ML20247N260
| ML20247N260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1989 |
| From: | Shetler J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC |
| References | |
| AGM-NS-89-018, AGM-NS-89-18, NUDOCS 8906050292 | |
| Download: ML20247N260 (4) | |
Text
-
iL 3,)f L
L(V 1 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTIUTY DISTRICT O 620 suun I
95852-1830,(916) 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CAllFORNIA
.May 25, 1989 AGM/NS89-018 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-11155 Rockville Pike
.Rockville, MD 20852 Attention:
James Lieberman
Dear Sir:
In. December 1987, the District terminated an employee for violation of District rules. As a result of the termination, the employee lost unescorted access to Rancho Seco. The employee appealed the District's termination, and pursuant to the District's contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Horkers Union (the Union), a hearing on the matter was held before a labor? arbitrator.-
As a result of the hearing, the termination of the employee was reduced to a
.three-month suspension. The employee was to return.to work in January of 1989 with back pay given to him from March 1988 until his return to' work.
The District's license required that any individual who has not held a site access badge in the proceeding 365 days must complete the prebadging process, including taking the MMPI and having a background investigation performed.
Since'the employee had been unbadged for more than 365 days, it is the District's intent to fcilow this process with respect to the disciplined employee. The Union contends that under the arbitrator's award the employee must be~ treated as being employed and,therefore badged since March 1988.
Under this interpretation the employce need not go through the revised badging process.
This issue was presented to the arbitrator who, absent any other direction, agrees with the Union's interpretation. The arbitrator's request is as.follows:-
" Employee was reinstated pursuant to an Arbitrator's Award. The Arbitrator found that his prior termination was not proper and the employee should receive back pay and fringe benefit for the period
.beginning March 9,1988, and continuing until his reinstatement, which will now be. occurring in 1989. She has further determined that this make-whole relief was intended to assure the employee would be treated just as though he had been working from March 9, 1988 forward. Thus, this 1
is a special circumstance in which the District has received a directive to treat (the employee) as though he were working continuously after March 9, 1988, as a remedy for the issues presented in arbitrations."
(Note:
employee name deleted) 8906050292 890525 fp; PDR ADOCK 05000312 P.
PDC ii i
! RANCHO SECo NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION D 1444o Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638-9799;(209) 333-2935:
u
James Lieberman AGM/SP 89-018 Despite the above, the arbitrator will not impose her conclusion if to do so would result in the District violating its license.
For this reason the arbitrator has directed the District to request guidance from you on whether either of the two approaches discussed above are acceptable and, specifically, whether the NRC concurs with the arbitrator's order regarding the employee's access to Rancho Seco.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.
If you have any questions or require further clarification, please contact me at (209) 333-2935, extension 4154.
Sincerely, ws f W hk
_m James R. Shetler Assistant General Manager Special Projects Attachment
r
. ms-a,- 4, m
...m.,,.
%. aa_fra.
4 1
- v. or,acco
- ";n",,
KAcu. wn KAcet.
m,,.,
..o...
c.c...
, _. u m,..m. u.s, o, u.
..,-..m..
w....
.x,....
a ovmom so.,mct3co,c Awoe.m vno.:
March 7, 1989 Jane Brunner, Attorney at Law INTERNATIONAL BROTHEFROOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1245 P.O. Box 4790 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 l
Paul S.
Burns, Esq.
f l
I.
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT fA I P.O. Box 15830 sacramento, CA 95852-1830 Ret M D &_IDEW, Local ?245 W l
Dear Counsel:
The Union has presented a concern to me regarding SMUD's compliance with ny Award in the above-described matter. Its concern revolves around the District's requirement that esmp undergo steps necessary under current guidelines for "re-badging,"
including the MHPI test. Both parties have presented their post-tions in regard to this issue to ma verbally.
The Union contends that & should be treated in all res-pects as though he had been working af ter March 9,1988 because.
ny Award includos snake-whole relief from that date forward. If hhad ten working fpm that date forward, there would be no nacensity for hin to take the r#IPI test. The District contends that its current guidelines require this test upon re-badging anyone who has not, in fact, used a badge for a specified perioi It further contandr that h did not use a badge for the spec g ified period, and that it nust uniformly apply the rule to him in order to avoid negative evaluation of District compliance with internal guidelines by the NRC. The District asserts that the Arbitrator has no authority to order anything contrary to the 1:
NRC's expectations.
My Award in this matter did require the District to$ pro-vide Game with the pay and fringe benefits he would have received had he reouned his errployment on March 9,1988. This is trVoitional "make-whole" relief, and it was intended to put guess in the, same position he would be in had he, in f act, worked from that.date.
forward. But for the impact of NRC regulation, this would i'elieve him from any badging requirements that would not apply to'sonneone NRC regulation does have impact on working throughout that time.
this case, however, and it is not my intent to create any obligation in conflict with Nhc expectations.
.s 03-07 -89 TUE 09:25:00 C3
- t ****
NO.01-3 m
~~...y.
LEGEND:
- 4;.
7
- W.c..
..,d. !
- Employee's Name Blocked Out 7
same====
DE 08-18-++
TUE 01:43:25 G?
++ + +++
HO.02
a
.. M -07 '04 09:33 IL:Cy wi h ro;.nzs:3m;
- ss %
SMUD 6 13rW, Local 1245 (Brian Knox)
March ',, 1989 Page Two In order to assure the fullest possible ef fect.uation of the Award's intent, the District is directed to make written inquiry of appropriate NRC of ficials concerning their position.
That inquiry should contain that following languages
' h h was reinstated pursuant to an Arbitrator's Award. The Arbitrator found that his prior termination was not proper and that h should receive back pay and f ringe benefits for the period beginning March 9,1988 and cont.inuing until his reinstaterrent, which wf11 now be occurring in 1989. She has further determ nted that this make-whole relief was intended to assure would be treated just as though he had been working from March 9, 1988 forward. Thus, this is a special circumstance in which the District has received a directive to treat gam e me as though he were working continuously after E rch 9, 1988 as a remedy for,the issues presented in arbitration.'
Because my Award found that h should have been working from March 9, 1988 forward, the District has a continuing obligation to pay h his usual pay and benefits during any delay caused by this inquiry. The need for this inquiry, and any resulting delay, were occasioned by M improper termination. Had the Tmproper termination not occurred, this delay would not be occurring. Thus, any burden of the delay must f ail upon the District and not M.
If you have any questiong.concerning the matters discussed in this latter, please contact me promptly.
.~.
Very truly yours, Kath al Arbitrator as H O.
0 2 03-07-89 TUE 09:26:26 G3
- ++**
O
~~-
I l
08-18 *+
TUE 01:46:02 G3
- ++++
NO.03
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -