ML20090K039
| ML20090K039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1983 |
| From: | Addis G DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-008, A-8, NUDOCS 8405230586 | |
| Download: ML20090K039 (52) | |
Text
._ __
< Applicants' Exhibit
[d 76 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G
I
/
]I
("' ' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN iBOARDanu.azooa
,~/ nonna aamus -
f < mig C & StT l~,
In the Matter of ) b\ c ;mq /I
) 'A E DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. h50-413 6 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
-) 241,4,g~'Jh
)
Units 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF GAIL ADDIS
- 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A. Gail Addis, Duke Power Company, Box 33189, Charlotte, NC 28242 3 Q. STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER
, 4 COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.
4 5 A. I am presently Director of Employee Relations in the Corporate 6 Personnel Department. The purpose of our Employee Relations 7 function is to develop and maintain positive working relationships C 8 through procedures, programs, and individual efforts. Various human resource management services center in the Employee 9
4 10 Relations area such as Quality Circles, Stress Management, " team" 11 building in some areas, corrective discipline, and the Recourse 12 Procedure and process. My role also includes providing, with staff 13 support, Employee Relations services directly to approximately 400 i 14 general office employees in several departments.
j 15 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND 16 QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING YOUR PRIOR POSITIONS HELD 17 WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY.
18 A. I received my Master's Degree in 1970 in counseling directed at 19 helping individuals achieve personal adjustment in employment. I-20 subsequently worked 8 years at a large private rehabilitation center l
21 and psychiatric hospital in the Midwest, concentrating on 8405230506 031007 PDR ADOCK 05000413 g PDR
I management, program direction and consultation to business and 2 government. I accepted my current position at Duke in 1978. My 3 , Resume , which is attached to my Testimony as Attachment 1, 4 provides more detailed information on my professional experience 5 and qualifications.
6 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN WHAT WE NOW REFER TO AS 7 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AT CATAWBA.
8 A. I was notified by letters from several Catawba QA Welding
- 9 Inspectors that they, as individuals . wanted to pursue concerns i
10 over their pay grade change to Stel$ 2 of the Employee Recourse 11 Procedure. My involvement was essentially to direct the review of 12 their concerns. The Recourse procedure involves the employee 13 relations staff gathering all information relevant to the employee's 14 concern, reviewing with the employee the . company policies and
! 15 practices, and working with the employee and department j 16 management toward additional efforts to resolve the issue that led to 17 the recourse.
18 Q. DESCRIBE HOW THE EMPLOYEE RECOURSE PROCEDURE
! 19 FUNCTIONS GENERALLY, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF EACH l
20 STEP AND THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT AND THE EMPLOYEE 21 RELATIONS STAFF AT EACH STEP.
22 A. I have attached to my testimony a copy of the Recourse procedure j 23 in effect at the time these recourses were initiated as Attachment 2.
24 Step 1 under the Corporate procedure gives the Department and 25 employee 30 days to resolve the matter which led to initiation of the
[
L 26 recourse. Each department handles Step 1 within their line of 27 supervision. Corporate Employee Reintions is not involved in the l 28 details of this first step.~
. . - . . - .~ - . . - . .
~
1 Within the specific time frames in the procedure, the employee 2 may refer the concern to Step 2 where the "second look" by both 3 the Department management and employee is coordinated by our 4 ' staff.
5 If the issue is not resolved at Step 2, the employee may refer 6 the recourse to Step 3, a review and decision by the President of 7 the Company. The Corporate Employee Relations staff person who 8 coordinated Step 2 assembles all related materials and records and 9 presents the information to the President. At the President's 10 request, there might be meetings or additional research to clarify 11 issues or obtain additional information.
12 Q. SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE AT STEP 2 OF THE 13 RECOURSE PROCEDURE.
.O 14 15 A. I gather all relevant information, which includes the records from Step 1, then I meet with the employee at least once during our Step l
16 2 review to be. sure we understand the concern or to convey the 17 department's position and decision at Step 2. Our efforts to j 18 resolve the concern or issue between the department management 19 and the employee vary in specific detail. Also, the amount and
- 20 type of research in this review varies, j 21 Q. DESCRIBE HOW EMPLOYEES INITIATE A RECOURSE.
I 22 A. To use the Recourse Procedure any employee may submit a written 23 statement setting forth the concern or question to his/her 24 supervisor.
25 Q. DESCRIBE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR INITIAL INVOLVEMENT 26 WITH THE WELDING INSPECTOR PAY RECOURSE.
27 A. As I remember, my first awareness of the pay. grade Recourses at 28 Step 1 came when Bill Bradley called me about a procedural matter L -
. -. ---_a_-_.
~
I and told me that inspectors at the Oconee Station were using the 2 recourse process. At that time, Bill Bradley was responsible for !
3 coordinating personnel functions in the Quality Assurance ,
e 4 Department.
5 My direct involvement in the Recourses came when I received I
6 requests from several inspectors to initiate a Step 2 review of the 7 pay grade decision. The first Catawba Q.A employee requests for 8 Step 2 review came to my attention on October 29, 1981. Each 4
l 9 cmployee electing to proceed to the second step sent me a letter.
10 Q. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE WELDING INSPECTOR i 11 RECOURSE.
i 12 A. These welding inspectors were concerned over the effect of a wage 1
13 and salary review which reclassified their job position to a lower 14 .
pay grade, from grade 11, to grade 10. The necessary adjustment 15 in their pay was implemented by giving the inspectors one half of i
16 the general salary increase for 1981, and by a similar adjustment at 17 the time of the 1982 general salary increase that would bring them
! 18 in line with the pay grade for the position.
19 The reclassified pay grade was approximately the same as that 20 for the top welder. The majority of the welding inspectors I met-21 with were concerned that this was not internally equitable in their 22 judgment, because of what they perceived to be the value of their i
- l. 23 position vis-a-vis a welder's duties. In other words, the inspectors l 24 believed that their job was worth more than craft.
25 Q. WAS THIS PAY RECLASSIFICATION AND PAY RECOURSE LIMITED i
26 TO CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION?
27 A. No. In August, 1981, 13 Oconee QA Incpectors ' initiated a Step 2 28 review under the Recourse Procedure based on the same pay l
m . . _
l I reclassification. The recourses from Catawba followed l 2 chronologically. Also, there was one recourse from Cherokee, and 3 ,11 from McGuire. The common thread in each of these recourses 4 was the pay grade reclassification.
5 Each inspector presented his individual views about the pay 6 grade adjustment. A general theme at Catawba was the relationship 7 between inspector's and welder's pay.
8 rQ. HOW MANY INSPECTORS WERE INVOLVED AT EACH STAGE OF
, 9 THE RECOURSE PROCEDURE?
10 A. I was advised by Bill Bradley of the QA Department that of the 67 11 inspectors affected by the reclassification, there were 53 who 12 initiated a Step 1 recourse on the pay grade issue. I am not 13 certain of these numbers since I was not involved in the recourses 14 at Step 1.
15 At Step 2, I received 13 recourses from Oconee between 16 August 18 and September 1, 1981, 20 recourses from Catawba 1
17 between October 23 and November 6, 1981, 1 from Cherokee on j 18 September 3, 1981, and 11 recourses from McGuire in December i 19 1981, for a total of 45 recourses on this issue. Less than half of
- 20 the Step 2 recourses were from Catawba.
I 21 My records show that 29 of these 45 inspectors pursued the i 22 matter to Step 3,12 of these were from Catawba.
23 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER RECEIVING THE RECOURSES?
24 A. After receiving notification of each employee's recourse, I collected 25 information about what had occurred at Step 1, and I researched 26 the pay grade issue with QA Department management and the 27 Corporate Wage and Salary Staff . to learn the basis for . the pay 28 reclassification.
1 I went to Oconee in August, with Joe Myers, Director of l 2 Compensation, to meet with each employee to explain the pay grade 3 decision. I also participated in the decision to send Corporate 4 Position Analysts to Oconee for several days to do an analysis of 5 the inspector's actual job duties. This was done for review by a 6 committee which was responsible for establishing a numerical 7 evaluation of the total job content for all graded jobs in 8 Construction and QA.
9 At Catawba, Jim Wells, the QA Department Manager, or I met
, 10 individually with the inspectors to discuss their recourse and l
11 further explain the pay grade issue. I met personally with all of f
j 12 the employees whose statements I attempted to represent to 13 management in my report to Mr. Lee.
14 I talked with the inspector at Cherokee by telephone, and I i 15 met individually with each of the inspectors at McGuire.
16 Q. DESCRIBE EACH PHASE OF YOUR WORK WITH THE WELDING 17 INSPECTOR PAY RECOURSE.
18 A. The timing and similarity of the pay grade concerns from the f
19 Inspectors made it reasonable to me to conduct the Step 2 20 evaluations simultaneously. Each inspector concurred with the 21 extensions of the time frames in the procedure to allow for the i
22 re-analysis of the position, and management's review of the 23 decisions.
- 24_ Generally the phases were as follows; first I received the l
25 letters wl.v n initiated the Step 2 recourse. Next, I reviewed the 26 Step 1 records, and collected background information through these 27 records and discussions with personnel familiar with the position 28 analysis to understand what had occurred. The next phase of my L
O V
1 work was with department management toward resolution of the 2 recourses. We conducted the re-analysis of the jobs at Oconee, 3 and reviewed the relevant issues like career choice, pay history, 4 job differences between operating stations and construction sites, 5 the value of job certifications, and working relationships.
6 The next phase was to present my findings to the QA 7 Department management, then present the department management's 8 decision at Step 2 to the inspectors. The next phase was 9 presenting the entire matter to the President, at Step 3.
10 Q. DESCRIBE HOW YOU CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE 11 WELDING INSPECTORS.
12 A. I conducted each interview with one inspector at a time. At Oconee i 13 a member of the wage and salary staff assisted me in explaining the 14 technical aspects of the position analysis process.
15 Most of the employees' letters clearly stated their concern. I 16 took notes during the interview to cover points not raised in the 4
17 letter in support of the recourse.
j 18 I explained to the inspectors that my job at Step 2 is to 19 ensure that their concern is given a "second look" by the 20 department management, and to present the entire matter to the 21 President at Step 3 if we do not resolve it at Step 2. I try to 22 present to management whatever the employee presents to me by 23 way of opinion, observation, or concern. An underlying philosophy
, 24 in employee relations is that each employee deserves to be heard 25 and have his views considered. My purpose in these interviews
! 26 was to achieve mutual understanding between the employee and the
! O 27- management and ultimately resolution of the recourse, i
- .= _ - _ . _.
I O
v 1 Q. WHAT REPORTS DID YOU MAKE TO MANAGEMENT CONCERNING 2 THE PAY RECOURSE?
l-3 A. I submitted reports to the President of the Company, Mr. Lee, on
-4 ' behalf of each employee who requested that the recourse proceed to 5 Step 3. I have attached to my testimony as Attachment 3 the Step 6 3 Report submitted on behalf of the employees at Catawba.
7 Q. IS YOUR ROLE IN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AN ADVOCACY ROLE?
8 DO YOU URGE THE POSITION OF THE EMPLOYEE TO
- 9 MANAGEMENT?
10 A. No, it is not my role to advocate for the employee's position per se.
11 My role is to be sure the views on both sides of the issue are 12 thoroughly understood by all involved. The employee speaks for 13 himself, or advocates his position on his own behalf, but he does 14 this through the employee relations staff. The impartiality of the 15 "second look" is an advantage in the system. It is a mutual, i 16 cooperative effort to resolve concerns, rather than an adversarial 17 "them and us" employee relations system.
18 Q. WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION OFFERED BY THE WELDING 19 INSPECTORS FOR A HIGHER RATE OF PAY THAN THE WELDING 20 CRAFT?
21 A. There were several justifications presented, including:
! 22 A. Inspector's jobs require more training, judgment, job
) 23 knowledge, and accountability, and more technical, coping and j 24 interpersonal skills than craft jobs in the same pay grade.
25 B. Because inspectors inspect craft work they have to know more i
26 and must be able to do the work themselves in order to tell 27 craft why it does or doesn't comply with procedures. l l
O V 1 C. Inspectors were chosen to be inspectors because they were top
, 2 craftsmen and that's what it takes.
3 .D. Last year inspectors received a big raise as a result of a wage 4 study and this year they got a cut in pay grade. Since the 5 work hasn't changed, the decision is political.
6 E. Inspectors have to go to school to be certified, often in 7 several things. Inspectors don't just do the same thing all 8 day like craft.
9 F. Inspectors know more than craft supervision.
10 G. Inspectors have to put up with being hassled by people whose 11 work they inspect, are under more pressure than craft, and 12 do more paper work. Taken together, this should mean that i 13 inspectors are worth more than craft.
14 Q. WHAT OTHER MATTERS WERE RAISED BY THE WELDING 15 INSPECTORS OTHER THAN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE PAY 16 RECLASSIFICATION?
17 A. There were employee relations and communications concerns raised 18 consistently. These dealt with working relationships across 19 department lines , the feeling that department management didn't 20 fight for higher pay for them, a perception that there was little 21 empathy for them, that some had been misled by taking positions in 22 QA for advancement, and some concerns at Catawba that the quality i
23 of work was adversely affected by some management practices and 24 working relationships. These concerns at Catawba were referred to l 25 as work quality concerns to differentiate them from the pay 26 recourse concerns.
3 27 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THESE WORK QUALITY CONCERNS 28 CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION?
.g.
. .. .~ - .- . -- - -. . - _ - . -. , -. .-_ ,. - . .. . - .
1 .
1 A. I discussed what I was hearing at Catawba with the QA Department 2 Manager, Jim Wells, and we presented these concerns to Mr. Owen.
l' 3 Mr. Owen asked me to write out a summary of those concerns. I 4
~
4 prepared a summary of these concerns for Mr. Owen and included a 5 copy of the summary in the Step 3 report to Mr. Lee.
6 Q. WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PENDING RECOURSE?
7 A. The pay recourse was referred to Step 3 by some employees, and 8 accepted as resolved at Step 2 by others. At Step 3, Mr. Lee i 9 decided that the reclassified pay grade for inspectors was the 10 proper pay grade for the position, and no action regarding pay was 11 taken. However, Mr. Lee decided that special consideration would 12 be given to requests for transfer back to craft from inspectors most
- 13 affected by the reclassification.
14 Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE 15 WORK QUALITY CONCERNS THAT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION AT 16 THIS TIME?
17 A. These concerns were dealt with separately from the pay recourses.
1
{ 18 To the best of my knowledge, a special task force was appointed to i
j 19 more clearly identify these concerns. My report of comments made l 20 to me during the pay grade recourse did not adequately cover the l 21 details of these concerns. I was advised by Mr. Owen that any 22 matter associated with work quality would be thoroughly reviewed 23 by technically competent people.
ii 24 Q. THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING INSPECTORS WERE
{ 25 INITIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS AFFECTING THE l
j 26 QUALITY OF WORK OR THE SAFETY OF THE CATAWBA PLANT.
O
I
i 1
! 1. WELDING INSPECTORS AFFECT THE QUALITY OR THE SAFETY OF 1' 2- THE CATAWBA PLANT?
i 3 A. The initial concerns presented to me in the letters from Catawba 4 ' requesting a Step 2 review were concerns over the pay grade i 5 change, the same as they had raised at Step 1. In the individual l i
{
6 meetings held to discuss the pay grade concern several employees j 7 brought up concerns about work quality and relationships. These j 8 references were made in the context of stating why the employees t
9 believed their pay grade should not have been lowered. In my l
10 discussions with management, I was asked to outline the work j 11 quality and relationship concerns presented to me. I reported the 12 inspectors' concerns as accurately as I could, in a representative l 13 way, to be sure that management understood the concerns, and the 14 rationale the inspectors believed supported their concerns, both
! 15 with respect to the pay recourse and the quality concerns. It was l 16 apparent to me that there were employee - relations and j
17 communications problems, which is in my professional area of
! 18 competence. I did not conclude, nor do I know ' ow h to conclude, l
19 that there were or were not quality-of-work problems at Catawba.
20 Q. IN YOUR VIEW, DID THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING 1
l 21 INSPECTORS TO YOU INDICATE THAT THERE WAS BREAKDOWN i
l 22 IN THE QA PROGRAM AT CATAWBA OR THAT THE QA PROGRAM -
23 WAS NO LONGER WORKING AT CATAWBA?
24 A. No , the inspectors spoke very ; highly of the Quality Control 1- 25 program and their own qualifications and knowledge. The move-into 26 the QA department and pay grade reduction seemed to have
- 27 precipitated the remarks about support and the relative worth of
I jobs. The inspectors presented themselves as extremely dedicated 2 and quality conscious. Based on what was related to me, I do not 3 think there was a programmatic breakdown, but I think that the 4 conununications channels and QA work relationships were not 5 sufficient as they related to the work process decisions that were 6 raised as examples of quality issues.
7 Q. HAVE YOU HAD ANY OTHER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE WELDING 8 INSPECTOR CONCERNS, THE TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIONS, OR 9 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE VARIOUS 10 TASK FORCES?
11 A. No, I haven't.
12 13 14 15 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 16 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony. -
17 20 Gail Addis Y 85/
21 22 23 Sworn to and subscribed before me j 24 this /4 E day of September,1983.
! 25 28 h&Notary PubucfL l.bYds
./
29 30 Commission Expires 4 n
V
1.
Attachment 1 4 O. RESUME l
B. GAIL ADDIS i
Education: Highest completed degree -
Master of Education in Counseling, June,1970, University of South Carolina Post-graduate work completed at Western Michigan University and University of Michigan in Administration and interpretation of Intelligence scales 'and in advanced management courses.
Employment History:
1 Current: Duke Power Company l Since September,1978, I have been the Director, Employee Relations in the Corporate Personnel Department. The broad scope of the job is to provide a leadership role in developing and maintaining positive and effective human resource management practices. Specific duties include i
serving as Step 2 in the Company's three-step Employee Recourse Procedure, coordinating Quality Circle programs, selecting and coordinating stress management services, providing employee feedback surveys, monitoring corrective discipline systems, conducting personnel research, and serving as a consultant on empayee relations matters.
In l'980 the scope of the job increased to include direct employee relations services to departments in the General Office with approximately 400 employees. These services include organizational development, individual employee consultations, policy and procedure
, development and interpretation, EEO/AAP Services, employee transfer
- prdination, and training coordination.
1970-78: Pine Rest Christian Hospital and Rehabilitation Services Positions included the following:
Project Director for a four-county cooperative program linking community, state, and federal agencies in the provision of comprehensive vocational services to physical and mentally handicapped, economically disadvaged people.
i Director of Vocational Services supervising the counseling staff and managing all program services provided to _ physically and mentally handicapped people in a vocational rehabilitation setting.
i Residential Director for 20 residential units including services with twenty-four hour supervision, half-way housing, and semi-independent living situations. This included supervised recreation services and adult education programs specially designed for individual rehabilitation plans.
Vocational Counselor in the psychology department of a psychiatric hospital, providing individual and group therapy to patients focusing on readiness and adjustment in employment.
L DUKE POWER COMPANY l
l MANAGEMENT PROCEDURd NUMBER 8901-0012
SUBJECT:
EMPLOYEE RECOURSE PROCEDURE 1 Of 2 5-1-79 l PAGE DATE REVISED ' 1-1-01 DATE EFF'ECTIVE i.
STATEMENT:
It is the policy of Duke Fower Company to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all employees. Employees are entitled to a prompt review and decision concerning any problem arising during the course of employment. Employees should always be encouraged to discuss any concern with their impediate super-visor. Normally such a discussion will quickly answer or resolve any question or problem. The company assures all employees access to additional management personnel Every effort should be made, however, to deal with employee con- -
cerns at the closest working level.
Each department of the Con:pany has specific procedures for resolution of an employee's concern.
IMPLEMENTATION:
8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Under the Employee Recourse Procedure, each department in the Company will provide access to successive levels of management to discuss an employee's concern.
B. If after meeting with nis/her supervisor, an employee strongly dis-agrees or questions a decision or practice regarding his/her 641oy-ment, the employee may use the Employee Recourse Procedure as outlined.
- 1. For employees not suspended or discharged, there will be no loss of pay for attendanc,e at meetings held to discuss an employee's concern.
- 2. In instances where termination or suspension has resulted, an
~
employee has a maximum of fifteen working days to initiate a review of the situation with management using this procedure.
- 3. Upon agreement, the time limits specified in the procedure may be extended.
II. PROCEDURE
, A. step 1: An employee desiring additional consideration has the I opportunity to present in writing any concern not satisfactorily resolved in discussion with his/her ismediate supervisor.
i l
l l .
8901-0012 l MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER i
1-1-81 OATE EFFECTIVE 5-1-79 f PAGE 2 of 2 ,DATE REVISED
- 1. Each department will provide a written response within a maximum number of thirty working days from the receipt of the written concern.
i
- 2. Probationary employees are not entitled to recourse outside of their department.
B. Step 2: If an employee is dissatisfied with the reply given in Step 1, the employee may, within 10 working days, contact the Manager of Employee Relations, in the Corpos; ate Personnel Depart-ment.
- 1. The Manager of Employee Relations will gather all information relevant to the employee's concern and will reviewThe with the Employee
' employee related Company policies and practices.
I Relations Manager will also work with the employee and depart-ment management toward additional efforts to resolve the issue.
i i 2. If the employee and department management are unable to resolve the issue within fifteen working days, the employee may decide to pursue Step 3. If the employee decides to pursue Etap 3, the employee is to notify the Manager of Employee 1t'.Jtions of.
s1:.ch decision.
C. Step 2: The Manager of Employee Relations will present the employee's concern to the President, or designee, for a full review. A written decision will be given to the employee within twenty working days.
- 1. The decision of the President, or designee, shall be final and binding on all concerned.
bj%L1
- 4. 9. Major y
/ Vy PRESIDENV, PERSONNEL 9
'O (s INTRODUCTION y
The following people have submitted essentially the same concerns i
for review at Step 3 of the Recourse Procedure:
Oconee Brewer, C. L. Maintenance Inspector A (Electrical) lienson, C. R. Maintenance Inspector A (Radiography)
Owens, R. F. Maintenance Inupactor A (Electrical)
Catawba Bentley, Dean Welding Inspector A I Burr, Bill Welding Inspector A ,
M#j Crisp, Charles Welding Inspector A y Fw , <
h.F Eubanks, Harold Welding Inspector A p#[,.W Gault, A. S. Welding Inspector A ,C
- Irby, R. W. Welding Inspector A h e Jones, R. Welding Inspector A Kirkland, R. Welding Inspector A
\' Initially there were 53 Step l's on the pay issue; 34 continued to 2
Step 2, with these 11 continuing to step 3. A summary of the concerns is as follows:
- 1) They perceive their duties to require more technical skill, judgment, coping skills, interpersonal skills, training, broader job knowledge, and greater accountability than those workers who are now in the saae pay grade (Welders, Steelworkers, Con _ruction Electricians and Mechanics).
- 2) The majority of these Inspectors were top Welders, Construction Electricians and Mechanics (some were Senior Craftsmen) before joining QA (or OC), and they report that they were told it was a chance for advancement. Their perception of being misled and losing ground is apparent; also many believe that QA nanagement arbitrarily changed the value of their jobs without regard for their contribution to a " top QA program", having been top Craftamen, in response to " political" pressures from Steam and
,Q Construction.
l-P'- rv+ ---w7gv -* 'w- w-r-ar
~
\
\
In July, 1981 the pay grade for QA Inspectors was changed from Grade 11 to Grade 10 (Senior Inspectors from Grade 12 to Grade 11), and
( manning tables were adopted for progression to Senior Inspector. Those affected, vere informed a few days before the July general increase was expected that they were being " red-lined" and that they would receive a 5% increase this year and approxia:stely one-half the general increase next year to bring.them in line with the top of the Grade 10 pay range.
The employees say they were told that a " Hayes study" was the basis for this 1981 decision. In July, 1980 they had received the general 8.5%
and then their top pay had been moved approximately another 5% in August, 1980; the reason they heard then was also a " Hayes study." (Pay History of Oconee Inspectors-TAB 1) I understand that the pay was lowered in 1981 due to a market survey and recognition that an error had been made in the June, 1980 figures used by the Construction Department.
Some of the Recourse letters reflect concerns about these decisions, and also about the accuracy of the position anslysas.
In response to the Oconee concerns, and because the Maintenance Inspectors' jobs had not been evaluated per-se, but " slotted" with Projects Inspectors' evaluation, QA management asked Corporate Position g Analysts to go to Oconee for several days and compara the duties they saw, plus employee input, to the Position Analysis. Mike Fain's October 6, 1981 (TAB 2) memo summarizes their findings and recomunendations.
QA management decided that Inspectors at Projects and Stations would have the same psy grade, therefore the Step 2 final answer to all Inspectors (Oconee., Catawba, and Cherokee) on the pay issue was:
- 1) The Position Analysis was re-written (Oconee) and updated (Catawba, Cherokee) and is considered a correct outline of the job.
- 2) The Evaluation Commaittee reviewed the analysis, and the job was found to be a Grade 10. The evalustion was conducted by.
Corporate Personnel in compliance with Company guidelines.
The answer Mr. Wells and I gave concerning the " equity" with Welders and other craft pay essentially was an attempt to get them to see that internal equity plus external competitiveness determine pay. The market-place competition for Craftsmen has heavily weighted what Duke pays them, and no one is saying the jobs themselves are equal in ' knowhow, problem-solving, or accouncability.
9 l
l l
Our success on the pay explanation was limited due to their sincere belief that their job cannot be equal to craft to anyone who really
( understands what they have to do and know. Almost all of the Inspectors t
were top Craftsmen before coming to QC/QA, and they are adamont about the l '
differences between the two jobs.
RELATED ISSUES We also responded to other concerns expressed rather uniformly by the Inspectors. Our Step 2 verbal response also included the following:
- 1) Supervision across the Department lines will meet to clarify the Inspector's role including not being able to provide instructions to craft.
Can say, "This doesn't pass inspection because of..."
But cannot say what the person should do, other than l
to check with his Foreman or Supervisor.
- 2) That management guidelines in effect in QA re: NCI's, menos, and regulations will be periodically made known to craft supervision to improve coassunications.
\
- 3) We realize the discomfort many Inspectors have expressed with their role and interface with craft, and we will provide additional attention to developing good employee relations awareness.
- 4) If you sincerely desire a transfer back ts a craft area, you will be given the highest cooperation possible between the Departments involved.
A report prepared at Mr. Owen's request is enclosed (TAB 3) as a follow-up to our meeting with him after Mr. Wells and I returned from
^
i Oconee and Catawba. At both locations Inspectors almost unanimously stated that they had been giving instructions to Craftsmen, "for years" in some cases, and were only recently told not to do it. .The Inspectors generally were quite pleased to hear commitments to improved employee relations and communications, some even saying that it was more important to them than the pay issue.
O
/- .bd l .
- ._ . _ _ ~ . - .. .
RECOMMENDATION O That individual letters be sent exp1 mining again how their pay
( was determined for this year, and that it is an accurate reflection of internal equity and external competition.
The timing of moving QC to QA and the lowering them helps give QA management a bad image with Projects Inspectors. They tend to blame weakness in QA management for the grade change, and it might help to re-state that this process was not controlled by QA.
4 4
O l
\
O a-0
~
l l
4 BRIEF WAGE HISTORY - QA OCONEE
( .y Source: Jim Brackett 1
QA group formed 5-1-74. )
- 1. Most of the original QC inspectors were transferred from construction to operations QA in the top wage scale at the time of transfer depending on where they were in the construction pay scale.
- 2. From 5-1-74 to 10-1-78 we had one Senior. QC Inspector (C G Freeman) and the rest were either QC Inspector A or B. For top QC Inspector A's the the only increases they saw was the general increase which was given in October of each year - given at the same time that Steam received their general increase. All general increases were announced by the Oconee Senior QA Engineer, i
- 3. On 10-1-78 the general increase (7%) set the Senio" QC Inspector at $8.595.
QC Inspector A rate was $7.825 to $8.39.
- 4. On 6-10-79 the 2.6% general increast toop top QC Inspector A to $8.61
- 5. On 10-1-79 Steam created a Master Maintenance Technician (1 in 5 mechanics) gb at a rate of pay of $8.95 prior to the. general 1:. crease. Mechanic A was l W changed to Maintenance Technician at a top rate of pay of $8.61 prior lt to the general incrase.
1
- 6. On 10-1-79 after the general incrase the following Steam rates were in effect: Master Maintenance Technician $9.58 Maintenance Technician - top was $9.21
- 7. On 10-1-79 the general increase moved Senior QC Inspector to $9.43 ,
and QC Inspector A to $9.21
- 8. QC Inspectors met with J R Wells, J 0 Barbour and R J Brackett to discuss.
the Steam revision in their pay scales. J R Wells stated that they would review this situation.
l 9. On 11-12-79 in response to (8) above, QC Inspector.A was changed to Maintenance Inspector and the rate of pay was changed top to $9.46 and most, but not all, of the Oconee Inspectors went to $9.46.
l 10. On 2-4-80 QA adopted a new non-exempt salary administration plan which grated QA with the Construction Department program. This program.
eatsblished an 8-4-80 review date for most of our inspectors. Maintenance Inspector created range $8.95 - $9.94 (adopted grade 11).
- 11. On 5-1-80, 2.8% general increase moved top Maintenance Inspector to $9.72.
A Pay range was $9.20 - $10.21.
V O . -
= emme m + 4 -
i O 12. On 7-7-80 (Construction general increase started) the non-exempt received an 8.'5% general increase. This moved top Maintenance Inspector at Oconee to $10.55. Range was $9.98 to $11.08.
- 13. On 8-4-80 most of the QC Inspectors were given increase to the top of grade 11 at $11.08. (Note - this was 8% higher than the Maintenance TechniciansinSteam).
- 14. On 10-1-80 QC Inspector received the Nuclear Premium
- 15. Prior to July 6,1981 general increase, the new non-exempt wage program was presented first to the Oconee QA Supervisors and then in two group meetings with the non-exempt employees. This presentation was made by W H Bradley and J 0 Barbour. Then after these meetings each supervisor told each individual how the "re-evaluation" effected them.
- 16. July 6,1981 - 5% general increase was given to all Maintenance Inspectors already at $11.08 except the two who were promoted to Senior QC Inspector (J L Proctor and l' C Land) and others who were not at $11.08 got the 10%
general increase.
O 1
e e
O
-r==
~ 1 l l 6 ,
s' l
I s
Octobeg.6, 1981 Gail Addis
Subject:
Quality Assurance Department Recourse Joe Myers, George Hardie, Cheryl Hyder, Tonuny Hartis and I met last Friday morning to review the efforts of Cheryl and Tommy with respect to analyzing the Quality Assurance Inspector po-sitions. A copy of Cheryl and Tonuny's comments is enclosed for your review. There are two items which seem to be the most sig-nificant, with respect to this particular situation.*First of .
',all, the work done by the Inspectors is different between lo-
/ cations, depending upon whether or not the work is done at an joperatingstation,orwhethertheworkisdoneatastation g which is under construction. Secondly., there is some disagree-
! ment, or misunderstanding if you will, between the workers and jthe supervisors and managers in the Quality Assurance Depart-
. ment, as well as in other areas of the Company as to what role "the Inspectors should play with respect to directing or correct-ing problems with the work done by craft employees.
With respect to the first item, employees doing inspection work in an operating nuclear station must have, and do have, mul-tiple certifications in different kinds of inspection. At the same time, Inspectors in stations which are under construction generally are only certified in a single area of inspection.
Thus, an evaluation of the positions in the two different areas would most likely result in different salary levels for the In-spectors in the different locations. Since management has com-mitted to the employees that a job evaluation system will be used to measure job content for these employees, we must address the question as to whether or not we want the jobs to be slotted in different wage classifications or perhaps whether or not we wish to apply some sort of a job enrichment process to the jobs in the construction phase of the bus'iness, to make them equiva-lent to the jobs in the operating phase of the business.
In the actual work done by the employees, the Siggest point of concern seems to be the fact that Inspectors bulieve they have the responsibility to advise craft employees on how to do the work when they detect a problem in that work. Further, the en-ployees believe that if they are required only to say'" pass" or "not pass" on certain pieces of work without further comunent, that it will harm the productivity levels.
l ~
~, ._, . . ._ _
t t Page two Wage and Salary, therefore, recomunends that the first question about the difference in work between locations be resolved, and secondly that job descriptions be written for these po-
. sitions, ironing out the discrepancies between supervision and employees about these phases of the work. Then the posi- ~
tions should be processed through the evaluation comunittee to ensure that we do have the positions properly classified with ,
respect to pay. Once the job content has been well-defined, '
the information should be conveyed to craft supervision in Steam and Construction.
We are available to discuss this as needed.
1
(.L U k)f. &
T. Michael Fain, Manager Wage and Salary Adininistration TMF:ghd x.c J. N. Myers G. O. Hardie O C. E. Hyder T. E. Hartis
(.. e I
4 4
.o -
, . ~ . . .. . . .
. ocne.s O
h .
l ~ Comparisons and Comments On
- QA Inspectors Position Analyses This costparison study was conducted in response to fifteen'(15) Step 2 Recourse Procedures filed with the Employee Relations Group of Corporate Personnel by QA Inspectors at the Oconee Nuclear Station.
The major issues involved in these procedures are as follows:
- 1. Disagreement on behalf of the Inspectors with the description of job duties and tasks prepared by General Office QA Ranagement in which.the decision f was made that " directing the work of craft personnel" was not part of this job.
l
- 2. Differences in the two (2) salary surveys conducted by the Construction Department and the Wage and Salary Group of Corporate Personnel which resulted first, in the Inspectors' pay being increased and later, in order to bring their rates in line with the Wage and Salary Survey, in their receiving half of the annual General Increase administered in 1981 and a partial increase in 1982 to make up the pay difference.
g The information contained in this sumary comparison was obtained through position analysis questionnaires completed by seventcen (17) QA Inspectors at Oconee Nuclear Station, personal interviews conducted at the station with nine (9) of the incumbents, interviews with QA Management; and through re-searching QA procedures and training course descriptions and requirements.
Specific duties as learned in interviews and as listed on questionnaires com-plated by incumbents are adequately covered in current analyses. However, there are several key areas or points which need to be emphasized, further explained and/or considered when evaluating these positions. These are as follows:
I. Incumbent Consnents:
l A. Procedures and acceptance criteria are vague and a working knowledge of equipment, systems, components and processes relative to each craft area inspected is necessary to effectively perfors their jobs.
- 1. Example of procedure interpretation:
A procedure states " Reassemble motor as necessary." The incumbent has to have a working knowledge of equipment and components to verify that work is properly completed. The inspector must also consider the effects of that piece of equipment on the total system.
O O .
F-
Page 2 O
( 2. Example of acceptance criteria interpretation:
Acceptance criteria on valves states, "Does the valve open and close and perform its function." The inspector must determine what will happen to that valve in the future, has it been prop-erly repaired, is it dependable, and what is its relationship '
to system operations. (Craft personnel, on the other hand, are only concerned with that one valve at that particular point in time.)
B. Inspectors are subjected to the same working conditions as craft personnel.
C. Inspectors have to have a broad knowledge in several areas as opposed to craft personnel having specific knowledge in one area. Example - Electrical inspector has to keep up with 16 crews each assigned one area of speciali-zation.
l D. Inspectors have more accountability due to the fact that they actually approve the work that is done; their work is subjected only to documen-tation review by QA Technical Support, supervisory review and occasional QA audits; and due to the fact that, in the event of a problem, the NRC inspector is primarily concerned with who inspected and approved the quality of the work rather than who actually performed the craft function.
E. Inspectors are expected to be a specialist in one area of inspection, as well as a generalir.t in one or more areas.
(
F. In performing radiography inspections at Oconee,. inspectors (1) perform )
inspection, (2) process film, and (3) read or interpret film. At a con-struction site, an inspector does not have to perfonn all three of these functions.
G. Inspectors must be able to read and interpret drawings.
H. In performing radio The radiographic source (equipment) graphy, safety is a primary concern.has the capability of 1
which can cause serious injury or death. The radiographer is held 1 accountable if there is an overexposure or violation of operation pro-cedures in the Radiation Safety Manual.
I. A lot of their job involves communicating to the craft not only whether '
work is acceptable or rejectable and why, but also instructing them in how to perform the work properly. It was also indicated that craft supervision expects this and seeks advice from the inspectors. The l inspectors feel this is efficient because it leads to good rapport with craft personnel and their supervision, expedites work, reduces dressing out time and exposure, and is more cost effective.
O o -
( .._ . . _ . _ . _ .. _ _ . . - - _ _ - -
2
.- Page 3 g
O . IIAnalysts Coments:
A. The current analyses indicate inspectors must know codes and regulations. -
It should be clear that incumbents must keep abreast of the changing
. codes, regulations and procedures.
B. Analyses list incumbents' contacts and point out that the:/ must deal -.
with negative reactions of craft personnel when informed that craft procedures are insufficient / inappropriate and when QA procedures have not been met. A great deal of tact is involved in these situations in order to avoid conflict and maintain rapport. Ir. this particular situation a parallel can be made with that of a supervisor correcting a subordinate. Human relations skills are also needed to coordinate
. inspections and aid in training lower level inspectors.
C. Acceptance criteria are purposely " gray" because they cannot be specifically detailed for every situation encountered. Therefore, the inspector exercises judgement in making interpretations as to what is required or involved in measuring defects agai . i the criteria. Also, as criticality of examination increase., so does the degree of interpretation. Interpretations are made based on classroom training, on-the-job training as a Level I inspector, and experience. Judgement and experience are used in interpreting pro-cedures and criteria and, in turn, making final decisions on accept-ability of work,
- t. D. Thei.evelIinspectorisexpectedtoonlyperformtheactualinspection function and record data. Level II is expected to interpret and deter-mine validity of test results.
E. Making the final decision on quality in the field and acting as the first line of defense in the event of a problem, creates pressure for this position. The incumbent must thoroughly and accurately examine all pertinent documentation as well as equipment, materials, etc.
related to a specific inspection in order to justify decisions.
III. Analysts Recomendations:
A. Analyses need to be rewritten and evaluated. Written in normal position analysis format, the analyses wouT(emphasize some of the additional coments and contain accountabilities on which incumbents and QA manage-ment need to agree.
1 0 81
--Cheryl Hyder Tomy Hartis W
mM
,? ((_,.
. '.Ji 1 ].. . . .c [. . . .
^
TO: Jim Wells DATE: October 7, 1981 Bill Bradley FROM: Gail Addis , ,
RE: QA Recourse Procedures Please review the attached reconsnendations from our Wage and Salary l I
specialists.
I support the reconenendation on clearly identifying job duties and reconciling the differences between QA management and Inspectors. My current thinking is that an evaluation of a new analysis would be in order due to our finding that Inspectors' jobs per-se have not been evaluated in the Evaluation Committee system.
The pay grade for Inspectors, if explained as measured against the Company's evaluation charts, might relieve some of the questions about
" political pressure from Steam" or Construction with regard to top management's conmitment to internal equity.
\.
There are several factors needing attention in the overall response to these concerns, and I suggest we discuss them as soon as it is convenient for you.
Gail Addis BGA/cc Attachment ec: Joe Major ,
Mike Fain
(
Clu -
, N
! (
/ .
e ,.* 6
December 3, 1981 s
W. H. Owen RE: Employee Concerns at Catawba and Oconee Reported During the Review of their Recourse Procedures Regarding Pay Grades As you requested, this is a record of connents made to me by QA Inspectors at Catawba and Oconee concerning work quality and relationships with Construction and Steam. Mr. Wells said that he also heard the same
- general concerns when he met with the Inspectors.
Burr 11/24/81 "We've had craft supervision come in here who can't (Catawba) read blueprints. Paperwork problems are the major
- problems."
- "I've had to face feeling like I would be fired in
.i \ .. '
order to see the work was done right. I caught a bad weld, and wrote an NCI, due to lack of fusion.
Technical Support said "no"-but ANI and NRC saw it and agreed, and then I heard Davidson and Wells were going to investigate who talked to NRC, and I didn't even talk to NRC."
crisp 11/24/81 "For years we've been giving instructions. All levels (Catawbs) of supervision have asked us what to do. Drawings and paperwork are a real problear-consultation before the work."
9/1/81 " Construction asks QA to teach and direct work; to point out errors and explain what's right."
Eubanks 11/24/81 "After 4 or 5 years giving instructions about revisions, it'll be difficult."
(Catawba)
"QA management provides very little support. We've been told to OK things that were marginal, over-ruling judgment of what is really first class."
l "Some Foramen are very abusive to Inspectors."
Og
WHO 12/3/81 Page 2 V Gault 11/24/81 " Supervisors (craft) don't know what to do...they ask (Catawba), for direction."
"I was never told not to instruct craft until recently."
Irby 11/24/81 "We have to tell (craft supervision) why some paperwork (Catawba) doesn't pass."
"There's a lack of management support; they're breaking codes because they don't want to make waves."
"The project is going downhill. Construction controls QA and influences decisions. Construction can't stand us going by the book."
"More important than the pay is QA management is weak, gives in to Construction passing sloppy work."
11/9/81 "One Welding Foreman told me their biggest complaint was Welding Inspectors' pay-it's political. One foreman said 'Now we got you SOB's back whe a we want you.'"
" Construction doesn't like the way we stick to pro-( cedures."
Kirkland 11/24/81 "There's a lack of support, criticism of over-inspecting.
(Catawba) Last week I had a valid NCI-5 procedures violated.
I tagged the work and slid the paper into my box (on the way out). The work was wrong. My Foreman has l been instructed that if there's a way out he gives I
in. Construction raised cane, and I was criticized. '
"Last night I wrote an NCI and put it in my locker.
Supervision jumped all over me for the paperwork. I said I had a valid NCI and this wasn't going in the garbage." ,
"The Y=ad=== functions as a supervisor on the second shift. They said they'd support, but on the NCI last week they didn't support."
" General Foremen and Superintendents were told not to l say anything to us when our pay was cut, but they do, and our supervision doesn't back us."
"We work off menos-Supervisor says we've got to."
\
. - , , - , , , , . - - - .a - - - . , , - - - - -,+,--,-yw, ,,.-c. 3 - . , , , - -,-- . - -- ,
i WHO 12/3/81 Page 3 Oc Karriker 11/9/81 "We write NCI's and craft goes over our heads and L (Catawba) gets them overruled. We're not supported and given N; - no reasons."
" Resolutions are being written by unqualified people."
" Craft supervision try to pull things over on us.
They're so production minded; they've forgotten quality."
Henson 11/23/81 " Foremen come daily and ask us to tell them what to do.
(Catawba) Some Superintendents are bad."
11/9/81 "Still feel Construction rules our jobs (referring to schedule for Canteen use); there's a lack of manage-ment backing."
Standridae 11/23/81 "They won't let us take time to keep up our certifi-(Catawba) cations. I've lost RT and PT since coming from Cherokee."
"A lot of times we direct craft. Welding Foremen
, O- don't know the guidelines. Welders don't know the procedures; their training doesn't work." -
"This job has poor supervision. They let poor work, violations, pass just to avoid making waves. They ask us to sign off stuff that isn't right."
Wright 11/23/81 "I feel I need to know how to weld and I'm going to (Catawba) school at night to learn. I feel I owe it to the Company."
"That's going to be hard (not giving instructions),
so many Welders are just out of school. They can't turn to supervision vFen they're 40 feet in the air."
McDowell 11/23/81 "We're not responsible for giving instructions.
(Catawba) Yesterday one of the Foremen asked us to check for him... craft supervision doesn't know the procedures."
Jackson 11/23/81 " Attitude between craft is very Lad. 'This new deal (Catawba) about us not directing work-it's pathetic how much Foremen come to us."
O' l
o l
I l
1 l
WHO 12/3/81 Page 4 Jackson (Cont.) "If Inspectors do their job by the book, Construction appeals to Technical Support and w arrules our decisions."
Rockholt 11/9/81 "We get threats, harassment. When we were under (Catawba) Construction, it was no problem. This is QA buckling under to Construction. They complained about our pay-what they want they get-even in violation of procedures."
"We work from manos craft has never seen. We were told not to write se many NCI's, than told to write more j
in certain areas. I don't want anything second rate.
It tears me sut of frame to be told to do wrong."
Jones 11/23/81 "We instructed (craft) for so long. This is wrong, we're (Oconee) a grade above craft in genert.;.."
"The new philosophy on NCI's is to resolve them in the field if possible."
"I still feel it's politics--QA management doesn't stand up for us. Lots of craft Foremen complained O
b openly about our pay and it was lowered."
Owens 9/9/81 " Supervisors say 'ask Inspectors.' Engineers say ' check (Oconee) with Inspectors.' (We've) used Inspectors to super-vise and direct. That's the way it went, tren in Construction, even though told not to."
"We heard craf t supervision objected to our pay."
Sheriff 11/23/81 "When I dress out and go in and reject a weld and then (Oconee) can't tell him what to do, then I have to dress out again and go back in-and he has to find the Foreman to tell him what to do."
"They just don't what they're doing (in SSD and Sus)."
Shelby 11/23/81 " Instruction has been going on for years. We'll just (0conee) have to play the game differently."
lO v 4
_--_,_-r ,-. .- , . - - . - , . - , , - - - , , . , , , , , . . . , - , , _ - , , .., . , . - , . , .
WHO 12/3/81 Page 5 Mitchell 11/23/81 "This place is a mess during outages and the new (Oconee). ., approach to referring craft back to supervision will cause a slowdown."
9/1/81 "The accept or reject philosophy is impractical during outages, with exposure and going into many areas."
" Craft supervision don't know QA regulations, and we have to direct craft work."
]
Gail Addis Director, Euployee Relations BGA/cc cc: R. L. Dick l J. R. Wells T. F. McCracken O
u l
l O..
, , --,v~ -- y- - - , , -g,.,- ,, ,- - - , >
~
.......--..-.,,..;___-,ew--
. ..w. , n
,< h 0llffl/
O **
4 , ,7 ,,,
M*y 4@ MA Nm k f5 W4, &&" WA
& asessa g dor. % h. A w 9 s w - m s.a A"f'i yuy & f hd Ay"4 1
& A sas spa
- nwm m &Qadya~cajan l
J.smJd AL 4 % Ay (~~q q s s & 4+4) r a-y 4 Ameap p n sys~ & ~
~
,*p 2 9 9 0 Acah, & 6 M y dofn*4 JadA n/~ msak.A7 wJaamaxsw&
& .suuaas M ser i ss-o jfasstAy. e#As Adp/j sii y A s> m a .2 d m u.
- Ot Y d , ""M& My nP y Ja /ss ?-A m e t
&ubw wn Q. ara gr
& ?
v9$ s4 A (df 4fl+r
.Q S&Smmmf a p .--
isp a e x p
.: ... & 99 0 k % sn. s n p 4 9 4 4. pral+ s e, l a sp, ~ u we jk & % 4em ysaw a > a a saw y a d a-;u
, d W 8 .ade & W W { S Y Q 6ence 12 ] . Mfy -spupu daa now ow ss- g as 9 64 & ?
J A d /22u A p u w d % .
$uauo k u
- e y segy 4uddk4~&. 4 7 0 deaw k 01 da Wa a S A da s s a s m
^ ^
L-.-..-..;_;L:.....-. ___- __
1
- . .c YY ff f RN""f war s naso a m g a- w 6 &A
& dfA & MJ Ub A p uilu & m sy h t & .
d wrx/d y & y w 5y&&
O E $ "*- _
f $ &
d WGdVm-ko l
l I
l u
O -
. .-. . - . = _ - _ . .- .~ - _ .. . . .-= - - _ - - -_ ._-
kd v/"/h O I August 21,'d.981 Manager Employee Relations A meeting was held on July 1, 1981 between Mr. J.R. Wells, Corporate QA
{ Manager and the QA inspectors at Oconee Nuclear Station. The topic of discussion was the drastic change in pay grade of QA Inspectors. After the meeting, I felt the answers were unsatisfactory and vague.
I would like to know why (according to the Hayes Study) I can in one year be deserving of a higher pay scale, and the next year be placed back into a lower pay scale. My work load and responsibilities have not decreased i but have increased significantly. The disparity in wages has served to -
decrease the respect I, as an inspector, need from Craft Personnel'to adequately perform my job.
I would like to pursue the Employee Recourse Procedure to clarify and rectify the situation which now exists. My Concerns have Duke Power Company's and QA's best interest at heart.
The intention of this pursuit is not to cause misunderstanding within the QA Department but to reinstill the pride which once existed there.
I would greatly appreciate your attention in this matter.
Sincerely, 1
e O
v _
I
?
_____________m ____._ _ ___ ____ . __ _ ._ _ _ _. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . .
5
.q October 28, 1981 Mr Tom McCracken Corporate QA Personnel Director
Subject:
Non-Exempt Wage Program
Dear Mr McCracken,
in response to the letter I received on October 26, 1981 and in keeping with Step 2 of the Employee Recourse Program, I feel that as a responsible member i
of the Quality Assurance Program at Catawba Nuclear Plant, this letter is necessary and vital to myself and other members of the program.
I do not consider the position analysis by which we are now working to be accurate. Furthermore, I do not understand how the analysis can be considered accurate when no member of the Evaluation Committee came to our project and made an indepth, as well as in the field, study of our duties from day to day.
t Also, I do not feel that the current Wage Program is equal internally. No other group of the Quality Assurance Department has the responsibility or must interface with more people, frcm the utility department to the Technical '
Support group, as we, the Quality Assurance Inspectors of Catawba Nuclear Plant.
Sincerely, le a d.- - -
/
Desn Bentley quality Assurance inspector (Welding)
Catawba Nuclear Power Plant i
at I
l v -
Y o
.4..
October 27, 1981 Mr Tom McCracken
Subject:
Employee Recourse Step 2
Dear Mr McCracken:
This letter is to inform you that I would like to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure as I cannot accept Mr. Wells' letter to me dated i
October 24, 1981, in which Mr. Wells stated that the position analysis by which I am working is considered an accurate description of my present duties.
The position analysis committee could not have done an in-depth study of my duties as a welding Inspector and come up with Justification to reduce my pay scale or wage grade.
This move on the Company's part not only can but will seriously affect the O
g quality of the work done here at Catawba because the incentive to be an inspector has been taken away and top qualified men are not going to seek a job which l
~
pays less money. In a short time many craft senior men will be making a higher hourly wage than an inspector and will have no where near the responsibility or pressure on them.
l l sincerely hcpe you will give this matter your deepest consideration.
Respectfully, i M l
w 9
O o .
.. . . . . . ...- . . . . . . . . - . .~ , . . - ... ..- _... ..
Q) 4llff!
M O
August 21,N.1981
- Manager Employee Relations ,
A meeting was held on July 1, 1981 between Mr. J.R. Wells, Corporate QA ,
Manager and the QA Inspectors at Oconee Nuclear Station. The topic of discussion was the drastic change in pay grade of QA Inspectors. After the meeting, I felt the answers were unsatisfactory and vague.
I would like to know why (according to the Hayes Study) I can in one year be deserving of a higher pay scale, and the next year be placed back into a lower pay scale. My work load and responsibilities have not decreased
- but have increased significantly. The disparity in wages has served to decrease the respect I, as an inspector, need from Craft Personnel to adequately perform my job.
I would like to pursue the Employee Recourse Procedure to clarify and rectify the situation which now exists. My Concerns have Duke Power Company's and QA's best interest at heart.
The intention of this pursuit is not to cause misunderstanding within g
the QA Department but to reinstill the pride which once existed there.
I would greatly appreciate your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
[ [.
i w
9
)
( s
(
e t
prp g .y--wr- --ir--$yw -+w w ,g
-s-+.-w i rwg - e e s-y y
i 2f 00 Y N/s October 27, 1981 s
1 Mr Tom McCracken
Subject:
Employes Recourse Step 2-
Dear Mr McCracken:
This letter is to inform you that I would like to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure as I cannot accept Mr. Wells' letter to me dated October 24, 1981, in which Mr. Wells stated that the position analysis by which I am working is considered an accurate description of my present duties.
The position analysis committee could not have done an in-depth study of my duties as a welding inspector and come up with justification to reduce my pay scale or wage grade.
This move on the Company's part not only can but will seriously affect the
[*. . quality of the work done here at Catawba because the incentive.to be an inspector
\
has been taken away and top qualified men are no't going to seek a job which pays less money. In a short time many craft senior men will be making a higher hourly wage than an inspector and will have no where near the responsibility or pressure on them.
I sincerely hope you will give this matter your deepest consideration.
.o Respectfully,
, L
- J
.'.'..-;.:.,[,-
- .\\ h_- .,
~ . . , . .
. q;.;. - -
"- / -
.. .. , :r- ._ . .. .
- .,l. 3
.. . l-
. . ..,. . , - . : .? - - . . . :. . . . ..
,_ ' ~
,' OctobeA~27,1981- (, ,
,- .. .1 s .-
.-w Mr Tom McCracken' .
Subj ect: Employes Recourse Step 2
Dear Mr McCracken:
This letter is to inform you that I would Ilke to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure as I cannot accept Mr. Wells' letter to me dated October 24, 1981, in which Mr. Wells stated that the position analysis by which I am working is considered an accurata description of my present duties.
The position analysis committee could not have done an in-depth study of my duties as a welding inspector and come up with Justification to reduce my pay scale or wage grade.
This move on the Corapany's part not only can but will seriously affect the quality of the work done here at Catawba because the incentive to be an inspector has been taken away and top qualified men are not going to seek a job which
(- pays less money. In a short time many craft senior men will be making a higher hourly wage than an inspector and will have ng where near the responsibil.Ity or pressure on them.
I sincerely hope you will give this matter your deepest consideration.
Respectfutiy, f
l I
\
\
\
r==
l l
_ . ~ ,
, , . - - _ . , , , . _ _ .,.w , . . y -- . . _ . _ , , . . , . , , _ . . . _____ _ ._.__________i
b.'d /e/21 h
O !
l October.2p,.1981 Mr. Tom McCracken This letter is to express my desire to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure. Mr. J. R. Wells' letter of October 24, 1981 does not answer my concerns nor give a better understanding of the QA Department's Non-Exempt Wage Program.
In short, the Evaluation Committee has failed to meet objectives in every re-spect. The position analysis to which wage decisions were made does not re- i flect an accurate description of the welding Inspectors duties and responsibil-ities. Internal anutty,,has not been met, therefore reducing external competi-tiveness and the ability to attract and retain highly competent employees.
My present concerns have Duke Power Company and the Quality Assurance Depart-ment at heart. The intention of this endeavor is to maintain high levels of efficieny and-responsibilities of Quality Assurance Welding inspectors and create a more pleasant and meaningful work environment.
I sincerely hope you will give this matter your deepest consideration.
\. Respectfu!)y, AssoJ.
R chard W. Irby i
l I
i b
U O .-
_ , _ . -. . - . . . _ , _ ~ . _ . . , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ , . _ , . . .
W lf2f CC) #
y.
Ot.tober 27, 1981 Mr Tom McCracken
Subject:
Employes Recourse Step 2
Dear Mr McCracken:
This letter is to inform you that I would like to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure as I cannot accept Mr. Wells' letter to me dated October 24, 1981, in which Mr. Wells stated that the position analysis by which I am working is considered an accurate description of my present duties.
The position analysis committee could r.at have done an in-depth study of my duties as a welding Inspector and come, up with justification to reduce my pay scale or wage grade.
This move on the Company's part not only can but will seriously affect the IO quality of the work done here at Catawba because the incentive to be an Inspector has been taken away and top qualified men are not going to seek a job which pays less money. In a short time many craft senior men will be making a higher t'
hourly wage than an inspector and will have no where naar the responsibility or pressure on them.
I sincerely hope you will give this matter your deepest consideration.
Respec, ully,
[
e N b -
F.
n d. fsl2/
Q . . ;. a .j .
f s . . 'c. .
.a : -
.. 7. . .. .
'. " .: ~.
,,.. . . . ,... .. .... - .:? .
..,-:- . . , .~ :., . . . .. . ,
~
October 27, 1981 0 .
? .
' ~~
~ ~
~~ ~
Mr Tom McCracken' -
Y
Subject:
Employee Racourse Step 2
Dear Mr McCracken:
P f This letter is to inform you that I would like to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure as I cannot accept Mr. Wells' letter to me dated October 24, 1981, in which Mr. Wells stated that the position analysis by
- which I am working is considered an accurate description of my present duties.
- The position analysis committee could not have done an in-depth study of my duties as a welding inspector and come up with justification to reduce my pay scale or wage grade.
E
- This move on the Company's part not only can but will seriously affect the quality of the work done here at Catawba because the incentive to be an inspector has been taken away and top qualified men are not going to seek a job which pays less money. In a short time many craft senior men will be making a higher hourly wage than an inspector and will have no where near the responsibil.ity or pressure on them.
I sincerely hope you will give this matter your deepest consideration.
Respec fully, I
?
l E
T El hb -
~
m w
~~
=
ll
~
~
AVek/n O
August 21,31981
- Manager Employee Relations A meeting was held on July 1, 1981 between Mr. J.R. Wells, Corporate QA ,
Manager and the QA Inspectors at Oconee Nuclear Station. The topic of discussion was the drastic change in pay grade of QA Inspectors. After the meeting. I felt the answers were unsatisfactory and vague.
I would like to know why (according to the Hayes Study) I can in one year be deserving of a higher pay scale, and the next year be placed back into a lower pay scale. My work load and responsibilities have not decreased but have increased significantly. The disparity in wages has served to decrease the respect I, as an inspector, need from Craft Personnel to adequately perform my job.
I would like to pursue the Employee Recourse Procedure to clarify and rectify the situation which now exists. My Concerns have Duke Power Company's and QA's best interest at heart.
The intention of this pursuit is not to cause misunderstanding within the QA Department but to reinstill the pride which once existed there.
(
I would greatly appreciate your attention in this natter.
Sincerely, s
e g
1 l
1 (O
< U
! b '
1 .
1
DUKr POWER Go>tPAxy Etzernac CzxTrn. Box 33189. Gamor-z. N.C. 28242 JAMES A WEMS TELEPMONE vs awauve masweamcs saamasse f7 048 37 3 4 02 2
's; . .
October 24, 1981 Mr.M
Subject:
Employee Recourse
Deargum:
This is in response to your letter of recourse dated September 25, 1981 concerning the Non-Exempt Wage Program and your present pay scale.
The Non-Exempt Wage Program, implemented by the QA Department on July 6,1981, was thoroughly studied and evaluated by an Ev'aluation Committee made up of QA and Corp, rate Personnel. The program was also approved by the Salary Committee prior to implementation. In evaluating the individual positions, the Committee considered internal equity as well as external competiveness to assure that we could attract and retain highly competent employees.
The primary objective of the Non-Exempt Wage Program is to provide equitable and 9
s~
competitive wages to all employees rather than lessen wages. The Wage Program scale represents those wages that the enmpany can reasonably pay for any given job based on the findings of the Committee's evaluation. Any increase in your work load beyond a normal 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> schedule should be reflected as overtime payments.
The position analysis by which you are working is considered an accurate description of your present duties and responsibilities and was evaluated as such by the Evaluation Committee. However, the position analysis, as an essential part of the Wage Program, is periodically reviewed against other comparable positions. For example, we are currently re examining the Maintenance Inspector position. If this process indicates any review of comparable positions it will be initiated.
I sincerely hope this-reply to your recourse letter will answer your concerns and
. . give you a better understanding of the QA Department's Non-Exempt Wage Program.
.. . m .c . . .- -- --
- ... _ Sincerelyg.. .-
s --
. g.- g2 - ;.g .. . . -
- .;z.cz
.;y.: .~ .; '.-
% .a . - .. _. . m s ... . -
,i.i Q -[. . R. Wel.1 h '. #f N ,'-l..... .
w n-..__* ':. .. . .s2 ?E-?;i ..:.- W.lt.cs.
=
.::- ..,, JRWpWt. ..j7..~w .. :.. u .. ,.
. .:7.v. 3 . .
..u . -
.. ~. .. n-- .. < . . . :. - .-
- s. . .
- e. .
.:: '-?Y E;-:N$m.;s.id :-l- m.5b;;Nb \ - x. -rx-. . :.
%% .*,.,=..s.===4.*:~.s. * ,. . 3%%.. . = . -
3 g. -
f.'.,. . ..* *
. w u;. - .,'
'N .
. -. .ew.-- N . f.-h...*,.l?
. f . ,R f. ? - .' ;f F
- . v.~r-w. .:v. ,- . . -. - -
% 5 r.~: ..i n y=;.n.*. N..:."$..=..3:
j t- .. e n-W '!4- i ' .%.'4" ,7:: a ';- +' . % . - " . ..
'. ,~
.? . .; . : n f < . . " .
~
0 Yis lc. b m o 5 s. f O d i d Q. _ w at 549 I b%/
August 10, 1981 h
Subj ect: Employee Recourse This is in response to your letter of recourse dated July 17, 1981 concerning the Non-Exempt Vage Program and pay scale.
The Non-Exempt Vage Program implemented by the QA Department on July 6,1981 was thoroughly studied and evaluated by an Evaluation Committee made up of QA and Corporate Personnel. The program was also approved by the Salary Cc=:ittee prior to implementation. In evaluating the individual positions the Comsittee considered internal equity as well as external competiveness to, assure that we could attract and retain highly competent employees.
The primary objective of the Non-Exempt Wage Program is to provide equitable and competitive wages to all employees rather than lessen wages. The Wage Program represents those wages that the company can reasonably pay for any
,g given job based on the findings of the Committee's evaluation.
( The position analysis by which you are working was written based on your present responsibilities and duties and evaluated as such by the Evaluation Cem:ittee. I might also add that respect in any position is earned by the manner in which the job is carried out rather than the amount of wages paid.
I sincerely hope this reply to your recourse letter will answer your concerns and give you a better understanding of the QA Department's Non-Exempt Wage Program.
Sincerely
[ ,
/ R Vells
/
/
4
'v -
y I
L
% _. i FOnu o9458 i EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOR:O DUKE POWER COMPANY G) PART 2 CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY .
> 8 LINES PER INCH EMPLOYEE NAME COMPANY NUMBER SOCIAL SECURITY NO. DATE h BREWER, CL 652-01-0021 248-68-6220 07-??-31 spectivg PAYROLL LOCATION OCCUP ATION RATE OF % REASON RES
- y. g DATI NO. NAME CODE TIT LE PAY ERl llNC.CODE ne 75CE72 'N ' -
1150 C9NS'ELECN l f 33:
% 10317 % 21CGNST MCGUIRE 1153 C3NS ELECN bh77 H !
[h4 E81TTdG21.CERS73C.G1LIEREFIf,Hd CGRS"ECECN ' +
- ~
't.'dfC5)H
. 7b 11 53' h'M 22237L!b2dCONST MCGUIRE 2425MECHL INSPTR NCS79!ilm H l 21 83:
2425 MECHL INSPTP. 725C H N3 11 831 g- 27127bb?dCGNSTMCGUIRE 11157bh2dCONSTMCGUIRE b425 4ECHL INSPTR 7 4*C H 3E 23 B 3:-
f' 33:
~
17117M621'CPNST MCGUIRF h425 3ECHL INSPTR 2.b 55 H 75 11 r 3320?E b21CDNST MCGUIRE 2425 KECHL INSPTR Eb55 H ! 30 82' 27107Eb2dC9NST MCGUIRE 2425 KECHL INSPTR E'b?C H 7! '1 B2:
h7
! 2425 KECHL INSPTR SkyC H Eb I" 8 2 ~.
26107k21CGNSTMCGJIRE
. 37097"b2dCGNSTMCGUIRE 2425 HECHL INSPTR f.bb0 H 7'D 3 f. E2~
5 382C79b5E9CONEE OA 4185 0C INSPTR A #N10 H 9b 17 33.
'h $10017h52 9CGNEE QA 4185 0C INSPTP. A 9 210 H 7b 28 S 3' 9C9 NEE QA 2345 1AINT INSPTR - Q A 9'310 H I El 53.
l l11127 *h 52 k1218Cb52$CONEEOA 2345 9AINT INSPTR - 3A 9hb0 H 27 1r 33 501SdoSEbCONEE CA 2345 3AINT INSPTR - CA f 9'7?OlH 2h 37 33 2707E-b5EbC09EEQA 2345 1AINT INSPTR - 3 A bl55: H BE 3E 23
, 7BC4EEb5EECENEE OA 2345MAINT INSPTR - OA 11 390 H SC E3 83 x 11103CNIEhCONEE OA 9193 0A MAINT INSPECTDo. 110B0 H l El 'S ?
.2il2elh5EhC9 NEE OA 91920A MAINT INSPECTGR lib?O l H ! F" 3?
w J2CbBib5EhCGNEE OA 9191hC INSPECTER II 3;123 H ! El B3 a i i '
- 4 37?bB16520C9 NEE OA 9191 1AINT INSPTR A 11b30 H S'O 38 33 73 l j
5 l 6
f d '
I t
' w
- ~ ' ]W
- e _
m1I%
~
{ %
4 y'
t .y o, c
Mh 4
, 3 dw,,, . a mM BRq!bdWik;nad:}s
- i. s. ,
,,,. . ,, .,L . , . - - '. . _ :.s.; ..
...r.. . . . . . .. . . , . . . ;: ,8 ,
. .;;.. c(' c ..; f..' (f. g.4 .q ,-
EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOR :
,,r:
FORM oh418 w - .j. ;i'/.N.', i r:. .
'.t'.; ..,,SVr..' +7;7...
l OUKE POWER COMPANY'#
. a uNes n.n sucic .v vi'.r.fq.o.%k'?.0. h,s, mf.PART 1h 7 '$ t y ?;:.1: 2.CHRON3 air W. LOGICAL W . s .W;;
HISTORY u He.**E.~.- ~ . ;Mi 2 r.. . 'i .
EMPLOYEE NAME Y . J- COMPANY NUMBER SOCI AL SECURITY NO. i w- DATE
- . R L E YJ ',Ed. . .... - .C y.gJ f> 1 -c q.>'~.L 4 ;. .- 4 - ..fse..g s.p, ". . v :. . :n -s ..) < . . . . .
- -.....y *
-;253-84-0479-
~
..M: .b5b-08-00211 Ni 07 23-8L
.vg , PAY ROLt. LOCATION F. ,e- I )75 eC.:va OCCUPATION - -
% REASON R ESP.
- NO. -
t* N AME : . r'..t.&. -- CODE ..'l so - + . TITLE s - . +. - l R ATE PAY OF.g.. *, ' PER INC. CODE ' NO.
t .>. ~- s.*. w.- .m v..*~, ,-x <, . r- 7 . e...
~
.! ~ m!wF. n <3850' P A IN TER.V.p -o n . s .ey. .Pm W ', w V .J;^~
1 010'471 * . g .u;r v ya d.o oy:?, W.s. J 6: "; . 'N ' N
\ . . . ., ...........;. n., :. , . , . .
~: '
103174590K E9W EE C ON STR.9M,.'.+ . . ,3850 2 A IN TE R. diWM% ,...-. .:. . . .y.g. . .n-.C: . ,, n9..,;;C Sh.,bc .H '833b c, l 4 .I
....- .,.,.s..,. < ~. i . . . . . . . , . . .. . . . . . . . . , , . . . , . . . , . . . ,
081175b21CONST MCGUIRE','7.Y'O 3550 PAIN TER:SF(WJW W:. -
7,5 l'1 833b
? .'. l diD .H v <
.. . . . .., .. . .c.,.,. ,n: , .."z.ys... , ~ < s ..
05037bb1SKEBWEE CONSTR ..,-. ~ ~ 3853 P A I N TE RM.T ..
. 'c bL90 H' I 30 -8333 i
. 07127bb1S KE0 WEE CONSTR- -
355D PAINTER N. J.' . ~b670 H 76 11 8333 i .. ., . .
g 330777 b'2?CHER8KEE CBNSTR- .355D PAINTER. - .*- - b670 H i 30 8339
, e-. . , -.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
071177627 CHEROKEE .CONSTR7EG 3850 PAINTER 1EWiCTs'H ?U7L70 H 7h 11 8339
- . . + .-.
330678b2? CHEROKEE CONSTR .W. . ' ' . , 2425'KECHL'IESPTRs . -7 n a .H 4k] . 18 8339
. . ... . . . , . . .... .j. ..... .. . . . s. i . 4 032078627 CHEROKEE CONSTR .4.: 2425 4ECHL 'INSPTR ;.' ';', ,,
'7tib u H' 1 30 8250
.. . .. . . . 's.'
071078627'CHERBKEE CBNSTR 24 25 1ECHC.INSPTRP -
7180 H 7,0 11 825C 04307962? CHERUK'E'E'CONSTRd 5425 M CHC IN5P'T'Rh " 8 310 H 4h 23 8250 hb1079527CH5R9K5E'CBNSTR 2425'1ECNL INSPTR 8530 H 2h 37 8250 370979b27CHER9KEE CONSTR 3425 4ECHL INSPTR 9L30 H 7b 38 8250 320480b2?CHER9KEE CONSTR iD23 5R CIVIL INSPTR 9130 H 21 8250
. 4 i
C627 CHEROKEE CONSTR iD23 SR CIVIL.INSPTR 9350 H 2!? 37 8250
[ 0627 CHEROKEE-CBNSTRt'-. 1023 SR CIVIL INSPTR" ;
10L50 H Bh 38 8250 380480627'C HER GE EE ' CON'STR t,. 9023 M CIVIL INSPTR- 10520 H- 3}3 23 8250
! 02028165bCHEROKE A"O A D"W i023 SR"EI ibINSETR 7' 10520 H- l 09 8305
.. .. w.. . . . . . ,
320281h 27' CHEROKEE'CBNST8 % iO23 5R ' CIVIL . INSPTR ' 11 J50 H SB 23 8250
.i ... . .. . .. . ,. g 9024 CIVIL INSPTR At ' ..'
070b8 % 5bCHER9KEE' QA' ,
'11 350 H- i 21 8305 370b8 %5bCHEROKEE QAh -
'7 iD24 CIVIL"INSPTR AI '$-
~
' ' 1'1 63 0 H: Sh "d 8 '8305
- b. ; ..
3 < .
9 . ',.rr .- 2-
.( :.i
-l ji ;.
i
- .r.
. .,. % . . .'.p r : q .
- -
- , l, : , ..
1 1
, . +-
g., n. v . :.. . ;; ,.:. . , .. . . . , . -
- n. . ; .v
, s 1 ,>
. .o
- ) %i d,,'(,y ,3 . . it% $ .f. , . , . ir. , ;' , . . q i- ,
l
- n. . l ) ' . ', . - \
.%. ,; -} ' &?['.t((NQ,[iki.:}f;. y
,? ', c , i I *' -
.e. ; . . :. .s. :p,w=- , :
- 4. .. c. :.:.n. 3 r. .- 1 .:. , . : . : Y.
.,1.v. .~1
-y;w.;
,. .. .v:.. : v.. u. .
I o : y. .e . . , =.95_ :. - 9 y 1. .p;3 ; . y ,:. ,c ,. ;
. .. ~ :
L _. ..~ __
m m . -
- 1 1
1
- .- - - - , . ..n .n _
my- y -
~
$ ___s
.F _..
l t, T
m,
_ _ w FOnu osos DUKE POWE R COMPANY h EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECORh PART 2 CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
l EMPLOYEE N AME 652-01-0033 250-84-2112 07-23-81
! 9NENS. B F OCCUPA ON RATE OF %
2 lmgjyg PAYROLL LOCATION PER g gC. O N 270174 1153C9NS ELECN -
li '~'
~
~
115] CONS ELECN _ . .dB75 'S HI lEi5174b21 CGNST MCGUIRE*
2425MECHL INSPTR .
- 350 H 2'5 18 B32
!]50575b21CENST MCGUIRE bl470 H NS 11 831 JG1175621CONST MCGUIRE 242SMECHL INSPTR 2425MECHL INSPTR b760 H k5 23 833
!?b2876621CONST MCGUIRE 2425 MECHL INSPTR Y25Di H *E 11 83I h71276621 CENST MCGUIRE 2425MECHL INSPTR 7490 H E3 23 831 222777621CONST MCGUIRE 2425MECHL INSPTR SD 55 H NS 11 S31
.71177b21CONST MCGUIRE 2425MECHL INSPTR 8l255 H I 3C 821 32C7&b2LCONST MCGUIRE 2425 MECHL INSPTR 8b20 H 7C 11 822 l '
'77107 % 21CENST HCGUIRE 28425 MECHL INSPTR 8l34G H d6 37 623
'?b1C7Nb21CONSTMCGUIRE 9!4 bO'H Y," 38 823
!]70979b2hCBNSTMCGUIRE 2425MECHL INSPTR 9093lSRELECINSPTR EbD H l 21 82:
[220tledb21CONST MCGUIRE 9095lSR ELEC INSPTR 9ht(O H N1 23 82:
!221850621CONST MCGUIRE 9095 SR ELEC INSPTR 1C{210 H 2h ?? 82:
!25318062dCONSTMCGUIRE 909B SR ELEC INSPTR Id25 H E!S 3E S2:
) )!3707Bdb21CONST MCGUIRE 9193hA MAINT INSPECTOR 11050 H ! 22 83:
h2105Bdb520CONEEQA 9193 0A MAINT INSPECTOR 11]!D H l 09 8 3~
!2202 Bib 529C9 NEE QA 9191,0C ItiSPECTOR II 11350 H I 21 83' h73631bS!kCONEE QA 9191MAINT INSPTR A 11!63C H IC 35 83:
27068dbSd9CONEE QA l
l l
l i i ai !
Ri m s m
~ ~
mura
)-:..'
~
. . k. .'. > :... . ..
,. aC. ."t,' 2,. ..;..">. : %, .u: s,.*g,tk.i.11.~%.::
t, .... .. ..,..:..,.. & %. ,.,~.w.. ' :s....w,,; . e .< .. . ..
. n Q,
- $,,, ~.,,1..,(
.v ..f .:.
EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOR gF ORM 0518',
gDUKE POWER N COMPANYi'j[ *[U.
?',...-
PART 2 - CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY. ;.' ,
9.gY'
_ ,a uNns rE R sNcH;.se;D',f'dygNr D.Edidltl9.d???p'.'p~Wi%s?.i'tE: @ :.'31
^
5 a . ' '.'.V:x.:l#ar.t .- ,. t % .'~ :j}1 c.* COMPANY NUMCER SOCIAL SECURITY NO. -- OATE e -. ...s. #..' EMPLOYEE N AME.. . .. <
e s, -
y, .,; .
- u. . s s. 3=, s . N. . .. . . .. s g,.. s..* ,..,.... - e . ; . 7, g . ;.... . ., ,.p ,, . , , . .
CRISPi CHARLES DAVIDeM,.f'C. f. M - ,', b5 4-08 -009 8 ? a 2, ,.241-74-7096, - ,t-T 07-23-81
- e. . . . ,
. . ? - & 'o s - OCCUPATION ' t - *> .r"
- REASON RE
- 2ORATE PAYOF3
.- 2. :- PAY ROLL LOCATION v. A+r i ,E R .%
anscrivs i 1
~. p'I INC. CODE N
' O AT3 ~ . 74 0 . _. > .m: M - NAME P.: ..a..: CODE' v v . .* i ' *.
y y. .a
. o w ,.
031477k24C ATAWB A- C9NST.%,
.w.~. , ;.e . . n ~ . > 4.r
- .;id ,B185
.e,.. 1 WLOR
..s e ep.' . TITLE
.p . y .t*
s,p W %.:'r.w.m.0%%ydg
....,,1
~.9 S b775 . . .H' . .f e.
01 82 u@.> ,.,.,'.b955 10
.82 Ob13??'. 2 4C AT A W B A,... .. ., .C 9 N S T2.'. + I B185 WLO R U.E.;,?R . , .% g.,.;- ,: , w
. K-H- 31 OI11?ib'24 CIT NB 'C5N S T.: Id-f " 8185NLOR U .N NN.M:' N.N 7 5iu .Y 'N5 " 15 BI
- -- x es . .s, .~
c-,-~, m e m - r--e .-a -
100377 624 CATAWBA,'C9N5iw m :'>SY85. WLDRD.WE'At. r#i t r. .#PWIC7530;H- 10 11 3 ..81 d8N i21277 b2NCATINB'A'C9NST "
~
2425MECHL' IN'S'PTRE
H l '21 8' 030b78b24 CATAWBA'CENST"'
2425 MECH'L 'IN S'PTR ; 8355 'H d9 10 8:
032078b24CATANB C9NST 2425 M5CHL'INSPTR 8]55 H ! 30 Si
. ~ .
07107862NCATINBA"CBNST3 J . 24 25 MEC'HCIN S'PTR ab20 H MO 11 8:
0
.g.6- . . - 3. . i ....1 ..rr. 4 .. i 37 1
8540 H 25 8;
06107" b24 CATAWBA C9NST F..N -1 2425MECHL'INSPTRo '
07097" b2kCATA'NBk"C9 ST N:'f' 2425NECNCINS'TbM P
94b0 H ?la 38 8 020480 b2NCATAU8i"C5USI'?6.: 9084'WEL'D ING INSNR ' A' ' . 94b0 H- l 21 8 330350b2NCATdWBA'C3NST 9084 WELDING INSNTR A 9940 H Sb 23 8 05018062ECATAWBA CONST 9084 WELDING INSPTR A 10210 H 2h 37 8 4
07078Cb24 CATAWBA CBNST 9384 WELDING INSPTR A 11050 H 55 38 8 J20281b5NCdTAWBA'QA* 9084 11380 H. 09 8 N.- , 4 .. . . . . . ., WLD INSPTR'Aac'.
. i -
07Db81654 CATAWBA ~QAr '/ '
9084.WLD INSPTR A. 11b30 H Sh 38 8
.tfe.t.g. . '? . . . . ;* 5 '.
. s. .
.. . . K. w - :
. :r -. : r. ..
. .- t
,1
~
-i .c: . : . . . ; . . . .. ., :-n u.. . ;.: , !
~. ::,
c n,.. . .<
1'
. s . .: : - , ..
.. ..-~ : i .- ?
- . a.. :..
, y - 1 ..-
2..
- a. ....
. l
.,. 3, . ., -. -. . . .
, .~ : .
.. i e
. 4 .. . ,
. . 1
- , , ' -t . , ,;: -
1., l c
t .
- . .; d,9%.P. @M. n . .- - i f' . . *.4 4
', c -
y..r.: :.r ep. g : .y
- .' .s i n . M,.c .g,:,'. ,~. .
- i
,.,.a>.2. 'r; . , .4. - %, , .7,,..,, ;c, .; 7 ,,,
. J Yc,, ' ., ,g y,,*, -.
p .,,* . . i.
. ' . ~ . . . ... . >. a- . -: -
- .s .
- l. m e. _ _ _ 7 _
e.nem.o.e * .we =mm sg em.sme " w.=e =* .** e e a. e.m e a m eM em 6 ' _ - _ ^- .m esp *=
l
[
l
- J a
R
~
WL
- ' a i
---=
= -
__ m i Fonu osais EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECORh d ' OUKE POWER COMPANY PART2 CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY 3 LINES PER INCH EMPt.OYE E NAME COMPANY NUMBER SOCI AL SECT'RITY NO. DATE J
HENS 9N, CHARLES R9 LAND b52-01-0024 254-C4-440b 07-23-81 OccuPA ON RATE OP R RE sera vs P AY R O L t. CATION PER , [ q Ob?176b24 CATAWBA C9NST 785STECHN blic H C2 833'
't?I27b W4CATAWB'A~C3NST D 7 7853TECMN -: .
~7 % N.T. bi4D lH k 11 833' 10047d=24CATAWBAC3NST 2425MECHL INSPTR M5Sh H k5 18 832'
~
)71177b24 CATAWBA CONST 2425MECHL INSPTR 714b0 H ~$5 11 833' fl! '380877624 CATAWBA C3NST 2425 1ECHL INSPTR 8355 H 8'O 10 833' 32078b24 CATAWBA C9NST 2425MECHL INSPTR 8b55 H ! 30 82?'
?71078ib24lC ATAWB A C9NST 2425 MECHL INSPTR 86I' 0 H k 11 823*.
bb107db24!CATAWBAC3HST E425 MECHL INSPTR 8840 H Ek 27 82?
- '2709?Nb24!CATAW3AC9NST 2425MECHL INSPTR 94b0 H *$0 38 SEE'
-l21218 Cb52!9C9NEEQA 4185QC INSPTR A 94kD 1 H E2 8 3.~
']2048065EOC9 NEE QA 9003NDE EXAH SR INSPTR 94kC H ! 21 83C:
!]5218db529CONEEQA 9003NDE EXAH SR INSPTR 9722 H 2!B 37 53:!
I l]7078db523CONEE QA 9003 NDE EXAH SR INSPTR 10550 H 8!S 38 83:*
!28048db529CONEE QA 9003 NDE EXAH SR INSPTR 11380 H Sh 23 83C'.
11108db529CONEE QA 9193QA HAINT INSPECTOR 11350 H El 83C' 91930A HAhlT INSPECTOR 11350 H ! 09 83C 3 028db52ieCONEE QA 77Db8db529CSNEE QA 91910C INSPECTOR II 11250 H El 53*; t
??Cb8db529CONEE QA 919thAINT INSPTR A 1163C H 50 38 83 i i
l s
- f. .,, l
O
/
Cxji l
/ !/ l
.~ ,i l l l
(: 1 / 1 i
} l
~
/ / 'A '
bl l7 y/
- . ~ . ,
xi f j i
( ..
E r
,' j' '
- g ,
D l Q ,
- lgy in!Q i ; , , . , ;h)-
i fj r i ! >
l Qj o
,& l u) ,' :
r f ! 'j !
lgl l
c ;. . .ll l lcri ~
e
./ ,/
N ,
1 O
_ ..