ML20147F570
| ML20147F570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1978 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064C468 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7810200028 | |
| Download: ML20147F570 (2) | |
Text
- - _ _.
[,
"4 UNITED STATES
- [g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON g,
a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Q & f.
Ocr a gg SECRETARIAT RECORD y
i
(
' MEM0lMNDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie
^
Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Kennedy i
Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne FRO.M:
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
' CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DECISION ON CLASS g
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT FILED BY NRC EMPLOYEE g
i In June 1978, an emplo' ee of.the NRC, Dorothy Marie Slater, filed
(
y with the Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity a class j
complaint alleging NRC discrimination in its employment practices.
I The class complaint was filed on behalf of all women and black d
employees of the NRC.
In accordance with established Civil Service i
Comission regulations applicable to such complaints, the complaint was formally transmitted to the Civil Service Commission's Federal
[~
Employees Appeal Authority for a recommendation as to whether it should be rejected or accepted.
[..
j On September 25,1978, an EE0 Complaints Examiner of the Federal Employees Appeal Authority rendered a decision on the class complaint.
A copy of that decision is attached.
The decision, which was received by NRC on October 2,1978, in sumary, racommends:
1.
The acceptance of Dorothy Marie Slater's complaint-that more NRC female employees have had their positions auditied and promotions disapproved than male employees.
2.
That D0rothy Marie Slater be accepted as the agent for all female employees of the NRC with respect to the above cr 4laint.
3.
That all other allegations contained in the class com-plaint be rejected.
These allegations related to race discrimination and a wide range of other complaints regarding such matters as salaries, promotions, length of time in grade, and training opportunities.
10 1&/0 l
\\
-~
\\
-l 3
affected.
The complainant provided.no additional information to this office in response to my letter of July 31,.1978.
Accordingly, I find that there. has been no showing that complainant was individually aff ected within the t4me' timit for consulting with the counselor by any of the matters she raised on May 2, 1978.
I recommend that the agency rejeo: that portion of her formal class. complaint which relates to these matters.
The formal complaint, filed on June 15, 1978, raises for the first time an allegation of race (Black) discrimination, and it elleges discrimination in cor.nection with a number.of employment matters not previously raised to an EE0 counselor on either of her visits.
The compicinant did not indicate, in response-to my letter of July 31, 1978, any reason for failing to present these matters fer counseling.
Section 713.004(c) provides that the complaints examiner may' recommend that the agency reject any allegations not discussed with a counselor if the complainant ' f ails to satisf actorily explain the omission.
I recommend that the agency reject under this section the alleg-ation of race discrimination.and allegations with respect to employment catters other than those raised in her March 22, 1978, contact with the counselor.
As noted above, four of.the criteria for the maintenance of a class complaint are numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation..In this complaint, the record reveals that there are over 700 female employees in the agency who potentially could be affected by the policy of auditing jobs in response to promotion requests.
It appears that the number of potential class members is sufficiently large to make consolidation impractical.
The allegations raise a common question of sex discrimination and the agent's l
claim of sex discrimination is typical of the claims of this asserted class.
The record shows that the agent's representative is adequate and does not present any reason to believe that the interects of the agent are in conflict with the interests of the class members.
3 s'ummary, I recommend that Ms. Stater be accepted as the agent for a class cumplaint regarding the impact of auditing jobs in response to :; quests for promotion of teomen employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I recommend rejection of all other allegations.
i The recommendations contained herein shall become the agency decision unless the agency rejects or modiffes them within ten (10) y calendar days of its receipt of-this letter.
Sincerely yours, k. b.'
beth 3. Bogle 4 cuo complaints Examiner CE.ry How rd fin:pson ic:
.ct Dorothy Marie Slater I
i,
.y.._
.. ~. _... _., _ _
1
.' l' 2
d l
agent...The allegations raised in the complaint must be within the purview lof pa,rt 713, subpart F, of the regulations, and can not consist of allega-tiong which were contained in a previous complaint filed in behalf of'the
~
same class-which is pending in the agency or which has been resolved or decided by the agency.
Finally, the class must be so numerous that a consolidated complaint of the class members would be impractical; the the complaint must raise common questions of f act; the claims of the agent must be typical of the claims of the class; and the agent or her represen-tative must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
By letter dated July 31,, 1978, complainant was advised of the above require-ments and afforded 15 calendar days to provide information to show that the allegations she raised met the requirements for processing as a class complaint.
The complainant responded, through her representative, by letters. dated August 14, 1978, August 15, 1978, and August 19, 1978.
The complainant first sought counseling regarding job audits and promotions of-women.
The record reflects that a recommendation for the complainant's promotion'was signed on June 9, 1977.
Her job was audited and the promotion was denied on August 2, 1977, and again on January 23, 1978.
The complainant contacted an' EE0 counselor on March 22, 1978.
As part of her counseling, the agency gave complainant. and others the opportunity to request re-audits of their positions.
The complainant was given a notice of final interview and right to file a formal complaint on April 21, 1978.
However, on April 26, 1978, the complainant was advised.that the time limit for filing a formal class complaint would be extended for 15 days beyond the completion of the re-audit of her position.
The results of the re-audit were transmitted to the complainant by memorandum dated June 26, 1978.
The re-audit reaffirmed the agency's finding that the proper grade of the complainant's position was GS 9.
By this t'ime the complainant had already filed her formal complaint.
Based on the above, I find that the complainant complied with applicable time limits with respect to the allegation she first raised to the EIO counselor.
The complainant again visited an EEO counselor on May 2, 1978, indicating that she wished to expand on the allegation previously raised.
She received a notice of final interview with respect to this allegation on May 31, 1978.
-As noted above, under Civil Service regulations, a class complaint must contain a specific and' detailed description of the agency personnel manage-s ment policy or practice giving rise to the complaint, and a' description of the resultant' personnel action or matter adversely affecting the agent.
I The agent must consult'with an EEO counseler within 90 calender days of l
the-matter giving rise to the allegation of individual discrimination.
Although the complainant'in this case advised the counselor that she wished to bring a class action regarding several empicyment matters, she did not
~
indicate whether she had been~ individually affected or when she had been
_ _ _. - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _