ML16113A323: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 04/22/2016 | | issue date = 04/22/2016 | ||
| title = LTR-16-0219 Mark Macnichol, President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union 627, E-mail SECY-15-0149, ML16063A268 - Role of Third Party Arbitrators in Access Authorization and Fitness-For-Duty Determination Reviews | | title = LTR-16-0219 Mark Macnichol, President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union 627, E-mail SECY-15-0149, ML16063A268 - Role of Third Party Arbitrators in Access Authorization and Fitness-For-Duty Determination Reviews | ||
| author name = | | author name = Macnichol M | ||
| author affiliation = International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local Union No 627 | | author affiliation = International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local Union No 627 | ||
| addressee name = Burns S | | addressee name = Burns S | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Chairman | | addressee affiliation = NRC/Chairman | ||
| docket = 05000335, 05000389 | | docket = 05000335, 05000389 | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:CHAIRMAN Resource From: Sent: To: Cc: | {{#Wiki_filter:CHAIRMAN Resource From: 627ibew@gmail.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:00 AM To: CHAIRMAN Resource Cc: Anna Jerry | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
[External_Sender] SECY-15-0149 | |||
==Dear Chairman Bums:== | ==Dear Chairman Bums:== | ||
RE: SECY-15-0149, ML16063A268 Role of Third Party Arbitrators in Access Authorization & Fitness-for-Duty Determination Reviews at Nuclear Power Plants I am Mark MacNichol, President of IBEW LU #627, Fort Pierce, FL. I represent the bargaining unit at the St. | |||
& Fitness-for-Duty Determination Reviews at Nuclear Power Plants I am Mark MacNichol, President of IBEW LU #627, Fort Pierce, FL. I represent the bargaining unit at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant owned by Florida Power and Light. I have reviewed the SECY-15-0149. | Lucie Nuclear Plant owned by Florida Power and Light. | ||
I am hoping by me writing this letter to you that I can explain why I think if the NRC adopts the proposal it would be completely unfair to nuclear workers. I started working at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on March 6, 1989. Over the past 27 years I have witnessed the company wrongfully deny access to several employees. | I have reviewed the SECY-15-0149. I am hoping by me writing this letter to you that I can explain why I think if the NRC adopts the proposal it would be completely unfair to nuclear workers. | ||
Through the arbitration process, several of those employees have been able to return to work. Once they returned to work they have given the company several more years of professional workmanship. | I started working at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on March 6, 1989. Over the past 27 years I have witnessed the company wrongfully deny access to several employees. Through the arbitration process, several of those employees have been able to return to work. Once they returned to work they have given the company several more years of professional workmanship. The reason for the employees to be able to return to work is because they could arbitrate without limitations or restrictions. This is the only way that an employee can defend himself against an employers wrongful access authorization or fitness for duty determination. Now that I have said that, I am asking you to disapprove the SECY-15-0149. | ||
The reason for the employees to be able to return to work is because they could arbitrate without limitations or restrictions. | Just like the NRC, the IBEW is committed to protecting the security of all nuclear sites. Through our Code of Excellence we enforce the importance of public safety at our nuclear sites and encourage nothing but the most professional workmanship. The IBEW has absolutely no interest in protecting anyone that has made a genuine threat. What I have actually seen over the years with the cases we have arbitrated are issues that came forth from minor infractions and minor off-duty conduct. These cases have had nothing to do with security of the nuclear sites. | ||
This is the only way that an employee can defend himself against an employers wrongful access authorization or fitness for duty determination. | I have some apprehensive thoughts on a couple of things if you allow SECY-15-0149. The first thought is, what protection would the employee have if the employer just wanted to discharge an employee if you take the option of unrestricted arbitration away. On the surface it looks like the employer wants to deny access but that usually leads to termination. My second thought is, by removing the unrestricted arbitration from the employee, how likely would the employee want to raise nuclear and safety concerns. I feel the employee would be scared of retribution by losing their right to unrestricted arbitration. | ||
Now that I have said that, I am asking you to disapprove the SECY-15-0149. | In closing, I would like to add that I do not feel the public will be any safer if the NRC adopts SECY 0149. Both the company and the union have trusted and agreed to the decisions of arbitrators for a very long time. I am not sure why the companies would worry about going to arbitration on Access Authorization or Fitness for Duty, if they have a good reason to deny either, I am sure the arbitrator would rule in their favor. | ||
Just like the NRC, the IBEW is committed to protecting the security of all nuclear sites. Through our Code of Excellence we enforce the importance of public safety at our nuclear sites and encourage nothing but the most professional workmanship. | Thank You, Mark MacNichol 1 | ||
The IBEW has absolutely no interest in protecting anyone that has made a genuine threat. What I have actually seen over the years with the cases we have arbitrated are issues that came forth from minor infractions and minor off-duty conduct. These cases have had nothing to do with security of the nuclear sites. I have some apprehensive thoughts on a couple of things if you allow SECY-15-0149. | |||
The first thought is, what protection would the employee have if the employer just wanted to discharge an employee if you take the option of unrestricted arbitration away. On the surface it looks like the employer wants to deny access but that usually leads to termination. | |||
My second thought is, by removing the unrestricted arbitration from the employee, how likely would the employee want to raise nuclear and safety concerns. | |||
I feel the employee would be scared of retribution by losing their right to unrestricted arbitration. | |||
In closing, I would like to add that I do not feel the public will be any safer if the NRC adopts SECY | |||
President, IBEW LU #627 2}} | President, IBEW LU #627 2}} |
Latest revision as of 21:42, 30 October 2019
ML16113A323 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Saint Lucie ![]() |
Issue date: | 04/22/2016 |
From: | Macnichol M International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local Union No 627 |
To: | Stephen Burns NRC/Chairman |
Shared Package | |
ML16113A325 | List: |
References | |
LTR-16-0219 | |
Download: ML16113A323 (2) | |
Text
CHAIRMAN Resource From: 627ibew@gmail.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:00 AM To: CHAIRMAN Resource Cc: Anna Jerry
Subject:
[External_Sender] SECY-15-0149
Dear Chairman Bums:
RE: SECY-15-0149, ML16063A268 Role of Third Party Arbitrators in Access Authorization & Fitness-for-Duty Determination Reviews at Nuclear Power Plants I am Mark MacNichol, President of IBEW LU #627, Fort Pierce, FL. I represent the bargaining unit at the St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant owned by Florida Power and Light.
I have reviewed the SECY-15-0149. I am hoping by me writing this letter to you that I can explain why I think if the NRC adopts the proposal it would be completely unfair to nuclear workers.
I started working at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on March 6, 1989. Over the past 27 years I have witnessed the company wrongfully deny access to several employees. Through the arbitration process, several of those employees have been able to return to work. Once they returned to work they have given the company several more years of professional workmanship. The reason for the employees to be able to return to work is because they could arbitrate without limitations or restrictions. This is the only way that an employee can defend himself against an employers wrongful access authorization or fitness for duty determination. Now that I have said that, I am asking you to disapprove the SECY-15-0149.
Just like the NRC, the IBEW is committed to protecting the security of all nuclear sites. Through our Code of Excellence we enforce the importance of public safety at our nuclear sites and encourage nothing but the most professional workmanship. The IBEW has absolutely no interest in protecting anyone that has made a genuine threat. What I have actually seen over the years with the cases we have arbitrated are issues that came forth from minor infractions and minor off-duty conduct. These cases have had nothing to do with security of the nuclear sites.
I have some apprehensive thoughts on a couple of things if you allow SECY-15-0149. The first thought is, what protection would the employee have if the employer just wanted to discharge an employee if you take the option of unrestricted arbitration away. On the surface it looks like the employer wants to deny access but that usually leads to termination. My second thought is, by removing the unrestricted arbitration from the employee, how likely would the employee want to raise nuclear and safety concerns. I feel the employee would be scared of retribution by losing their right to unrestricted arbitration.
In closing, I would like to add that I do not feel the public will be any safer if the NRC adopts SECY 0149. Both the company and the union have trusted and agreed to the decisions of arbitrators for a very long time. I am not sure why the companies would worry about going to arbitration on Access Authorization or Fitness for Duty, if they have a good reason to deny either, I am sure the arbitrator would rule in their favor.
Thank You, Mark MacNichol 1
President, IBEW LU #627 2