DOE contractor employees are misled from the get go regarding the investigative authority of DOE to address whistleblower claims
When Hanford contractors Bechtel and URS (also members of the LLNS LLC) were asked to provide records of a Hanford whistleblower employee, Bechtel and URS refused, and essentially told the DOE IG, yes the DOE IG, to take a hike.
It would appear that DOE claims to offer whistleblower protection knowing that they have no authority to demand records to prove or disprove contractor retaliation. This uncommunicated detail which appears to be a form of fraud, simply buys more time for DOE contractors to mitigate whistleblower issues using tax payer dollars.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/IG-0923.pdf
2 comments:
I agree that there seems to be a conflict with Whistleblower protection and tort law. If the government feels they have a compelling interest they should take it to court to set some sort of precedent. I think this should have been pursued by the department but they felt settlement was better.
To the case specifically, the subject person brought no new information on URSs process or technical determination than Mr Tamosaitis. More to the point the case was made after Tamosaitis blew the “whistle”. For what reason one could conclude because they would be under scrutiny for being part of those management decision processes that effected Tamosaitis or felt vulnerable to a similar concern. The specific person kept a job and walked the DOE halls at the WTP project for more than 2 years after the complaint was made public.
In an October 2014 video, in a safety culture segment, DOE Secretary Moniz encourages employees to come forward with concerns, then admits DOE has "legal institutional constraints" without defining what that actually means for employees within the context of the question asked. This is DOE leadership? Forward video to minute 50:29 and watch.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynvAY1c_G4
Post a Comment