ML20154E396
| ML20154E396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1997 |
| From: | Brown W NRC |
| To: | Williamson E NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D336 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-183 NUDOCS 9810080169 | |
| Download: ML20154E396 (2) | |
Text
. -.
l l
! s
.i l
From:
William Br wn i
To:
ELW1
/hg/d
- 4 MJ l
Date:
1/29/97 9:57am i
Subject:
- v. SCE: Dot. Reconsnended Orde Len, at your request, I reviewed the subject order. My cocinents are as follows.
The ALJ's Recoranended Orde stated the the Conplainant had conplained that e j
was harassed by n.onagement in mid 1993 and removed from hls' supervisory i
position for discussing with marw ement A s safety conc r regarding proper 7
operaion of the, lainant further stated to DOL that gain raised asfety concerns in h
was given a below standaR performance appraisal -- all of which Llevod was due to f identification of the various safety issues.
00L not that, upon review CE, a new appraisal (pres enably a better one) was given t hi and Ishafetyissueswereaddressed. The Recminended Decision did deal the allegation that Complainant was reenved from his sywrvisory position, it did state that Conplainant was not satisfied.
gas contacted by SCE management to see if h wanted to It was thin that e j
volunteer for a ensated severance as part of a plaaned c rehensive reduction in force as part of an SCE restructuring program.
The ALJ determined that the Complainant's termination was, indeed, part of a planned reduction in force that Conplainant and 57 other coployees voluntertly elected to accept. The severance package contained a standard settlement (glauseprecludingfutureclaimsoractionsinreturnfortheappr6ximately M severance amount.
However, the agreement specifically reserved Conplainant8s right to contact the NRC abnut any concerns. The ALJ noted that there was no indication that Conplainant was coerced or under chress to accept the package which h
In ar/ opinion, since the agreement was of fered as part of a planned reduction in force accepted by 58 enployees, there is no indication that the contact by management to see if Conplainant was interrsted in the voluntary program was discrimination in retallation for protected activity even though Conplainant has alleged same for, af ter all, Conplainant vojuntarily, without coercion or duress, accepted the conpensated package af ter e was contacted about it.
Nevertheless, the NRC is not precluded from investigating this case. Under I
the enforcement policy the agency may still consider whether this case is indicative of discrimination or whether it creates a chilling effect.
However, the policy cautions the staff to be careful in such considerations so as not to be perceived as discouraging settlements. On balance, absent further information and based on the facts available, I see no reason to open an investigation.
Bill I
CC:
RXW i
I 98kOO80169 980930 7
'N l
]
KNUDSON98-183 PDR O
EXHIBIT p,
g
/
pgge CASEf40.
h-96-056
/
'W/003 0 49 Q
]
1 l
31 i
i l
f i
_y i
i EXHIBIT 9
\\
1 l
i i
l Information in this record was deleted 3
in accordance with the Frcedam of Information Act,'exenptions __fd FOIA_.f.f.T./78 l
l CASI NO.
4-9b-056 EXHIBI' j
\\
l
'I /S b
,,1 dt?