Saturday, June 30, 2018
Another 708 Whistleblower Case Against LLNS
Another DOE Part 708 Whistleblower complaint against LLNS has emerged. This time it was filed by a LLNS Counterintelligence Officer (CIO) working in the Counterintelligence Program. This CIO alleged LLNS retaliated against him 6 times for raising protected disclosures.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/06/f53/WBZ-17-0007.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
At the root of this OHA Interlocutory Order is an alleged issue of timeliness. LLNS acts of retaliation are not in dispute. Independent of the final OHA outcome for this employee, will LLNS be subject to an award penalty for these acts of retaliation?
How is it that this or any LLNS employee "reasonably should have known" time limit details specific to a DOE 708 complaint? There isn't a required 708 web course for LLNS employees, and a time limit isn't mentioned on the "DOE Worker Protection for DOE Contractor Employees" posters. The only people that "reasonably should have known" of a time limit is DOE, NNSA, OHA, and LLNS Staff Relations. It seems like a simple information oversight to correct, if there was a genuine whistleblower protection incentive to do so.
Non-physical and non-threatening "verbal altercations" that are loud, profane, or just clearly unprofessional, occur among LLNS staff in programatic meetings, office hallways, ranking, etc. If we find the need to suspend these lab employees, we would be processing 10-100 suspensions per week, and some well known lab employees in need of anger management courses, would be on a perpetual suspension. If the OHA Investigator got wind of this, he or she would be compelled to apply the "comparably situated employee" metric to the "verbal altercation" allegation.
Post a Comment