Howard testified that he had been associated with the nuclear power industry for such of the period from 1974 until 1987. He specializes in configuration management, which he testified involved managing changes in nuclear plant

design. He testified that during the period September 15, 1986 until June 1987 he was an employee of TVA. He testified that he was terminated by TVA in June 1987 because he had raised safety-related concerns. Howard also testified that he had raised safety-related concerns both within TVA and with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On page four of his letter of complaint date March 28, 1991 he also indicated that he had filed suit against TVA.

Howard testified that he raised safety concerns while working with TVA. Apparently some of these safety concerns were expressed in writing, although no copies of any documents in which Howard raised safety concerns were presented in evidence at the hearing in this case. When asked whether he had raised any of his safety concerns in writing, Howard testified as follows:

THE WITNESS: I raised the concerns through an agenda process when we made meetings with the Division of Nuclear Engineering. I did not raise it as a specific "We should be concerned with 79-14 issues." I raised it in the format of "What is the status of 79-14? What is the status of 79-02?" Your Honor.

THE COURT: You say agenda. Were you proposing these items as agenda items for some kind of a meeting?

THE WITNESS: For a meeting and for a discussion between our group, the configuration management. We were part of Division Nuclear Services, and when we had meetings with the Division of Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Construction, those were the agenda items that we wanted to raise, and to surface, and I also discussed the safety-related issues with my manager, Mr. Jerry Childs, who came to me when we were raising these. He said what's a 79-14, since he had never worked in the utility industry. He had worked in the Department of Engineering, Department of Energy environment. He professed not to have any knowledge of 79-14, and I had to basically give him an overview of 79-14, similar to that I've just discussed here, Your Honor.

At which time he told me, I discussed the relationship that I had with Mr. Al Latti back in October, at which time Mr. Jerry Childs told me to back off, I'll handle it, and in essence told me to not raise 79-14 safety related issues at all (Tr. 33-34).

Later the claimant testified in part, " . . . I raised safety-related concerns to the employee concern program, to the intimidation and harassment program, and then I wrote two memos, June 1, June 2, and I was terminated on June 8th, or June 7th. . . . So yes, I did raise safety-related concerns before I was wrongfully terminated." He also testified that he had forwarded safety

concerns to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Tr. 40).

Howard also asserts that he has been blacklisted or blackballed by TVA and that as a result, TVA and its contractors will not hire him and that Quadrex, because of the blacklisting, failed to submit his application for employment to firms in the nuclear power industry.

One of the elements of a prima case under § 5851 of the Act is proof that the party charged with unlawful discrimination knew of the complainant's protected activity. Jackson denied that he or Quadrex had knowledge of Howard's raising of safety concerns at TVA. In this case, the only attempted proof that Quadrex knew of Howard's raising of safety concerns is evidence that knowledge is fairly well-communicated within the nuclear power industry.

The evidence in this case indicates that Howard may have engaged in activities which are protected under the Act.

Assuming that in general knowledge is well-communicated within the nuclear industry, this fact, in my opinion, does not amount to proof that Quadrex had knowledge of the complainant's asserted protected activity in the face of Jackson's and Quadrex' denials that they were aware of it.

Therefore, I find that a prima facie case under § 5851 of the Act has not been made out against Quadrex in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that Howard's complaint against Quadrex be dismissed. I do not reach any other issues in this case.

It is hereby recommended that the complaint of G. Richard Howard against Quadrex Energy Services be dismissed.

       Charles W. Campbell
       Administrative Law Judge