ML20134N062
| ML20134N062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134M972 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9702210183 | |
| Download: ML20134N062 (44) | |
Text
- . - . . .. _
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ;
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i l l 3 +++++
4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS j I
5 INTERVIEW l l
i
_____________==- ______-____=-- -x l
7 IN THE MATTER OF: :
8 INTERVIEW OF : Docket No.
9 ANDY DE SOIZA : (not assigned) 10 :
11 ----------- -
x 12 Wednesday, January 18, 1995 13 i
- 14 Training Building i 15 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 16 7585 South Highway A1A 17 Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 18 19 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 20 9
- 00 a.m.
I 21 BEFORE:
22 VANESSA SELEWSKI Investigator 23 D 24 D
25 EXHIBIT C
'y -
- .:< i m ' c. 016 / 0F_4 LPAGE(S)
( :
1,'. & ..ue;i.;th it.e DceJ;m c!:ntormation PAGE l
l t.ci, car.;U:as 7C -
l F0lA.
ppgs g22gggs3970219 / g, j /grn7
! BINDER 96-485 PDR
e l
' l 2 '
, 1 APPEARANCES:
- l 4 2 i
I 3 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
4 5 VANESSA SELEWSKI, Investigator 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 Office of Inve,stigations j 8 101 Marietta Street ;
9 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 10 11
s g
13 14 15 16 ..
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S j l
1 2 4:30 p.m.
3 'MRS. SELEWSKI: For the record, it is January 4 18th, 1995, and this is the transcribed interview of ?.ndy l I
5 De Soiza. That's D-E- -- j i
l MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. -- who'is a Human 8 Resources Manager at Turkey Point Power Plant - .
9 MR. DE SOIZA: That's St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. l 3
10 MRS. SELEWSKI: Excuse me. St. Lucie Nuclear 11 Plant. This interview is being conducted at St. Lucie 12 Power Plant / Nuclear Plant. Mr. De Soiza is present, as 13 well as Investigator Vanessa Selewski of the NRCOI.
14 This allegation basically concerns Nor7a 15 .Hallenbeck, and he has voiced some concerns to our office, 16 or to'NRC that got channeled down to our office --
18 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- relating to intimidation and i 19 harassment. He feels that over a period of time he was i 20 intimidated and harassed by Ernie Poarch, Herman Fagley, 21 and because he had voiced some concerns and insisted on 22 correct work in welding procedures that he had been 23 demoted and decreased performance valuation given to him.
25 MRS. SELEWSKI: That's the basic concern.
_~ , _ . . _ . _ _ . . .__ . _ _ . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
2 MRS. SELEWSKI: I'm going to ask that you raise 3 your right hand to swear you in.
1 4 Whereupon, ..
ANDY DE SOIZA, r 5
6 being first duly sworn by the Investigator, was exhmined 7 and testified as follows:
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4
9 MRS. SELEWSKI: Will you give your full name, f
j 10 address and telephone number.
12 My address is ,
(f
- 13 zip code 34952. Home phone number is area code l 14 15 MRS. SELEWSKI
- Okay. And what is your present
- 16 position officially here?
i
18 Manager here at St. Lucie.
19 MRS. SELEWSKI: And how long have you --
20 MR. DE SOIZA: About four and a half years.
21 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Were you resource --
22 Human Resources Manager elsewhere prior to here at St.
23 Lucie?
24 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes, I've been with Florida Power 25 & Light since 1972, which about 18 years has been in Human 4
/
C J7 W
l 1
i 5
1 Resources corporate functions, primarily compensation, 2 benefits, EEO, records, the different aspects of that and 5 3 this is now where I've got line accountability.
, 4 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. What was your first 5 contact with Mr. Hallenbeck related to some concerns he 4 6 brought to you, I believe, at some point?
I
, 8 My records show that my first meeting with Mr.
i 9 Hallenbeck occurred on November 5th of 1993. Mr.
. 10 Hallenbeck met with me to voice his concerns about his i
11 current supervision.
12 Should I go on?
13 MRS. .SELEWSKI: Yeah, I have a copy, I think,' of 14 what you're reading from.
16 MRS. SELEWSKI: It's just kind of a time line --
18 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- that was prepared, for the 19 record, prepared by Ed O'Neil?
21 MRS. SELEWSKI: Who was'your subordinate?
23 MRS. SELEWSKI: And it's dated June 2nd, 1994.
24 If you can just kind of summarize your contacts and --
25 MR. DE SOIZA: Okay. That document Ed prepared
. l i
I 6 l 1 from my personal notes as well as notes from Mr. Fagley 1
2 and Mr. Poarch.
l 3 What I had in that meeting was Norman was i 4 extremely upset. He felt that he was having problems with 1 5 his supervision, in particular Ernie Poarch. Apparently 6 in that meeting there was history between Ernie and Norman 7 that went back to Turkey Point. It was obvious that there ;
i 8 was a distaste on the part of Norman for Ernie and that it l 9 was really something that was causing him some pain. He 10 felt that neither Ernie or Herman understood his work and 11 that they were unable to adequately provide the 12 supervision that he needed.
13 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. And you had a meeting 14 again with him that you arranged on November 22nd,.19937 15 MR. DE SOIZA: On November 22nd, '93, I met with 16 Ernie Poarch to follow up on Mr. Hallenbeck's concern and 17 to try to get a better understanding from the management 18 side of the equation.
19 At that time Ernie did acknowledge that there was i
20 a problem with Norman, that Norman was very difficult for -
I l
21 him to supervise, that Norman had his own agenda, he ;
22 basically set his own priorities, which meetings he i 23 -attended, which he didn't. And Ernie portrayed the image l 24 to me that he was trying to broaden Norman and he was '
l l
25 trying to relieve some of the stress of the job by making )
1 J
Y s 7 1 him go out of the office, attend meetings, but that that 2 wasn't working very well.
! 3 MRS. SELEWSKI: And that was a meeting between 4 you and Poarch or among you and --
i 5 MR. DE SOIZA: That was between myself and j 4
)
6 Poarch.
7 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. This wasn't with 8 Hallenbeck present also?
J i
2 10 MRS. TELEWSKI: I may have a different copy 11 here. Let's see. (Examining documents.)
12 Yeah, I've got one that mentions a meeting among 13 the three of you. Let's see. You must be -- you're 14 probably reading from this other copy that's dated June 15 7th, 1994.
16 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, that's the one on -- yeah.
17 Yeah, that's the one --
18 MRS. SELEWSKI: So, did you meet with all of 19 them on the same day and maybe Poarch first and then --
20 MR. DE SOIZA: No, okay, I'll correct that.
21 This is -- it makes more sense. It was the three of them.
22 MRS. SELEWSKI: On November 22nd?
23 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes. Yes, it was the three of 24' them. And Herman, you know, was the department head and 25 that's when they did express that it was Norm's way, I
8 1 normal way, and that's where they were showing 2 inflexibility to me. Yeah. Now, this is better.
3 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Then we'll go ahead and 4 go by that document for now then.
5 MR. DE SOIZA: Okay. And in there we did reach
. 6 a consensus that the supervision felt that they could. work 7 things out among them and that Ernie Poarch did commit to 8 continue working with Hallenbeck. Yeah. I thought that 9 at that time that he had raised the issue of bringing them ,
10 together, trying to work it out among the three of them' l
11 would resolve the issue. And at that moment in time I l l
12 thought it was resolved.
13 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. But it didn't get 14 resolved at that time.
l' 16 MRS. SELEWSKI: Now, there was a meeting with 17 just Poarch also on November 22nd where he, Poarch, 18 discussed his subordinates coming to him about Hallenbeck 19 and problems with Hallenbeck?
20 MR. DE SOIZA: I have a feeling that this is not 21 correct.
22 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. But the meeting with just 23 Poarch on the 22nd is not correct?
24 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes. Yes, I think not.
25 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay.
l 9
1 MR. DE SOIZA: Because I don't remember at that 2 meeting talking about subordinates and any problems with 3 the subordinates. I remember at that early stage that I 4 thought we had a problem between Normac and his higher 5 management. And what I was trying to do then was to get 6 them in sync and try to understand that they were having 7 difficulties among them.
d 8 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. So this copy that I'm 9 reading from is dated June 7th, '94, it's labeled Norman 10 Hallenbeck Chronological History. Who prepared that?
11 MR. DE SOIZA: Also Ed O'Neil.
12 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. So it's just a little 13 inaccurate --
15 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- regarding the meeting between 16 you and Mr. Poarch on the 22nd?
18 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay.
20 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Do you remember the date ,
l 1
21 -- was there a meeting between you and Mr. Poarch about 22 that subject later in the time frame?
23 MR. DE SOIZA: No. No. That November 22nd 24 meeting was just one meeting, but I never remem -- I 25 honestly never remember a meeting with Ernie individually i
l l
4 s
10 1 in regard to Norman. Anytime I met with Ernie, Herman 2 Fayley was present.
t 3 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. What was the next contact 4 or actions on your part or the Management's part regarding 5 Hallenbeck?
6 MR. DE SOIZA: Okay. Apparently something had 7 flared up again, and I think that was when they had asked 8 Norman to attend a meeting and he didn't go and that got 9 Ernie Poarch upset with him.
10 And apparently at the same time Norman had gone 11 to Mr. Fagley and tried to make a organizational 12 recommendation that he not report to Ernie Poarch but 13 report directly to Herman. Herman turned that option 14 down. '
15 And in this meeting, when we got together again I 16 could see that they were right back to where we were and 17 that no progress was made. And I tried to set out some la conditions acting as a facilitator. And I clarified to 19 Norman that he was not empowered to make organizational 20 changes. He had mentioned in other companies that he 21 worked for they dealt with personalty conflicts different ;
22 than Florida Power & Light. That once they were raised, 23 that the organization remedied that by making exchanges. l l
24 And I told him that that's not the way we do business in !
25 this area. That we had no reason to question Ernie
l l l .
l l '
11 I
i 1 Poarch's supervisory abilities at that time. And that I l l
2 supported the Management.
3 Again, this had to do with the meeting, and then l
4 Norman was talking about the stress, the work load, th.
5' significancies and importantcies of what he was 6- responsible for.
7- At that time I really got into what I saw as the 8 root cause of the problem was that there was just no trust 9 among them, that they weren't a team, and apparently there 10 was very poor communication between the players and that 11 was contributing to make the problem get worse. And that 12 they had to work on establishing.those three things in 13 order to be able to work it out.
14, MRS. SELEWSKI: And that was a meeting on 15 January 13th, 19947 j
I 17 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Okay. And what was the l 18 next involvement that you had related to their problems?
19 MR. LE SOIZA: Okay. The next meeting then was l l .
- 20. a subordinate of Norman came to me, a fellow named Dale 21 Jacobs. And Jacobs also appeared or communicated to me l 22 that it was a very stressful work environment under Mr.
)
, 23 Hallenbeck. He felt that Hallenbeck was continuously l I
) 24 making derogatory statements about the Management team. l 25 That he was a very insecure individual and that he didn't i I
l N __
a 12 {
l want to be challenged because of his insecurity, anc he l 2 had built this wal1~up around his little organization.
3 And Jacobs was feeling that there was an amount of stress 4 because he couldn't feel comfortable talking to the 5 Management, he felt very uncomfortable talking or
- 6. interfacing with other departments, which they're relying 7 upon Q.C. and others because they didn't know -- he didn't [
8 know how Hallenbeck would react to that. He felt that we j 9 had a problem with Norman and that it was really causing 10 tremendous problems in that area.
11 MRS. SELEWSKI: And then you followed that up 12 with a phone call to Jerry Kunkel who validated Jacobs' 13 concerns?
14 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes. Yes. It was at this moment
-15 in time that my thinking began to change. I felt at the
- 16 time that since we had just a communication problem up the 17 chain of' command we could' continue to work through that as ,
l 18 long as the Management were willing to work through that ,
i
,19 and they felt that Norman had sufficient technical 20 abilities and attributes that it was something that was 21 worthy of it.
22 When I then began to realize that this problem 23 was not only up the. organization but then down through the 24 subordinates, it make me rethink the whole scenario and 25 .ask why is this individual, Mr. Hallenbeck, in a j
l l
13
- 1 supervisory position. It seems like he has a lot of l 2 technical strengths, but certainly there's some real 3 failure in his supervisory abilities.
4 MRS. SELEWSKI: Did you talk to Poarch or Fagley 5 on January 19th at any point or soon --
7 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- after that regarding Dale 8 Jacobs meeting with you and Jerry Kunkel's concerns voiced 9 to you on that date?
11 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Was it that same day that 12 you communicated this to Poarch?
13 MR. DE SOIZA: Let me just refresh myself.
14 (Examining documents.) Okay.
15 At that time I didn't. I think Mr. Jacobs wanted 16 me to just be aware of it, but he was so pressured at that 17 time that he just more or less wanted me to hear about it.
18 He didn't want me to get involved in the department 19 because it would explode again and he, being on the low 20 end of the totem pole felt like all of this would 21 backfire. So at that time I think I just recorded that 22 meeting and took no action. And I think I was still under 23 the impression that they were working with Norman.
24 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Su there wasn't a meeting 25 with Poarch or a conversation with Poarch or Fagley --
j ..
14
2 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- anytime soon after that 3' January meeting?
4 MR. DE SOIZA: Not that I remember.
l 5 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Because it looks like !
i 6 there was some meeting at some point, and there's kind of !
7 a gap here in the history because -- well, you do have a j l
8 note about -- j I
9 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, I think that occurred in l 10 April.
i 11 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- working with Fagley and l 12 Poarch. ,
13 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah. I 14 MRS. SELEWSKI: Well, let's go to the April 15 lith, 1994 meeting -- l l
17 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- and we'll go on from there.
18 MR. DE SOIZA: Okay. Yeah, I think at that time 19 I didn't act on it, but in April then when Kunkel came in 20 and the other subordinate, and states that he and Jacobs 21 feel that the present situation is no longer tolerable; 22 Kunkel states that he has been in the EAP for stress as a i
23 result of lax management style. He thinks it's really !
I 24 scary. ;
25 I think that one really got to me. At the
I 15 I 1 beginning I think I was more of the opinion that that is a 2 stressful department, that something was going on and a 3 lot of times people come over to H.R. to vent, you know, 4 80 percent of the people I see vent. I wasn't really 5 getting the magnitude of it and I think it hit me in this i
6 next meeting.
7 And that's when I realized that we had to take 8 some action. And that's when I sat down with Fagley and
- 9 Poarch and began to explore what kind'of organizational i
10 changes can we make to, you know, hold on to Ernie -- I 1
{,
11 mean to Norman, yet remove him from the supervisory chain.
12 I remember at that time some of the difficulties 13 were they were a very small organization. There was only, 14 you know, two subordinates, a supervisor and the manager.
3 15 So that you really couldn't carry people off on the side 16 like that. We looked at our Juno organization to see if 17 there was a way that we could move Norman into that as an 18 advisor, to play on his technical skills. And that option 2
- 19 didn't work.
20 Also at that time FP&L was looking at downsizing 21 in general, so I began to explore the possibility if there 22 was no position for Norman and we had to restructure this 23 department would he be eligible for a severance package, 24 things like that. So we began to brainstorm all different 25 opportunities.
- - . _ - - - . - . . . - - _ - - - . - . . . . . . - . . - . .. - . - - . - .. - .. - . . . ~ . . - . - -
16 i
- 1 Also in that meeting I began to explore the 2 personnel file in detail. And what I noticed in there is 4
l 3 that Norman and Herman had a lot of incidences involving j 4 Norman and his performance and his way. A lot of that was 5
{
1 there, but there was no documentation in any of the 6 performance appraisals. They reflected that Norman was a
[
7 doing a very good job' in all categories.
So that for us
- 8 to be looking at a discipline mode or some type of action s' 9 like that just didn't seem to be warranted based on the 10 performance record of Norman.
11 Again, that's when they started telling.me about 12 their shop being kind of more of a little family unit, 13 that they take care of business not necessarily the way 14 'that we in Human Resources would like it but -- But at 15 that time I realized that something had to be done, that 16 it was going to be a difficult situation.
17 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. In your note where you 18 said since the meeting of April lith with Kunkel, you 19 know, you'd been working with Fagley and Poarch about 20 options --
22' MRS. SELEWSKI: -- did you document certain 23 meetings you had with Poarch and Fagley during that time 24 frame or was it basically telephone conversations, your 25 visits?
17 1 MR. DE SOIZA: There wels visits in my office, 2 just them and I.
3 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Do you have dates on 4 those visits?
5 MR. DE SOIZA: No, I don't. I don't have --
6 MRS. SELEWSKI: They're not in your planner, the 7 dates?
9 MRS. SELEWSKI: Sometimes those dates are 10 helpful to see how events transpired.
11 And you have mentioned looking at the Juno --
13 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- office. What were you 14 looking at over there that could have been an option for -
15 Hallenbeck?
16 MR. DE SOIZA: Well, they have a welding 17 organization in Juno that supports both plants and, of 18 course, those folks are technical in nature, maybe not 19 necessarily in the supervisory roles. So, it was 20 mentioned to Herman to maybe explore that, maybe there was 21 a way we can transfer Norman into Juno and bring one of 22 their people over here. And they explored that and told 23 me that that wasn't feasible.
24 MRS. SELEWSKI: Who -- Fagley is "they" is who j 25 you're referring to?
l l
l I
18 1 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, excuse me, yes. Yes, 2 Fagley.
3 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. And the severance 4 package, was there a point in time when Hallenbeck came to 5 you earlier on and asked about an early out or some type 6 of retirement package?
7 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes, there had been some mention 8 on his part that he couldn't take it, that he, you know, 9 he would think about that. At that -- Whenever we 10 discussed that I never acknowledged a yes or no, but I 11 knew that that was an option that maybe could be a win / win 12 situation for both parties.
13 MRS. SELEWSKI: Do you know what time frame that 14 was when Hallenbeck brought that up to you about if he was 15 eligible for some type of retirement or --
16 MR. DE SOIZA: I can't tell you exactly, but it 17 had to be probably in this meeting -- I would probably --
18 my best guess would be in this January meeting when we 19 were brainstorming.
20 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. So, once the options had 21 been looked at, looks like you were looking at the 22 personnel file and there was some documentation related to 23 Hallenbeck's performance that wasn't necessarily positive, 24 but it wasn't in his performance reviews?
25 MRS. SELEWSKI: So --
I 19 t
1 MR. DE SOIZA: Right. Right. What they had was 2 a lot of verbal, you know, insubordination of Norman 3 always going to Herman, Norman not communicating with '
, 4 Ernie, the atmosphere of Norman in regard to other 5 departments. They seemed to be well aware of it being a
- 6 problem, but they.didn't do a very good job of addressing ;
4 7 it in the performance appraisals.
8 And that's when I recommended to them that when )
9 they saw something that is such a delta between the 10 performance on the appraisal and the performance that 11 they're seeing now, that that would justify an internal 12 review to provide the feedback to let the individual know 13 exactly where he was on the -- in their perception of his l 1
14 performance. So I asked Ernie Poarch to prepare a i 15 internal review.
16 MRS. SELEWSKI: It looks like that was done on 17 May 10th, '94 --
19 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- the interim performance i
20 appraisal?
21 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes. And -- l 22 MRS. SELEWSKI: So that basically --
23 MR. DE SOIZA: That's about when everything 24 exploded, I guess, in my opinion. When that appraisal was 25 .given to Norman and there was so dramas -- dramatically
20 1 different than previous appraisals. In his perceptions, 2 he believed then that they were now beginning to prepare 3 the documentation to terminate him, so he felt.that there 4 was a conspiracy to go out and try to get him, you know.
5 MRS. SELEWSKI: Is this something that he said 6 to you or you in your -- that was indicated --
7- MR. DE-SOIZA: It was a perception, yeah.
8 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. ,
9 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah. He was suspicious of Ernie 10 all along.
11 MRS. SELEWSKI: Uh-huh. And the May 10th 12 interim, was there any -- was.there meetings between you ;
13 and Poarch and Fagley after that interim was given, or, 14 I mean, how did you know how the interim resulted?
15 They just came to you afterwards and said, here it is, j 16 here's --
17 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, I was a little disappointed i i
18 'because I didn't get to review the interim review prior to-19_'it being given, and then I wasn't communicated to 20 immediately after.
21 MRS. SELEWSKI: Do you normally review those 22 interims in this kind of situation or --
i 23 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes, I do. Since I was so 24 involved in'this case I would have liked to see the input 25 to make sure, you know, that it really addressed the
]
21 1 problem and that there was some way of showing that if I
2 there was a positive response that we had some l 3 recommendations to work with Mr. Hallenbeck, you know, so l l
4 that it wasn't a final type of scenario. And there's a ;
5 lot in the deliverance of that review that I would have 6 liked to have, you know --
7 MRS. SELEWSKI: Did they say why they not 8 involve you in reviewing that review? 1 9 MR. DE SOIZA: No. No. I think -- I hate to do 10 this on record, but I think --
11 MRS. SELEWSKI: In your opinion, if you will.
12 MR. DE SOIZA: In my opinion I think they felt 13 comfortable, that they knew what they needed to do, that 14 they needed to do the review, and not being Human 15 Resources types they did it based on their -- on their :
16 norms, so that they never really felt at that time that 17 they needed to come back for, you know, a session.
18 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Did you see anything in l
19 the review that was questionable or, I mean, if you had j 20 l seen that would you have approved it being given in the '
21 form it was given? I have a copy somewhere. (Examining 22 documents.) Here's a copy here dated, it's the '94/'95 23 review.
24 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes, if I had a chance to input 25 this, have input to this I would have made quite a few !
~
l I
22 1 recommendations. The KRAs as explained here, I would have 2 spent -- I would have directed them to try to keep them to 3 the accountanilities in the job description and evaluate 4 him against that. To me the KRAs here should be the what, 5 what is it that the person is expected to perform.
6 And then there's the series of competencies which 7 is the how the person performs the job. And my personal 8 recommendation was that apparently Mr. Hallenbeck gets to 9 work on -- he does the welding and apparently he does 10 pretty good at the welding. That the emphasis of the 11 interviews should have been on his competencies and how he 12 performs his job. And that also I would have probably 13 recommended that there has to be some things he does well 14 as in addition to things that he does poorly, so that it 15 appears to be a fair evaluation and not a -- not a message 16 of total incompetence.
17 MRS. SELEWSKI: Well, it looks like they focus a 18 lot on interpersonal skills and relationships with his 19 employees, which I can see where that is a concern and 20 part is probably his supervisory goals.
21 MR. DE SOIZA: That's the feedback they were 22 trying to give him. I mean, honestly, that's the meat of 23 it, so they went right at the meat of it. Them being line 24 folks they focused on the problem and not all of the soft 25 skills that are associated with an appraisal.
i 4 23 ,
1 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay.
2 MR. DE SOIZA: But what happens with that is 3 what did happen and the person then takes that and is 4 unable to respond positively but reacts negativeAy.
5 MRS. SELEWSKI: And as far as you know was he 6 forced to resign -- not necessarily forced to resign but ?
- 7. forced to say he wanted to be relieved of his supervisory 8 . responsibilities or -- :
10 MRS. SELEWSKI: Was that basically from your 11 understanding his voluntary statement? -
13 MRS. SELEWSKI: So about what time frame did you !
-14 get a chance to review this review, this performance 15 appraisal? ,
16 MR. DE SOIZA: I can't tell you. (Examining '
17 documents.) I believe I next get involved somewhere in 18 May. I believe it.was May 26th when there was a certified
)
19 letter sent to Ernie Poarch from an attorney representing 20 Mr. Hallenbeck. I believe at that time Ernie Poarch come 21 .over and brought the letter to me. And then that's when I 22 began to realize that there was an organizational change 23 was made and that -- and that Norman had been calling in 24 sick and'that there was this review. It's about the next 25 time I was involved with it.
1 1
i
- . . . . .- ~ _ _ - - . _ - . . . -. -- . _ - --. .~ - . -
I 24 l 1 MRS. SELEWSKI: But he started taking sick leave l
2 right after he received that performance evaluation? '
3 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes. There was some other 4 conversation I think that I had with Poarch. (Examining 5 documents.) Okay.
4 6 Somewhere, I believe probably it was May 24th, it 7 might not be in my notes here, but Ernie Poarch had come 8 over and mentioned that Norman had been calling in sick 9 and that he was getting this from Mr. Hallenbeck's wife 10 and that he had no personal contact with Norman. And at 11 that time I did advise him that he was Mr. Hallenbeck's 12 supervisor, that he had every right to pursue that 13 contact, to make contact with Norman at home since he.is 14 the employee and try to get a handle on, you know, exactly 15 what was going on. But to fault he needed to understand 16 that until -- if there was something wrong with Norman we 17 needed to see if tr.e:re was any way we could help him. So 18 I instructed him to be aggressive in pursuing the contact 19 with Mr. Hallenbeck.
20 MRh. SELEWSKI: Let's go back'a little bit on 21 the reassignment that was made by Poarch and Fagley.
l 22 Dated May 17th there was a notice put out reassigning '
23 Hallenbeck to the new computerized welding program 24 project,,taking him from his supervisory duties. ]
25 Did you have any input into that decision
25 1 regarding his reassignment?
2 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, I did. They did discuss 3 that with me and I don't know exactly when, but I know it 4' was prior to that. We did kind of come up with the fact 5 that there was no way to transfer Mr. Hallenbeck out of 6 St. Lucie at this time, that if there was a way that s !
- 7. Herman could work it out among his own organization. At 8 that, time he did feel that the expertise of Norman in the 9 welding area would blend with this need that they had so 4
10 that they were able to move him to the side. It would be 11' a comparable job at the same level of pay and same job 12 level that he was currently in, it just would not be in a 13 management role. I thought that that would be.an option 14 that Norman would be receptive to. And so we did agree 15 that that would be acceptable.
16 MRS. SELEWSKI: 'Okay. And then after that he 17 started -- you started getting communication from 18 Hallenbeck through some form about his --
19 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, I got it two ways, from his 20 attorney and then also his' treating mental health 21 professional, Jerry Smith, EAP counselor.
22 MRS. SELEWSKI: Well, basically once there was 23 some communications with employee concern -- not employee ,
- 24 . concerns,' Employee Assistance Program --
26 1 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- and Hallenbeck's attorney and 2 FP&L's attorney, Mr. Bramnick, and then at some point ;
3 there was an agreement worked out.
4 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes, between Florida Power &
5 Light and Norman Hallenbeck and his attorneys. r 6 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. I 7 MR. DE SOIZA: The EAP counselpr advised me that 8 she had some valuations done on 9 Mr. Hallenbeck because she had been counseling him and 10 that he wasn't in a position to work. She had asked for I 11 believe it was a two to three week leave of absence. At 12 that time she was going to look at -- meet with him one 13 more time, for the eighth visit, re-evaluate him. When 14 she did that, she then also felt that at that time that he 15 needed more time, so she asked for an extended leave of 16 absence. She kind of shared with me that she was !
17 counseling Norman into the career -- in the career 18 counseling arena, that maybe the stress was job related, 19 maybe if he worked in another environment. So he was 20 looking at all options.
~
21 She was pretty fair, I think, from what I've seen l l
22 of her. I 23 MRS. SELEWSKI: So it looks like as of July 24 something he officially resigned --
g [//o/ 64
27
, 1 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- from FP&L.
2 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah. I don't have.that in my
~3 notes, but I think there was -- that was the exit-4 interview in July.
i 5 MRS. SELEWSKI:- That's not in these notes 6 either. ,
7 MR. DE SOIZA: I thought I-saw it here.
8- (Examining documents.) Oh, I know what that is. There's 9 another -- (Examining documents.). Okay.
10 Yeah, July 13th, '94. _I met with Norman and I ,
11 had my technician, Kim Nelson, attend the meeting. And .
12 -the purpose of that meeting was to perform the exit i 13 interview, which is a standard that we do with all
.l 14 employees that leave our employment. At that time, Norman 15 returned his badge, his I.D. cards, his beeper. He and I -
16 discussed his benefits, his_ plan,-life insurance, medical, i 17 all of his different options there.
18 There was some detail regarding the effective
-19 date of his resignation and the' contract that he signed 20 where he was to get the severed eight days following the 1
21 date of.the signature of the contract. We had some ;
22 discussion on sick leave, but that's not really relative, .
t 23 buc we did end up resolving it in his favor. )
24 I did note in my notes'that this~ entire interview 25 with Norman:was very professional, he wasn't emotional.
28 1 He seemed a lot more in control than in any previous 1 i
i 2 meetings that I had been involved with him. He seemed )
3 content at that point in time.
I 4 MRS. SELEWSKI: So, your first meeting with '
5 Hallenbeck, he really didn't voice the concern of 6 intimidations or harassment to you regarding Poarch or 7 Fagley.
9 MRS. SELEWSKI: Just from what you have 10 documented it looks like he voiced some management and 11 personnel issues to you at that time.
13 MRS. SELEWSKI: At what point did you become 14 aware that he had voiced some intimidation / harassment 15 concerns to either Poarch or Fagley or anyone, NRC7 16 MR. DE SOIZA: The first time I had heard of the 17 words " intimidation" and such was when I had been informed 18 that he had -- through his attorney, that he had been in 19 contact with the NRC.
20 MRS. SELEWSKI: Yeah, I think his attorney sent 21 someone a letter --
23 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- advising them of some 24 contacted NRC?
25 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah. (Examining documents.)
l i
l
)
- 29 j 1 Yeah, June 6th I received a certified letter from his
[ 2 ettorney. The purpose of the letter was to inform me that l
3 his client had contacted NRC regarding the welding program
+
l:
4 at St. Lucie plant, ,
1 5 That began to get us involved and we began to try i'
6 to find out did he file any SPEAKOUT issues, where is this 7 harassment coming from.
8 MRS. SELEWSKI: When did you first learn he had l 9 filed some SPEAKOUT issues? !
10 MR. DE SOIZA: It was right around that time 11 frame, probably a couple of days afterward. And-I don't 12 have it committed to notes, but if I recall this he hadn't 13 filed a SPEAKOUT per se, but SPEAKOUT had contacted him 14 once they were aware that he had or supposedly was 15 contacted the NRC. And so they were trying to find if 16 there was an issue. And at that was the first time we 17 heard the words " harassment" and those -- those entered my ,
18 notes.
19 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Were there any other 20- notes or recollections on your part that could fill in any !
i 21 gaps that are in this -- these two histories that I have? i 22 .MR. DE SOIZA: No, not really. I looked at this 23 extensively last' night and I looked at my notes. There 24 might have been a few.more short meetings. I think really 25 the. gist of it is in here. Some of the timing of exactly
l
\
30 i
l 1 when we talked about this versus that I think maybe is i
i 2 there, but I think this is pretty accurate , I
!- 3 MRS. SELEWSKI: At the time that you-learned of l- i
{ 4 his allegation about intimidation and harassment from his l
- 5 attorney, did you have any opinion one way or another 6 based on what facts you had --
8 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- whether Mr. Hallenbeck had 9 been harassed-or intimidated by Mr. Poarch or Mr. Fagley? '
i 10 MR. DE'SOIZA: Yeah. I feel strongly to this 4 i i 11 day that there was a big personality conflict between Mr.
A j 12 Poarch and Mr. Hallenbeck. I believe it was not solely 13 attributed to either one of them. I believe that there
]
j 14 was some fault on both sides. I think Norman was one, 15 from his_ personality, seemed to carry a lot of stress. I i
16 think he was one that was very insecure. I think a lot of 4
17 -this was brought on himself. I believe he did have some l
'18 kind of need for some outside assistance. In fact, I 1
4 19 think I mentioned early on on seeing a counselor, we have i
! 20 a program.
j 21 My opinion is I don't believe Ernie Poarch is my 22 prototype of a manager or supervisor. His style added to 1
23 this problem. Apparently he did not have the ability to
$ 24 communicate properly with Norman or to get him to respond i
25 positively. He wasn't able to deal with the performance I
,- I 31 1 problem. He allowed it to go on much longer before he 2 reacted to it, and then when he reacted to it it was such 3 a dramatic change from the norm that it set off an alarm 4 in a very sensitive person and it completely exploded.
5 That's my gut feeling.
6 I don't think there was a agenda in there where 7 they were harassing him to achieve some ulterior motive.
8 I never -- was never able to get any of that through any 9 conversations with Norman. And, you know, he talked about 10' safety, and I looked into safety and it turns out that 11 there was an accident report filed and immediately upon 12 that they did act on the accident report.
13 Like, I had some informal conversations with my 14 boss and we both kind of acknowledged that Mr. Hallenbeck 15 was our lead welding engineer. He had all the power he ,
16 needed to ensure that the integrity of this welding 17 program-was at a high standard. If it wasn't, then the 18 accountability had to rest with him too, for him not to take action on it or whatever just didn't add up.
i 19 It just
, 20 'didn't add up.
l 21 And when I' asked him about why did you do this, 22 why did you make a big deal out of him not making the 23 meeting, their explanations seemed pure to me. They knew 24 he was stressed, they knew that he was confined and locked 25 up. They wanted to.get him out in the plant, get him some 4
i
l l
32 "l .
I air, you know, force him to walk around with them to -- I l 2 had no reason to question any of that. I still don't. l I
3 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. So in your opinion it was l l
4 really more of a personnel management issue with 5 communications and documenting certain information on Mr.
1 6' Poarch's part that really wasn't done. !
l 8 MRS. SELEWSKI: And it really caused the' chain !
i 4
9 of events to occur --
i 11 MRS. SELEWSKI: -- and personality conflict. j 12 MR. DE SOIZA: Yes. (Pause.) I've never seen l 1
13 anything from Norman that would talk about what specific 14 areas in our welding program was he asked to compromise or 15 what jobs was he asked not to do or circumvent. SPEAKOUT 16 wasn't able to get that from him. The NRC allegation 17 doesn't really contain any specifics like that. In our 18 conversations they were primarily driven around the real 19 despise that Norman had for Mr. Poarch. I mean, there was 20 real-bitterness there. I saw that more on a very personal 21 . nature than being able to touch it to the job 22 requirements.
23 MRS. SELEWSKI: Did Kunkel mention intimidation 1
24 or harassment when he talked to you or was it just more, 1 25 you know, "I can't take this any more" with Mr.
33 1 Hallenbeck?
2 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, what I kind of got from 3 Kunkel was he was stuck down there at the lower end of 4 this thing and all of this battle around him between them 5 put him in a position where he didn't know who to talk to 6 or what to do, and then other department supervision was 7 seeing, a lot of them, Norman, you know, short 8 temperedness, and it was a bad reflection on them as a 9 department. So they were almost rendered, you know, in 10 the capacity of bearing the brunt of all of this because !
11 they're out'in the field having to get the work done. And 12 it seemed to just eat away at them. And I think it began 13 to get to the point of frustration, how can Management and ;
l 14 what are you going to do about this, you know.
15 MRS. SELEWSKI: It appears from what Hallenbeck 16 has said that he went to Fagley on several occasions and 17 voiced his concern about Poarch, that he was having some 18 problems and, you know, Mr. Hallenbeck just felt that 19 nothing was being done by_ Management over a period of time 20 to help what he perceived as the problems, take care of 21 some problems, resolve some issues. Maybe if that had 22 been done from day one in working with him and 23 communications and this and that -~ of course, the ship 24 has already sank and you can sit here and -- forever --
25 MR. DE SOIZA: Yeah, we can quarterback this 1
34 1 tomorrow, you know.
2 MRS. SELEWSKI: Yes.
i 3 MR. DE SOIZA: I know that, I mean, I really in 4 every conversation and some of the reason why we looked at 5 these severance packages that Management did not 6 completely do their job. When it comes to the proper 7 evaluation of performance, that's a Management 8 accountability. If there were these problems, they 9 certainly should have been reflected in the performance 10 ratings. This old school, we take care of it in the back 11 room between us boys, I think has no place in this plant 12 at this point in time. I believe they're learning that 13 and certainly this will be an extremely valuable lesson 14 for them.
15 I also wrestle with what is a normal welding 16 shop, you know. I'm a Human Resources professional and 17 these are blue collar, you know, workers, and so I'm still 18 trying to grasp what do they comprehend when it comes to l
19 my side of the house in the Human Resources work. How do 20 those folks solve' problems. I don't know. J l
21 MRS. SELEWSKI: Yes. Very informally it 22 appears, and verbally. j 1
24 MRS. SELEWSKI: There were a few concerns '
25 regarding your communicating with Mr. Halle. beck that.Mr.
j
35 1 Hallenbeck voiced. And I'll go through just a few things 2 that he mentioned.
4 MRS. SELEWSKI: Let me review these notes here.
5 (Examining documents.) He goes into detail about a 6 meeting that he had with you on November 5th, '93, and 7 what he said to you. It's basically the same thing that 8 you mentioned.
10 MRS. SELEWSKI: About respect and how he started 11 having problems with Poarch as soon as he came on board.
12 And that you would look at the problem and get back with 13 him. And he said you told him that you could not help, 14 you didn't think that you could help because he was 15 battling two levels of management. And that's when you 16 recommended the Employee Assistance Program, management 17 stress.
18 MR. DE SOIZA: Okay. Do you want me to comment l 19 on that?
20 MRS. SELEWSKI: Yes, if you have anything that 21 may be incorrect in your view of what he said.
22 MR. DE SOIZA: I don't have specific notes on l 23 that, but if I could probably readdress the way I would 24 have stated it versus what he would have said is that 25 whenever I see a subordinate who has his supervisor and
. - - --. -.-- . .. .. .- - . . - -. -.- . - . . - - . . . . . _ . - . . - ~ . - - . . _ .
4 4
36 f 1 that supervisor's supervisors in concurrence about the 4
2 individual's performance, I generally see those as very l 3 difficult prob -- or issues for the lowest person in the 4 chain to be able to make drastic changes. It's basically,-
I i
1 5 you know, two levels of Management's opinion against this 3
j_ 6 one individual. And the Management is paid to observe the i ,
7 performance of the individual. So I was basically 1
8 implying to him that he had a very difficult'one for him
.i 9 to be able to make things happen the way he wanted. That
! 10 we did have an Employee Assistance Program. That they do 4
i 11 provide this kind of counseling.
12 I think that's more of the gist of how I would
. 13 handle him.
i j 14 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. '
15 MR.'DE SOIZA: As. opposed to telling him, hey, 16 you don't have a shot, you know.
17 MRS. SELEWSKI: All right. Then he just ,
4 ;
18 mentions dates after his first contact with you. He i 19 mentions a November lith, '93 date in which he had gone to 20 Employee's Assistance and that he still had not heard back I ;
a 21 from you. He made notes about not hearing back from you I l
22 on a couple or three cccasions.
23 That was -- appeared to be a real concern of his, 1-4 i 24 that as of that November 18th, '
93 he still had not heard i i 1 25 back from you. Then he mentioned December 18th, '
93, i
,, - . - - , - . . ,y m 4- . ,. , -. , +m .r . , -
2 v
i 37
] .
1 still no word from Mr. -- from Andy De Soiza.
j 2 I think he felt like he just wasn't being given l
! 3 any feedback as to what his concerns were initially in l
] 4 November to you.
I j 5 Do you have any response? ,
3 l
!. 6 Let's go off the record for a moment.
7 (Off the record.) i j 8 MRS. SELEWSKI: We're back on the record.
i ,
i 9 He just felt like you weren't responding. Is i
! 1
) 10 there any reason that there was a gap? It really looks j 11 like there was about a month's gap up to this point, j 12 December 18th. Do you have records of responding back to 13 him about his concern or did it just --
i j 14 MR. DE SOIZA: No, I -- probably it's -- from my l 15 memory, I think I underestimated the significance of the .
16 problem the first time I met with Mr. Hallenbeck. He came l 17 in, he was really uptight. We had just come out of an j 18 outage and I get a lot of people in there post outage that
- I l 4
19 come in for.all different reasons. I'd say a majority of 20 them just want another voice to either I want the H.R. '
21 manager to record this, in case something happens I've got 22 it_on record. I kind of went into that mode, that this
) 23 was just somebody more or less bringing me an issue, but 24 more or less wanting to have me hear it as opposed to .
25 immediately looking for a solution or a resolution. I ;
e I-
38 1 might have misread that.
j 2 So at that time I might have -- I'm sure I had ,
3 other issues that I was dealing with and I think this one l
L 4- fell lower in my priority than maybe it should have, is '
L 5' probably my best explanation.
6 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. He makes another note, 7 January 4th, '94, still.no word from you regarding his l 8 ' concern.
9 I think he just felt like, you know, he was not 10 being given feedback and didn't understand why. ,
11 MR. DE SOIZA: And rightfully so.
12 MRS. SELEWSKI: We'll go off the-record for a ,
13 moment and I'll review --
14' (Off the record to review documents.)
! 15 MRS. SELEWSKI: We're back:on the record.
l 16 One other concern that Mr. Hallenbeck documented, 17 he~ felt like you ignored his concerns and that you were ,
- 18 pro Management and didn't care what the-consequences might
! 19 be.
h 20 Let's get your response to that. That he felt-
! 21 like, you know, that-you were on Management's side 22 regarding his concern and that possibly could have been 23 the feedback ~-- the lack of feedback talking there.
l
h 25 MRS. SELEWSKI: He doesn't give any specifics.
39 1 about why he felt that way, he just makes that one 2 statement.
3 MR. DE SOIZA: I can understand his statement.
4 In my dealings with Norman.is he basically has his demands 5 of how he would like to see the problem resolved. And it 6 was clear to me from day one that he wanted to get out of 7 his reporting relationship with Ernie Poarch. And that 8 would have been the only thing that I could have given to 9 him to show that I felt he was right, that what he said 10 was substantiated. And that would have been what he would 11 have felt to be the winning situation.
12 I am a member of Management. I do have the 13 obligation of looking at both sides of this.
14 When I interviewed Herman Fagley, who I know 15 pretty well to my working relationship, I put a lot of 16 credibility into the statements that he made to me. He i
17 assured me that Ernie was not dealing with this in any 18 kind of unprofessional manner. I couldn't find anything 19 based on what Norman gave me to show that there was some 20 mistreatment of him other than he was not going to respond 21 because of his deep dislike of Poarch to -- was.ever going 22 to respond to what we recommended. That it was really a 23 matter of I felt like if you don't like your supervision 24 and your Management, then you need some counseling. You 25 maybe need to work in another place. There's, you know,
40 1 no chains on you here. I don't know if that's wrong or 2 right, but that's how I interpreted the situation.
3 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Do you have anything else 4 you want to add or anything that I may have missed that 5 you want to fill in regarding this whole situation and his 6 allegation and any relations out of any contacts you had 7 with Hallenbeck or anyone else that would be helpful for 8 me to look at the whole picture?
9 MR. DE SOIZA: No, I think you do have a pretty 10 good chronological history of the events. I think you've 11 talked to the right people.
12 Again, I feel lt was more a personality driven.
13 I think it could have avoided becoming as serious an issue 14 as it did if handled differently. Based on what you said 15 there, if I had been a little hit more responsive and 16 sensitive to him, who knows, it could have changed. If 17 the appraisal had been done a little bit more tactfully, 18 maybe that could have done it. But it seemed to me all 19 along that this fellow Norman was a boiling pot. He was 20 going to boil steam somewhere, you know, and hopefully it 21 would have been with our EAP trained professionals. But 22 it never went that route. He went in all different areas.
23 He always left me as a very -- my impression is 24 he's a very intelligent individual, very technically 25 competent.
l i
41 l I
1 MRS. SELEWSKI: We're almost off the record, !
2 unless you want -- )
3 MR. DE SOIZA: I did feel at the end when Norman 1
4 left that he really wanted to move on, that everything was j 2 5 behind him, that he seemed very satisfied with the 6 agreement, he seemed to carry.no more bitterness other
. l 4
7 than he wanted to put distance between this plant and ;
8 himself.
9 So I really thought that when you called me and !
. 10 mentioned that ne still wanted this looked at I was l L
l 11 completely eurprised. It caught me completely off guard. I i
- 12 HRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Anything else you want to 1
1 13 add?
15 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay. Did you give this 16 statement voluntarily today?
I 18 MRS. SELEWSKI: Okay, we'll go ahead and 19 conclude the interview.
20 (Whereupon, the interview was concluded at 5:45 21 o' clock p.m.)
22 -----
23 24 25
9A -
1 CERTIFICATE 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3 before the United Sustas Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 4 the matter of:
5 Name of Proceeding: Interview of Andy De Soiza 6 Docket Number (s): (not assigned) 7 Place of Proceeding: St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, 8 Jensen Beach, Florida 9
10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter 13 reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the 14 court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true 15 and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
16 17
/ "
18 / AQ W r - A1 19
] I Peggy S. May 20 Official Reporter 21 Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
22 r 23 d
24 25 26
l.
PLKH'KMANUt: Planning & Review Worksheef SMART GOALS ARE Specific M asurable Attainable P-' vant' irackat i" .5 .
.Q.K :- -
!! , ~n Norman J. Hallenbeck T Construuion Supvr. E-7 d D- - Review Period -
Employee Name Employee Soc. Sec. No. Employee Classification rm To i@ Emest O. Poarch Area Construction Supervisor PSL/929 4041 111/94 111/9 5 Reviewer Name Reviewer's Classifcation Mail / Pay Location Phone
.t - '
IJ Key Responsibility Area: u = =, - =- -. sa- ==s m .*** pe.*- e =
- i == an., Actual Resuits/Consments: n =w=-e .w= Rating o ,
e - rt , o smaamt e una a=-e === = = =. -e ,=-.e.
. amen ma .-
e%"*"* ' * * * " " ' * * " *
- 10-40 ,
i D 1. KRA Motivate and deveky enployees to becerm beset b 95etr W ;
SMART Goat Dunng non-outage. cpend a spedned amount of trne per week for trainsg on the FPL Welding Manust. and the new computer p ograrn ,
3
~. ~
5
!? 2, KRA Be a s't of the team not a stand stone e ant IO . .' Smart Goat Artend de Construction s and nn mee s Conduct urnet suds f$
iw, .
- .' te do not mind conduct baariess wth v l
L'i
)
& s::
~
j ft J- il m
l9
<t s
> j Li G I C, .S KRA s
- = a j -% {
0, '
f l 2
?- i ,
i a T
O (KRx _
' 8 'h _
s r C
rt 9 W, A .
i f D D _ ;
c) :
s . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
t I
. _ . _ ~ - - - - - . . . . - - . . - - . - . - - - . - - . . - . . - - - - . - - . - - - - - - . . - - -
l.8t.KH IKMANGt: Planning & Reetew Worksheel SMART GOALS ARE Specific Measurable Attainable F-i-vant Tracciabe
~
. e
(' S _ _. -
?
' ii _
Norman J. Hallenbeck Constructiort Supvr. E-7 d D -
Review Period .
Employee Name , Employee Soc. Sec. No. Employee Classification
- i Emest O. Poarch Area Construction Supervisor PSU929 4g41 1/1/94 111/9 5 Reviewer Name Reviewer's Classifcation Mail / Pay Location Phone b- '
lI Key Responsipility Area: u . m ---.* e. r.--=, t = u , Actual Results/ Comments: n e.-e . w Rating o : i , o sunat .=a ima a.e== m m == ==. r . . , ,,'"'**'*"*"'*****'"' 1.0-40
- r. . - e e e e sen.is.ee e me.es
@ 1. KRA Mobvate and devebp empioyees to become becer m their ne'd.
SMART Gost Dumg noneitsge. spend a spedRed amount of trne per week for training on the FPL Welding Manust, and the new computer program.
3 l9 2 KRA Be e set of the tasm not a stand stone s - nt
!D , Smart Goat Attend ds . Construcion s and tonn mee . s Conduct urset such j N te do not mind condudm business with v I p,' s4
] <,
I
- c. It. t
- ~ .L b
. e >
l
~I C, "
~
3 KRA i
25 . >- ,
5f 2 L l a
g 1
[ 3 "U
I O- i t
4 KRA l O' k n, ,' I y t
.i s f i
OT1 W9 !
, ? * > -
O E l
,