ML20154E401
| ML20154E401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1997 |
| From: | Brown W NRC |
| To: | Wise R NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D336 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-183 NUDOCS 9810080171 | |
| Download: ML20154E401 (2) | |
Text
.
ggCEW EO CV O M
From:
Willia Brown,.
NAM lu(I./
9'l ffO gg p}\\@ N l
To-RXW -
Date:
2/12 97 10:4Bam Subjects Discrimination Allegation: Former SONGS Employee,OI 4-96-056 Russ, pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the transcript of OI's interview with the subject alleger.
The alleger was a senior engineer at SONGS.
pisjemployment was terminated by Southern California Edison do%3any in M as par.trof a general RIF which included 3 engineers, one of them bein he alleger, who were all at the same level in the all W The permanent positions within the were apparently abolished while the temporary contractor positions were retained.
l Sincetheallegerwaseligibleforearlyretirement,hwasgiven the retirement package for which; was eligible.
In addition,
'wapoferedonly8weeksofIfgey h
was offered 51 weeks of sala signed a release.
se not to sign the release, s
salary.
The release did not pre ude A from making any nuclear safety complaints.
The alleger signe
.e release and took the l
better package. flednow contends that employment termination was in retali.atidTM or havi raised sa ginning two years earlier about the I
furthercontendedthathe]washarassedafter ra sed t e safety issues in that wasappraisedasbeing"beowstandard"inpig periodic appra o although this appraisal was subsequently upgraded to a " standard" appraisal.
Basically, other than ki suspicions, the alleger offered no evidence that the claihe discrimination was in retaliation for
$isiearlier protected,hia tivity nor did {e} claim that anyone even indicated as much tg It is noted, Ts a matter of information, that the eger filed a Sec. 211 complaint with DOL and h 'was turned down at the district level and in a subsequent Rec nded Order and Decision by the AL7.
In my opinion, there is not a sufficient indication of a Sec.
50.7 violation to merit further investigation of this matter.
Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.
Bill CC:
JED2, ELW1 i
l
(
9810080171 980930 PDR FOIA KNUDSON98-183 PDR EXHIBIT 7
CASENO.
4-96-U56
/
/
/
of /
pages Page l
% 00400l
/
e l
EXHIBIT 10 Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the freedom of Information Act, exemptions f6 F0lA 9 f - / 78 UHIBM CASEtl0.
4-96-056
)
a