,, Oiarles Harding vs. Henry J. Kaiser Caripany dba Raymond Kaiser Engineers (0,7)2110683(12926)1183, 057840301 Page #3 Therefore, based on the aforunentioned, Qiarging Party's lay-off on Novarber 4,1983 could not be substantiated based on any factors related to race, age, and/or

, retaliation.

As a result of the fomgoing, the Ohio Civil Rights Cortriission has determined that it is not pmbable unlawful discriminatory unployment practices have baen or are being engaged in by Respondant in violation of Section 4112, Ohio Revised Code, and hereby dinnisses subject charge.

'Ihe parties to this charge are advised of their right to request reconsideration of the Cannission's detennination pursuant to Section 4112-03-04 of the Rules and Regulations. Request must be in writing, state specifically the grounds upon which based, and be filed in duplicate with the Ommission at its office in Columbus within ten (10) days frun the date of mailing of this notice.

ID R 'I1 E CD' SSIO3

/ -

f no gob '

/

Ray 0 Pay 1

/ Southwest Regional Director l'

Respondent's Representative:

Br' ace E. Allen L)irector, litbor Relations and Safety

, Henry J. Kaiser Company One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 601 0:tkland, California 94612 i

i l

l

• l I

i l

l , , _ _ _ __ ~ - - -