ML16113A323

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

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:	Burns S G NRC/Chairman
Shared Package
ML16113A325	List: ML16113A323
References
LTR-16-0219
Download: ML16113A323 (2)

Text

CHAIRMAN Resource From: Sent: To: Cc:

Dear Chairman Bums:

627ibew@gmail.com Friday, April 22, 2016 1:00 AM CHAIRMAN Resource Anna Jerry [External_Sender]

SECY-15-0149 RE: SECY-15-0149, ML 16063A268 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-15-0149. 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