Fact: LLNS Staff Relations activities, practices, and performance are outside of the annual NNSA LFO "Performance Evaluation Report" grading metrics.
LLNS Staff Relations actions and performance are NOT evaluated by the NNSA Livermore Field Office in their annual “Performance Evaluation Report”, independent of stated NNSA Livermore “Employee Concerns Program” directives.
The two FOIA requests and DOE/NNSA responses below may be of interest to LLNS and LANS employees.
The FOIA document requests were to be extractions of the NNSA FY 2013 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) “Performance Evaluation Report” written by the NNSA Livermore Field Office at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the period of October 2012 through September 2013, under the direction of (former) NNSA Livermore Field Office Manager Kim Davis Lebak. Kim Davis Lebak is now the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office Manager (effective January 2014).
In 2012 and 2013, within the LLNS FY 2013 Performance Evaluation Report period, I was working with the NNSA Employee Concerns Manager in the attempt to resolve LLNS employment practice issues. I attempted to contact Kim Davis Lebak numerous times. On 9-17-13, I specifically asked her if employees could contribute to the LLNS Performance Evaluation Report. Kim Davis Lebak elected not to respond to my inquiry and I was dismissed 3 days later.
FOIA Requests and NNSA Responses:
LLNS Staff Relations actions and performance and NNSA evaluation of Staff Relations actions and performance.
LLNS internal employee grievance system actions and performance and NNSA evaluation of LLNS internal employee grievance system actions and performance.
NNSA response to both FOIA requests above:
“No records found, as LLNL stated that Staff Relations did not provide records to NNSA related to the Performance Evaluation Report.”
“…Employee Concerns Program
STATEMENT OF POLICY
The Livermore Field Office (LFO) Employee Concerns Program (ECP) is established as part of the Department of Energy’s whistleblower reform initiatives. These initiatives aim to streamline and improve the effectiveness of existing processes for resolving employee concerns, and make the Department’s “zero tolerance for reprisal” a reality. It is the policy of the Department that:
Employees in the Department of Energy, its contractors and subcontractors must be free to raise concerns, without fear of reprisal, about policies and practices that adversely affect the Department’s ability to accomplish its mission in a safe and efficient manner;
Management at all levels appreciate the value of employee concerns, and actively support an atmosphere in which employees feel free to voice concerns;
Systems are established and operate effectively to ensure that concerns are appropriately, fairly and fully considered.
The LFO ECP supports the Secretary’s commitment to maintaining a safe and productive working environment for all DOE employees.
WHAT IS AN EMPLOYEE CONCERN?
An employee concern is a good-faith expression by an employee that a policy or practice of the Department (or one of its contractors or subcontractors) should be improved, modified, or terminated, because it constitutes a violation of health, safety or environmental laws, rules or regulations; it is unsafe, fraudulent, or a waste of funds or resources; or it constitutes an abuse of authority.
Raising issues such as these is commonly known as “whistle blowing.” Under whistleblower protection laws, employees who raise these types of issues may not be subject to reprisal or retaliation for having done so. Employees may seek appropriate remedial action where they can show that they were subjected to reprisal or retaliation for whistle blowing activities…”
This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email firstname.lastname@example.org
- ► 2017 (147)
- ► 2016 (295)
- Los Alamos National Lab Failed to Protect Classifi...
- State: LANL, WIPP will face steeper fines
- Disgruntled scientist
- Goldstein and his whip
- Dear Scooby
- Wrong doings by LANLs Classification Officer
- LANL Vents Toxic Ground Vapors, Raising Air Qualit...
- Did the culture of reprisal at LANSLLNS contribute...
- NEW EEOICPA SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION QUALI...
- So how does it go down from here?
- Los Alamos has highest fraction of millionaires in...
- Are LANL retirees being forced onto Obamacare?
- Value of NNSA Field Offices at LANL and LLNL?
- LANS 2014 performance evaluation review is now pos...
- Rebranding the nuclear weapons complex won't refor...
- retirement incentive" in FY2016 at LLNL?
- Bob and Jennifer
- 2014 fellows of the American Physical Society
- NNSA head warns of budget cuts
- LLNL in 30-60 months
- LANL leadership merits harsh evaluation
- Miller, Albright, and Goldstein
- Disgruntled males
- POGO's take on LANL contract
- DOE trying to weasel out.
- 3 top managers
- Who is the most-hated man in the WC?
- Career FTE attractiveness to LLNS Programs with a ...
- Good thing we split out!
- LLNS Staff Relations
- RIF question
- LANS makes the #1 slot for the company with the wo...
- More on the return of Tyler Pryzbylek
- DOE and NNSA now believe BOTH weapons labs need a ...
- The difference in performance between LANL and LLN...
- The return of Tyler Pryzbylek
- Will NNSA repeat mistake?
- Former Employee Files Suit Against LANS, Co-worker...
- Will the loss in LANS contract affect LLNS's?
- LANS lost a year earned earlier
- ▼ January (41)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- ► 2010 (157)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)