U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
525 Vine Street, Suite 900
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
DATE: June 18, 1991
CASE NO.: 91-ERA-38
In the Matter of
G. RICHARD HOWARD
Complainant
v.
QUADREX ENERGY SERVICES
Respondent
Wendell L. Payne, Esq.
For the complainant
Mr. Frank Jackson
For the respondent
Charles W. Campbell
Administrative Law Judge
RECOMMENDED DECISION
This is proceeding under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended
("ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5801, et seq., and its implementing regulations, 29
CFR part 24. The specific provision of the ERA involved in this case 42 U.S.C.
§ 5851, which states in pertinent part as follows:
[Page 2]
Section 5851. Employee Protection
(a) Discrimination against employee. No employer, including a Commission
licensee, or a contractor or a subcontractor of a Commission licensee or
applicant, may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against
any employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment because the employee (or person acting pursuant
to a request of the employee)---
(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to
commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under this
Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a
proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any
requirement imposed under this Act or the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended,
(2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or;
(3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate
in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other manner in
such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the
purposes of this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended.
G. Richard Howard, the complainant ("Howard"), asserts that the respondent,
Quadrex Energy Services ("Quadrex"), violated the Act by failing to submit
Howard's name is a potential employee to Ebasco and other potential employers
in the nuclear industry. One of the functions which Quadrex performs is to
find temporary employees for firms engaged in the nuclear power business.
Howard asserts that the failure of Quadrex to submit his name was due to the
fact that Frank Jackson, a senior vice-president of Quadrex, was informed "by
someone in TVA" that Howard had filed suit against TVA and was to be
blackballed.
Following proper notice, a hearing was held before me in Chattanooga,
Tennessee on May 29, 1991 at which the parties were afforded opportunity to
present evidence and argument.1
1 References to the transcript of the
hearing in this recommended
decision employ the prefix "Tr." The statement at pages 72-73 of the
transcript, beginning at line six was erroneously attributed to the court by
the transcriber. Actually, it was a statement made by Mr. Jackson.