NORCO TECHNICAL SERVICES
& GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Administrative Law Judge A. A. Simpson, Jr., submitted a
recommended Order of Dismissal to me in this case arising under
the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization
Act. 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982).
Complainant an instrument control technician for Norco
Technical Services (Norco), a contractor of Gulf States Utilities
Company (GSU) in the construction of the River Bend Nuclear Facility
at St. Francisville, Louisiana. In the course of testing electrical
systems in the plant control room, Complainant discovered a
grounding problem. He asserted that he reported this problem
to Rusty West, a GSU supervisor, and Ken Dunham, an engineer
[Page 2]
with Stone & Webster, the prime contractor in the construction
of the River Bend plant. Complainant also asserted that he
threatened to go to the GSU quality assurance control department
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) if the grounding
problem were not corrected.
Mr. West denied that Complainant ever spoke to him about a
grounding problem in the control room, and he also denied that
Complainant ever threatened to go to GSU Quality Assurance Control
or the NRC about a problem in the control room. Mr. Dunham
complainant made either threat to him or in
his presence. also denied that
The ALJ specifically credited the testimony of Mr. West
and Mr. Dunham and found Complainant's testimony not credible
on whether Complainant made a threat to Mr. Dunham in Mr. West's
presence to go to the NRC. The ALJ seems not to have made a
specific finding whether he believed Complainant or Mr. West
concerning Complainant's alleged threat that he would go to the
GSU Quality Assurance department, or that he had complained to
Mr. West and Mr. Dunham at all about a grounding problem in the
control room. Shortly after making these alleged statements,
Complainant was transferred out of the control room and then
laid off.
557 F.2d at 387. As to whether Complainant threatened to go to
GSU Quality Assurance Control or that he ever complained about
a grounding problem in the control room, statements which would
constitute protected activity in my view of the statute, I find
that Complainant has not carried his burden of proof that these
statements were made to management officials. Therefore, the
complaint in this case is DENIED because the Complainant did
[Page 4]
not engage in any protected activity.
SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM E. BROCK
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.
[ENDNOTES]
1 In view of my disposition of this
case it is not necessary
to consider whether Complainant was an "employee" of Gulf States
Utilities for purposes of the ERA.
2 Deference to credibility
determinations of an ALJ should be
distinguished from the authority of an agency to draw its own
inferences from proven facts in the record without deference to
inferences drawn by the ALJ. See Hedstrom Co. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d
305, 316 (3rd Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 996 (1981).