in November,
1990. The party was hosted
by a friend of Mrs. Hickle, and the presentation was made by Bonnie
Collins (para 249). Polly Hickle paid $129.00 for various products
(para 254, CX 49).
293. Stretching the inferences to the limits, the following
issues must be resolved: Did Bruce Hickle know Bonnie Collins
presented the Pleasure Company party which his wife attended in
November, 1990?; Did Bruce Hickle know Bonnie Collins was
conducting Pleasure Company business on FPC property perhaps as
early as November, 1990?; if so, Did Bruce Hickle keep silent about
Collins' business until Wollesen became involved and because
Wollesen engaged in protected activity, used the Pleasure Company
as a pretext to get rid of Wollesen and necessarily Collins?
294. The only witnesses who know the answers to the above
questions are Bruce and Polly Hickle. Their testimony is
consistent and uncontradicted.
The first time that Bruce Hickle became aware of the
[Page 75]
Pleasure Company was when he was called to John Pelham's
office May 9, 1991. In the fall of 1990, Mr. Hickle's
wife, Polly Hickle, told him that a friend of hers asked
her if she wanted to go to a lingerie party. Hickle was
never sure who was hosting the party. Mrs. Hickle went
to the party and when she returned, she said she had a
good time. She did not say whether she purchased
products (para 86). As of the date of trial, Mr. Hickle
had not seen items purchased by Polly Hickle. The name,
Bonnie Collins, never came up in conversation with Polly
Hickle. Prior to May 9, 1991, Mr. Hickle did not know
that Bonnie Collins or Edward Wollesen were connected to
the Pleasure Company. Hickle never had discussions with
anyone concerning the party his wife attended in the fall
of 1990. Prior to the preparation for the hearing in
this case, Mr. Hickle never saw the order form for items
purchased by Polly Hickle (CX 49, para 87). Hickle
testified that he never saw the items listed on CX 49 at
home. He never asked his if wife she purchased anything
from the Pleasure Company (para 107). CX 49 shows that
the bill was paid by Master Card. The Master Card
statement is sent to Mr. Hickle's home, but his wife pays
the bill (para 119).
Mrs. Hickle testified that in November of 1990, she was
invited to attend a lingerie party by a friend of hers.
She told her husband she was going to a lingerie party
and that was all. There were approximately 12 people
there, and the presentation was made by a woman named
Bonnie. Polly Hickle ordered some products and paid for
the products with Master Card. Polly Hickle has not seen
Bonnie Collins since that evening in November of 1990,
nor has she had conversations with Bonnie Collins (para
249). After the party, Mrs. Hickle went home and did not
discuss the party with her husband. She did not tell
Bruce Hickle that she purchased products. She
subsequently did receive her products. They were sealed
in a brown bag. Mrs. Hickle did not show Bruce Hickle
any of the products she purchased nor did she discuss the
products with him (para 250). Prior to May 10, 1991,
Mrs. Hickle did not discuss with her husband the identity
of the individual who made the presentation at her
friend's home in November of 1990. Prior to May 10,
1991, Mrs. Hickle has not discussed with her husband any
investigation being conducted concerning Bonnie Collins
[Page 76]
(para 252). Mrs. Hickle was aware that a FPC employee
was making the presentation at the lingerie party (para
253). Mrs. Hickle identified CX 49 as having her
signature, and it was only after Ms. Collins and Mr.
Wollesen had been dismissed from their positions that she
found out that the Bonnie at the lingerie party in
November of 1990 was the Bonnie Collins who had been
dismissed by FPC. After Bruce Hickle mentioned to her
that Mr. Wollesen and Ms. Collins were dismissed, Mrs.
Hickle put two and two together and figured out that it
was the same Bonnie that was at her lingerie party in
November of 1990, She mentioned it to Mr. Hickle at that
time (para 254). Bruce Hickle told Mrs. Hickle that
while he was at a deposition, it came out that Mrs.
Hickle had ordered products and Mr. Hickle asked her
about it. She still had some of the products which she
ordered at home for personal use and gifts (para 255).
Prior to May 10, 1991, Mr. Hickle did not speak to Mrs.
Hickle about an investigation concerning Mr. Wollesen and
Ms. Collins (para 256).
295. It is hard for me to believe that Bruce Hickle did not
know about the products his wife ordered sometime before May 10,
1991, for two reasons: the items were expensive, $129; and they
are of a highly personal nature presumably for a man and a woman.
As I said at trial, as politely as possible, the stipulation which
included Bruce Hickle's testimony that Polly Hickle made no mention
of anything that she purchased and that he never saw the products
which she purchased, did not have the ring of truth (TR 1074).
296. However, the issue of whether Bruce Hickle saw the items
purchased by his wife prior to May 10, 1991, is not critical. I
believe Mrs. Hickle's testimony that Mrs. Hickle did not know the
full name of the person who gave the presentation at the party in
November, 1990, and that it was only after Bonnie Collins and Ed
Wollesen were dismissed by FPC that Mrs. Hickle figured out that
the Bonnie at the November, 1990, party was the same Bonnie Collins
dismissed by FPC. This does have the ring of truth and for this
reason, I find for FPC on all of the issues mentioned in paragraph
293. I find further, since his testimony is uncontradicted, that
Bruce Hickle became aware of the Pleasure Company and Wollesen's
involvement for the first time on May 9, 1991.
Was Management Trying to Get Rid of Callahan/
Stevens/Wollesen ?
[Page 77]
297. Charles Callahan and Roger Stevens were Senior Quality
Auditors for FPC (paras 46 and 51) at the time Wollesen joined
their division. An audit occurred on or about March/April, 1991,
in which Jeff Peet was the team leader (para 48). If I accept as
true Callahan's and Stevens' word that all three men (Callahan,
Stevens, and Wollesen) were frustrated because the team leader,
Jeff Peet, did not allow them to evaluate to EQ program; that the
audit went wrong; that Peet tried to cover an audit that went
wrong; that Peet's evaluation of the audit and the performance of
the three individuals was a total fabrication; that Peet did not
know what he was doing, all of these suppositions (paras 48, 49,
50, 55) do not add to Wollesen's case for these reasons: I have
already found that Wollesen engaged in protected activity and the
audit about which Callahan and Stevens testified has nothing to do
with Wollesen conducting private, for-profit business on FPC
property, using FPC resources; secondly, if management had taken
Peet's evaluation seriously, as Callahan said, they would have been
fired (para 50) but instead, Callahan and Stevens are still
employed by FPC and were eventually certified as audit team leaders
(TR 817, paras 57, 125, 143). Finally, I credit Yost's testimony
that when Peet wrote evaluations, his comments tended to offend
people. This was his style of writing (para 152).
298. For the reasons set out in para 297, I find that the
evidence does not support the conclusion that management was trying
to get rid of Callahan, Stevens, and Wollesen.
The Issue of Progressive Discipline
299. It is agreed that when the individuals identified in para
284 discovered Wollesen was involved in Pleasure Company business
on FPC premises, they did not counsel or suspend him; Wollesen was
allowed a final interview and then fired.
300. My inquiry is limited to whether the harshness of the
punishment was discriminatory and whether it constitutes evidence
supporting the conclusion that Wollesen's protected activity was
the likely reason he was fired.
301. Wollesen has not offered evidence that other similarly
situated FPC employees received or were offered progressive
discipline. The only other person similarly situated was Bonnie
Collins, and she also was fired.
[Page 78]
302. Yost articulated legitimate reasons why he recommended
that Wollesen be terminated (para 135). Finally, Beard, Hickle,
and Kelly explained progressive discipline was company policy but
not mandatory and could be disregarded for serious offenses (paras
72, 104, 179).
303. For these reasons, I find that there is no evidence to
suggest that FPC management discriminated against Wollesen by not
offering progressive discipline.
Wollesen's Final Interrogation
304. I listened to the tape recording (RX 16) of John Pelham's
interrogation of Ed Wollesen on May 10, 1991, at 1:45 p.m. with Ray
Yost present, and simultaneously read the transcript of the tape
(RX 14).
305. Initially, I note Wollesen said that during the process
of his employment at CR3 he brought up certain issues during audits
but he did not feel as of May 3, 1991, that they were safety
concerns. They were concerns (RX 14, p. 1). Also, a person named,
Oscar LNU (last name unknown) from the NRC contacted him May 9,
1991, about 8:15 a.m. Wollesen did not know why the NRC would call
him at home (RX 14, p. 2). Oscar LNU asked Wollesen if he ever
felt intimidated and Wollesen said, "Yes" (RX 14, p. 3). Oscar LNU
was concerned about a letter which Wollesen had written (RX 14, p.
3).
306. Wollesen admitted being a distributor for the Pleasure
Company (R 14, pp. 7, 8, 12) and discussed the product line (RX 14,
pp. 11, 12), that he had one employee, that she made some sales '
and that he was involved with the company for about a month (RX 14,
p. 13). Wollesen said the items in the Pleasure Company Catalog
should not be associated with FPC at all (RX 14, p. 17), however,
admitted to designing a sheet for Pleasure Company use and
transmitted it over the computer to Bonnie Collins (RX 14, p. 17).
307. I used the word, "interrogation" and not
"interview" in
this section purposely because that is exactly what took place.
John Pelham used scare tactics because as he said, "he wanted
answers" (RX 14, p. 40), he wanted Wollesen, "to tell the truth"
(RX 14, pp. 5, 8, 9). John Pelham was a witness in court, and I
would describe him as a large, imposing gentleman. At times,
[Page 79]
Pelham intimidated Wollesen, especially by inquiring into
Wollesen's personal relationship with Bonnie Collins (RX 14, pp. 11
and 12). Pelham used the carrot and the stick approach. He said
he did not want to go into Wollesen's personal life but made it
perfectly clear to Wollesen that he knew all about their affair.
308. I can even agree with Wollesen that the timing of the
interrogation could not have been worse for him. What father would
not be preoccupied when his daughter was about to be married?
Wollesen was on vacation for that purpose (RX 14, p. 2). Wollesen
told Pelham that, "his mind was worried about weddings and people."
Pelham returned Wollesen back to the mark and told him in a strong
voice, " ... I need an answer." (RX 14, p. 4).
309. There is no doubt in my mind that Pelham intimidated
Wollesen into what little information Wollesen gave and if this
were a criminal case, the "confession" would be thrown out of
court. However, all of this does not add up to discrimination,
just heavy handed tactics. I can make no inferences whatsoever
from this final interrogation which help Wollesen's case.
The NRC Contact
310. Prior to the beginning of Wollesen's interrogation on May
10, 1991, Wollesen told Ray Yost that he had been contacted by
someone from the NRC about safety concerns (para 132, RX 14, p. 2).
Wollesen knew what was coming; he had visited Bonnie Collins before
the interrogation and she told him she was fired because of her
involvement in the Pleasure Company (para 26). Collins told
Wollesen she thought he was going to be fired too based upon the
questions that were asked about the Pleasure Company (para 44).
311. Wollesen testified that he told Yost about the NRC
contact to find out anything else he needed to do for Florida Power
in talking with Mr. DiMiranda (para 27). However, it is clear to
me, and I so find that Wollesen's revelation to Yost was a veiled
threat made to deflect FPC's investigation and/or interrogation;
Wollesen reported the NRC contact to Yost because he knew that his
termination so close in time to the NRC contact would give the
appearance of adverse employment action as a result of the contact.
Yost did the right thing; he told Wollesen to tell the NRC whatever
they wanted to know (paras 27, 132) and to tell the truth (para
132).
[Page 80]
312. By this time, the decision to fire Wollesen was fait
accompli. Yost, Hickle, and Beard already had hard evidence on
Wollesen's involvement in the Pleasure Company and the final
interrogation added nothing (paras 63, 91, 92, 131).
313. For these reasons, I find Wollesen has failed to show a
nexus between the NRC contact by Oscar DiMiranda on May 9, 1991,
and his termination.
The "Burn-Out" Letter
314. Wollesen testified that he was referred for a
psychological evaluation as a result of making an internal safety
related report to the plant manager, Paul McKee, in 1987 (TR 210).
Wollesen was recommended for psychological evaluation, and the
Respondent claims that it was after Wollesen sent a speed letter to
Jeff Warren on July 16, 1987, entitled, "Burn-Out" (CX 53).
Wollesen stated in the letter, "I have been pushed beyond what my
body and mind can stand. Therefore, I will have to cut back to 8
hours and what can be accomplished. If I can with stand (sic) the
stress and push for 10's, I will. All of us will push beyond our
limits, even if we are not scheduled tight. We support you and
FPC. Please listen to us. We are not trying to hurt anyone." (CX
53, p. 1).
315. Assuming for the sake of argument that internal reports
filed by Wollesen in 1987 constituted protected activity and that
the request for psychological evaluation had something to do with
Wollesen's internal reporting, Wollesen has failed to show that
either Yost or Hickle who made the decision to discharge him from
employment more than 3 years later had knowledge of the reports.
I find that Yost was unaware that Wollesen had been referred for
psychological evaluation in 1987 and that Yost did not receive
input from Joe Lander or Jeff Warren prior to recommending that
Wollesen be terminated (para 139). I find further that Hickle had
no involvement with Wollesen concerning the subject matter of CX
53. Prior to recommending Wollesen's termination, Hickle had no
knowledge that Wollesen had been referred for psychological
evaluation in 1987, or that Wollesen had been instructed by Mr.
Lander not to make complaints to any person other than through the
chain of command. Mr. Lander never worked for Mr. Hickle. Mr.
Hickle did not consult with Joe Lander at arriving at the decision
to recommend Wollesen's termination, nor did he consult with
Jeffrey Warren or Dr. Harry Goldsmith (para 84).
[Page 81]
316. I further find that Mr. Beard, as of the fall of 1990,
heard no derogatory comments about Mr. Wollesen. He did not hear
that Wollesen had a history of making internal complaints (para
76). Mr. Kelly knew Ed Wollesen from around the plant. I find
that Kelly had no knowledge of Wollesen being referred for
psychological evaluation in 1987, had no knowledge of Wollesen's
responsibility for the PM-200 program, and he had no knowledge of
Wollesen writing a burn-out memo to Mr. Jeff Warren (para 181).
317. I find that Wollesen has failed to show that the
individuals responsible for his termination knew of complaints that
he may have made in 1987, and Wollesen failed to show that these
individuals knew he was referred for psychological testing in 1987.
I find that the burn-out memo of 1987 and the circumstances
surrounding the memorandum had nothing to do with Wollesen's
termination.
Events Leading to Wollesen's Termination
318. During April, 1991, Hickle received reports that Wollesen
had been observed on several occasions removing large volumes of
printed or written material from the Training Center prior to
regular business hours. Hickle thereafter informed Kelly of the
reports that he had received about Wollesen. Hickle assured Kelly
that Wollesen was asked to stop going there (para 89).
319. Since Hickle had stated that the documents being removed
by Wollesen were not in support of an audit, Kelly became concerned
that the documents were being removed and used in violation of
company policy (TR 1603). As a result, he asked Kamann to speak
with Collins regarding her knowledge of the materials that had been
removed by Wollesen, since she was responsible for the library in
which many of the Training Center documents were filed (TR 1601-
1603).
320. Collins told Kamann that Wollesen had been to the
Training Center in the early morning on one occasion and had
removed only one or two lesson plans, with the approval of a
training instructor (TR 1603-1604). Because Collins' statement as
to the volume of material being removed varied considerably with
what Hickle had reported, Kelly questioned Bernie Komara, a
training instructor at the Training Center (TR 1605). Komara
stated that he had observed Wollesen on several occasions at the
Training Center removing large volumes of material (TR 1605-1606).
At that point, Kamann questioned Collins again, but she reiterated
[Page 82]
that only one or two lesson plans had been removed (TR 1606-1607).
Having received conflicting reports, Kelly requested corporate
security to conduct an investigation to identify the materials
removed by Wollesen and to determine for what purpose they were
removed (TR 1607-1608).
321. Kelly met with John Pelham, Corporate Security
Specialist, at the Training Center on the morning of May 7, 1991,
and briefed him concerning the observations that Wollesen had
removed large volumes of written material from the Training Center
(TR 1822).
322. Later that day, Komara informed Kelly that he had noticed
a number of E-Mail messages between Wollesen and Collins (TR 1609-
1610). Thinking there might be a connection between the E-Mail
messages and the documents being removed by Wollesen, Kelly asked
the Local Area Network (LAN) Administrator at the Training Center,
Mike Pombier, if he could retrieve those E-Mail messages (TR 1610).
Pombier was able to retrieve only one of the E-Mail messages, which
was a message dated April 29, 1991, from Wollesen to Collins with
an attachment (TR 1613; RX 9A, pp. 34-36). The attachment was a
shopping list of products offered for sale by The Pleasure Company
(Id.)
323. Based on that information, Kelly expanded the
investigation and requested Pombier to search Collins' computer
files to determine if there was additional information associated
with The Pleasure Company or other businesses (TR 1613). Pombier
located three computer disks at Collins' desk on which were stored
numerous documents relating to The Pleasure Company, including a
shopping list, training information, forms, a list of Collins'
recruits, and other Pleasure Company information (TR 1615; RX 5).
Pombier printed a copy of the index and materials for Kelly (TR
1615-1616).
324. Kelly then called Pelham, who returned to the Training
Center and reviewed this additional information (TR 1616).
Thereafter, Pelham inspected Wollesen's computer files and work
area, where he located a file containing a compilation of E-Mail
messages between Wollesen and Collins, some of which discussed the
Pleasure Company business (RX 9A).
325. The following day, May 8, 1991, Pelham obtained a
Pleasure Company catalog and Florida Power envelope that had been
[Page 83]
sent to another FPC employee by Collins through the company's
internal mail system (TR 1635-1636, 1831-1834; RX 4 and 23).
326. On May 9, 1991, Pelham met with Kelly and Hickle and
provided them with the results of his investigation and the
documentary evidence that had been accumulated (TR 1148-1149, 1164,
1835).
327. Hickle reviewed the E-Mail messages, the Pleasure Company
catalog and a print-out of materials from computer disks during the
May 9th meeting (TR 1148-1151, 1168). Hickle thereafter met with
Yost to inform him of the investigation (TR 1171). Yost had no
knowledge of Wollesen's involvement in the Pleasure Company prior
to his meeting with Hickle (TR 1422-1423). Yost subsequently met
with Pelham who explained the results of the investigation and
showed Yost the documentary evidence (TR 1423-1424).
328. Kelly and Hickle subsequently met with Jim DeLonzo,
Crystal River Human Resources Representative, on May 9, to receive
input from Human Resources. DeLonzo informed them that if the
decision was made to terminate the Complainants, Company policy and
past practice would support that decision (TR 1169, 1641-1642).
329. Kelly then asked Pelham to interview Collins the
following morning, May 10, 1991, regarding the results of the
investigation, and also to provide her an opportunity to articulate
any mitigating circumstances (TR 1643, 1835-1836). Hickle decided
that Pelham should also interview Wollesen the same day in order to
insure that the information would not be compromised (TR 1181).
330. Following the interview, Pelham met with Hickle to brief
him concerning the disclosures made by Wollesen (TR 1183). Hickle
thereafter met with Yost, Wollesen's immediate supervisor, to
discuss the results of the investigation and the interview (TR
1183). Based on the documentary evidence obtained as a result of
the investigation and Wollesen's admissions regarding his
involvement in The Pleasure Company and other outside businesses,
Hickle determined that Wollesen had violated Company policy no. 1,
Conflict of Interest, and no. 5, Security (TR 1187). As a result,
Hickle recommended that Wollesen be terminated from his employment
with FPC (TR 920, RX 25(a)). Beard, Senior Vice President for
Nuclear Operations, was ultimately responsible for firing Wollesen.
Both Mr. Hickle and Mr. Kelly recommended terminating Mr. Wollesen,
and Beard concurred. Beard must approve terminations, so,
[Page 84]
ultimately, Beard was responsible for the termination (para 65).
331. Beard saw the evidence that was collected against
Wollesen and Collins. He saw a series of electronic mail messages
between the two of them discussing their business. He saw a
catalog that was reproduced from the company's computer file, which
was a listing of the products that they sold. He read the
electronic mail. He also saw another document that had pictures of
the products (TR 937, 938). He saw a Xerox copy of the catalog in
the evidence as RX 4 (TR 939). Beard also saw a shopping list, RX
5 (TR 940).
Conclusion
332. The above considered, paragraphs 283-331, and based upon
the record as a whole, I find it most unlikely that FPC fired
Wollesen because of his protected activity. Instead, I find that
FPC terminated Wollesen for the reasons stated in Hickle's
memorandum to P. M. Beard dated May 28, 1991 (RX 25(a)).
333. The evidence shows that the individuals responsible for
firing Wollesen (Yost, Hickle, Kelly, and Beard) had very little
choice. As of May 10, 1991, they knew the nature of the Pleasure
Company business and had hard evidence that: it was a for-profit
business, it was being conducted or, FPC premises and FPC's
computers were being used to further the business. Most of the
evidence collected was against Collins since she was a distributor
for the Pleasure Company for a much longer period than Wollesen.
Nevertheless, the Company officials did have evidence against
Wollesen; most damaging in my opinion were the E-Mail messages back
and forth between Wollesen and Collins (RX 9A). I find that the
message of April 30, 1991, with attachments, from Wollesen to
Collins at 1:01 p.m. was particularly significant. With this
communication, Wollesen attached a Pleasure Company "shopping list"
(R-X 9A, p. 36). The items on the shopping list are pictorially
depicted in the Pleasure Company Catalog (RX 4).
Wollesen testified that the items in the catalog were common-
place; nothing that he had not seen in Playboy Magazine or
Spencer's Gifts (TR 151, 152). I will spare the reader a
description of the catalog; however, in my view, when Wollesen
brought his Pleasure Company business to FPC, he crossed the line.
As Hickle stated in his memo to Beard (RX 25(a):
[Page 85]
" ... one of the employee's (Wollesen's) business ventures
dealt with materials which might have had an adverse
affect on the Company's representation and may have been
extremely offensive to some of our employees."
Beard felt that the nature of the business was an aggravating
factor because disclosure that Company employees were engaged in
"that kind of business" would reflect discredit on nuclear
operations (para 69). Because of the nature of the business, Kelly
felt more inclined to investigate (para 196).
The shopping list certainly could have offended many FPC
employees and damaged its reputation in the community. Had FPC
knowingly permitted this material on its premises, FPC could have
been subject to ridicule and lawsuits. I find that management had
to deal with the situation swiftly.
334. For the foregoing reasons, I find that Complainant
Wollesen has failed to establish a prima facie case since it was
most unlikely that he was fired because of his protected activity.
Also, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 281, 282, there will be
no further inquiry on Collins, claim.
Dual Motive Discharge
335. Complainants allege, alternatively, that this case should
be analyzed under a "dual motive" theory. A "dual motive" case
exists when an employer may have had both valid and invalid reasons
for taking adverse action against the complainant. Since the
evidence establishes that Bonnie Collins did not engage in
protected activity and that Edward Wollesen was terminated only for
legitimate reasons, the dual motive analysis is not applicable.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby recommended that
Complainants' complaints be dismissed with prejudice and that
judgment be entered in favor of Florida Power Corporation.
MICHAEL P.
LESNIAK
Administrative Law Judge
MPL/dlh
Newport News, Virginia
[Page 86]
[ENDNOTES]
1 The following citations to the
record are used herein:
ALJX - Administrative Law Judge Exhibit;
CX - Complainant's Exhibit;
RX - Respondent's Exhibit; and
TR - Transcript of the Hearings held January 7-10, 1992, and
March 16-20, 1992, in Tampa, Florida.
2 I asked the parties if they
could come to an agreement with
regard to CX-49 in order to avoid the embarrassment of calling a
non-party, Polly Hickle, to testify that she attended a Pleasure
Company party (See TR 571-578). The parties' agreement concerned
Bruce Hickle's testimony. Bruce Hickle would testify that he was
sensitive to the work place and the work environment for other
employees concerning Pleasure Company material. The material was
not offensive to him, but he was concerned that the material would
be offensive to some people on Florida Power premises. Polly
Hickle told Bruce Hickle that she was invited to a lingerie party.
When she returned, she said she had a good time and met some nice
people. She made no mention of purchasing anything and he saw
nothing that she purchased. The names of Bonnie Collins and Ed
Wollesen with the Pleasure Company never arose and he never
connected the two until Mr. Beard's deposition in the fall of 1991.
Mrs. Hickle attended the lingerie party in the November 1990. The
stipulation did not cover whether the items which Mrs. Hickle
ordered were ever delivered. Mrs. Hickle would be dismissed as a
witness and CX 49 was to be withdrawn.
For reasons for which I later explained (TR 1073-1079), I decided
the stipulation did not go far enough in protecting the rights of
the Complainants. In essence, I disregarded the stipulations of
the parties and ordered the deposition of Polly Hickle post-trial.
I also admitted CX 49 (TR 1292-1295).
3 I Ordered the removal of all
personal communications by and
between Bonnie Collins and Edward Wollensen from RX 9 (see TR 1153-
1156). After the removal of all personal messages, the exhibit was
renumbered RX 9A (TR 1553-1156 & 1159).
4 Whether Bruce Hickle knew
about Pleasure Company business
being conducted by anyone on FPC property prior to May 10, 1991,
will be specifically addressed below.
5 This information involved
Wollensen carrying away quantities
of material from the Training Center for reasons unknown (para 62).
This event led to the Kelly/Pelham investigation (para 168).
6 Just so there is no mistake,
the Pleasure Company was
involved in sales of lingerie and sexual aids through catalog mail
order. A party would be set up similar to a Tupperware party and
someone would present the "adult" products and then take orders
(para 13, PHD, p. 8).