Skip to main content

Another 708 Whistleblower Case Against LLNS

Image
By

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

Comments

Anonymous said…
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.
7/02/2018 10:55 AM
Anonymous said…
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.
7/05/2018 8:16 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more