ML20214A353

Board Exhibit B-1,consisting of 860514 Memo Re 860410 Enforcement Board Discussion Concerning Employment Discrimination Cases.Proceeding W/Enforcement Action in Johnson Vs Transco,Inc Case Recommended

ML20214A353
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	07/08/1986
From:	Bern Stapleton NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
OL-B-001, OL-B-1, NUDOCS 8705190404
Download: ML20214A353 (1)

Text

. _ _ _ ._. _ _ . ._ _ _. . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . .

50 -yS4 9/57 -d &

pterug . UNITE 3 STATES

/

. 'g / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I i

]s 8,

's l 7g nEcios m no noostmtmono 0 3 p,E L 0"$

. CLEN ELLYN. ILLINoss sos 37

% . . . . . * 'f May 14, 1986

, 37 Am 24 P4 '43 ,

GF.% - * ..

MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files $,g #

THRU: T. N. Tambling, Director, Enforcement and InvestigationN Coordination Staff FROM: Bernard W. Stapleton, Enforcement Specialist Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff

SUBJECT:

BRAIDWOOD - ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE On April 10, 1986, an Enforcement Board was held to discuss two alleged 4 employment discrimination cases. The staff recommended that we proceed with enforcement action in the Johnson vs. Transco Inc. case which occurred at the Byron facility. ,

However, in the Puckett vs. L. K. Comstock Company case at Braidwood, the staff concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a violation against 10 CFR 50.7. It was not clear to the staff that Mr. Puckett was discharged for his involvement in protected activities. Mr. Puckett was in a p.robationary period of his employment and there was uncertainty as to whether or not he was qualified in the job for which he was hired.

In employment discrimination cases where the staff cannot reach a conclusion -'

based on available information, the Office of Investigations (01) can be requested to investigate or the Regional staff can initiate further investigations. 01 has indicated that they would not pursue the matter based on the initial findings of the Department of Labor (DOL) and the age of the case. The staff also felt that the difficulty in reconstructing the evidence pertaining to the qualification testing for Mr. Puckett (e.g., locating the actual weld samples inspected by Mr. Puckett during his testing) would not be effective use of manpower. l Mr. Puckett's technical concerns were reviewed by the staff in Inspection l Report No. 50-456/85-009. Corrective action was initiated by L. K. Comstock l' relating to those concerns. This resulted in one Severity Level V violation with two examples. Based on available information and that a decision had not been made by the Secretary of Labor, the Regional Administrator decided not to expend further manpower resources on the issue at this time.

l 87051 0404 DOCK g % $ 56 PDR PDR Serr.ard W. Staple oor ,

G Enforcement Specialist cc: J. G. Keppler '

A. B. Davis C. E. Norelius C. H. Weil

.