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
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
Comments
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.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynvAY1c_G4