This is a proceeding under the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974 (88 Stat. 1233; 42 U.S.C. 5801, et seq.), as amended,
hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 210 of the Act
(92 Stat. 2951; 42 U.S.C. 5851, relating to employee protection,
prohibits an employer from discharging or otherwise
discriminating against an employee because of action to carry
out the purposes of the Act. It provides that an employee
who believes that he has been discriminated against in violation
of that section may file a complaint with the Secretary of
Labor within 30 days after the violation occurs.
In 1974 Ronald A. King was employed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) as a painter at its Sequoyah Nuclear
Plant in Daisy, Tennessee. His duties included painting and
sand blasting. On July 11, 1978 he was fired for bringing
a firearm onto the project in violation of a posted job rule.
His discharge was upheld after a grievance hearing, and he
did not appeal the decision.
[Page 2]
Four months after his discharge, on November 10, 1978,
King applied for re-employment at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
and was rejected. Approximately one year later, on November 7,
1979, he was again turned down when he applied for employment
at that plant. He was rejected a third time when he applied
for re-employment at TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant on November
26, 1979. On his fourth application, in February of 1980,
King was finally rehired by TVA as a painter at its Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant.
Prior to his discharge, on several occasions King had
complained to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about
the quality of certain painting work being performed at the
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, which he believed might violate the
NRC's standards for nuclear power plants.
On or about November 28, 1979, sixteen months after his
discharge from TVA employment, King filed a complaint against
TVA with the Department of Labor alleging that he was refused
re-employment because of his complaints to the NRC against
TVA, in violation of Section 210 of the Act.
There was a hearing on the latter complaint before an
Administrative Law Judge, hereinafter referred to as the Judge.
On March 28, 1980, the Judge issued a recommended decision,
in which he recommended that the complaint be dismissed. He
found that King had been discharged for cause, and that he
had been afforded an opportunity to be heard with respect to
that issue. The Judge also found that during the period with
which we are concerned King was not an "employee" entitled to
protection under the Act. The Judge stated, "I find nothing
in the Act which indicates that [Section 210] is to be applied
retroactively to persons whose employment ended prior to the
enactment of the statute; likewise I find nothing to indicate
that this section is to be applied to former employees who
were discharged for cause * * * The language of the statute
clearly refers to a person who is an employee, not to a person
who is seeking to become employed."
In addition, the Judge found that a timely complaint
concerning King's discharge had not been filed; that his complaint
was timely only with respect to his last two unsuccessful
attempts at re-employment, in November, 1979, and that in any
event his allegations of discrimination had not been substantiated
by the evidence. The Judge concluded that the decision
of TVA officials not to rehire King the first three times he
applied for re-employment was based on legitimate management
decisions and was not in retaliation for his complaints to
the NRC.
[Page 3]
On the basis of the entire record, it is my opinion that
the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommend order
contained in the Judge's recommended decision dated March 28,
1980 are supported by the evidence, are in accordance with
applicable law, and are proper, and I adopt such decision as
my own. Accordingly, the complaint of Ronald A. King is
dismissed.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 20th day of May, 1980.
