ML19327A768

Forwards Response to Allegations Re Potential Employment Discrimination.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(a)(7))

ML19327A768
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	09/18/1989
From:	Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML19327A761	List: ML19327A768
References
RIII-88-A-0125, RIII-88-A-125, NUDOCS 8910180071
Download: ML19327A768 (3)

Text

.

f' g.

y~ ---

f"'

~

f' .- Commonwrith Edicon--

I . J[i .;; 72 West Adams Street, Chicago, luinois i=  :. ; / / XBF4R~cT>Ty tEP5sf0Hice 05776F -

- / Chicago, Illinois 00G90 0767 i

September 18, 1989 Mr. A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Region III N 799 RooseveIt Road 10 CFR 2.7.

4' Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 FORMATION -

WITIIHOLD FI% IMl3LIC DISCLOSURE

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Allegation Concerning Potential Employment Discrimination No. RIII-88-A-0125 e' 37Y HRC Docket Nos. 50 . nd _50-M9-

Reference:

(a) E.G. Greenman Letter to Cordell Reed dated August 1, 1989

Dear Mr. Davls:

Reference (a) Informed Commonwealth Edison of an allegation concerning potential employment discrimination at the LaSalle Nuclear Station by a contractor hired by Edison to conduct work activities.at the LaSalle Station. An investigation was performed and the results are contained in the following att v iments.

The attachment to-this letter contains information which is-exempt-from public disclosure according to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(7).

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this-office.

Very truly yours, y ,'

/ ,

-m --

T. . Ko d h s i

Nuclear Licensing Manager 4

"100FR 2.7DO INF  ; TION MARKING DOES NOT APP # HEN THIS LETTER IS SEPAR FRO?,bTJIE ENCLOSURF,"

HEM /scl:0289T:1 8910180071 891005 DR ADOCK 0300 3 SEP 211989

!J

c y 10 CFR 2 y c ATTACHMENT A FORMATION-WITHHOLD tOh 'UBLIC DISCLOSURI:

E $4 Reference (a) requested Commonwealth Edison Company (" Edison") to investigate whether MMR foley Electric Company-("foley") and M an electrician formerly employed by foley, have settled a complaint M filed with the U.S. Department of Labor. If so, Edison was asked to investigate the bases for the settlement and determine'If it was'made in whole or part because of discriminattoa, if discrimination was involved, you asked Edison to ,

address additional questions related to the possible chilling affect of such  :

discrimination.

• Edison has-investigated the settlement between MMR foley Electric Companmy and m and has determined that the-settlement in no way supported Mclaim that he had been discriminated against by foley.

Edison's investigation Indicates that (1)Mwas not rehired due to excessive abseentelsm when he was last employed by foley; and (2) that foley's settlement of-52,500 was offered to m solely to save foley the greater cost ,

and inconvenience of protracted litigation. foley did not rehire m for a non-discriminatory reason and subsequently settled with M for an economic reason. These conclusions are supported by the documents provided as Exhibits to this letter.

Commonwealth Edison is both aware of and respectful of its obilgations to ensure that neither it nor its contractors' retaliate against'_ -

employees who engage in protected activity as defined in the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA). Because it takes these obligations so seriously, Edison has conducted an exhaustive investigation, even though the situation does not appear to be covered by the ERA.

lhe ERA is specifically designed to protect employees. At no time during this incident was M employed by either Edison or Foley. Thus,

j. he could not be covered by the ERA or the regulations promulgated under it..

The non discriminatory basis for the decision not to rehire m and l the filing of the allegation after this decision by foley leads Commonwealth l Edison to conclude that there is no reasonable basis for believing that the L employment decision by this contractor could give rise to a " chilling effect" l on other persons. Ihus, Commonwealth Edison does not believe that further action is warranted as a result of this complaint.

Itames of parties and certain other identifyl-details have been removed in order tc p r:- te a' clearly unwarranted invasion of the perse:. I privacy of the Individuals involved.

10 CPIh75 . NPORMATION non,s m 0289 m """"owp whC oiscoosuu

p/ , .,

w

u. a : . ,.

JATTACitMENT Dl 10 CFR 2.790 INFORM ATiON .

I.  :. , ? * ' ,;

WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE E- , ,

u

?

+

+

1

)

f 1

..; i