Office of Inspector General—Office of Audit 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM 

COMPLAINT 

Date Issued: March 31, 2011 

Report Number: 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

BRIEFLY... 

Highlights of Report Number 02-11-202-10-105, to the 

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. 

WHY READ THE REPORT 

OSHA is responsible for enforcing and administering 

the whistleblower protection provisions of 21 Federal 

statutes, including AIR21. The AIR21 statute protects 

employees of air carriers from retaliation for having 

disclosed information to their employer or to the 

government concerning “any violation or alleged 

violation of any order, regulation or standard of the 

Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision 

of Federal law relating to air carrier safety...” 

Effective administration of the whistleblower program is 

integral to OSHA’s core mission. If workers believe the 

system established by OSHA adequately protects them 

from retaliation, they will be more willing to report 

violations. Likewise, if employers believe they will suffer 

financial consequences for retaliating against 

whistleblowers, they will be less likely to do so. 

WHY OIG CONDUCTED THE AUDIT 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns, then Chairman of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

requested that we conduct a review into allegations that 

OSHA “did not conduct a proper investigation and 

wrongfully dismissed a case or cases relating to Mr. 

Terry Wallum [complainant], a former employee of Bell 

Helicopter Textron (Bell-Textron), who allegedly was 

retaliated against by his employer for reporting a wide 

variety of wrongdoing, including reporting air safety 

violations under [AIR21].” 

In order to address these concerns, we conducted an 

audit to answer the question: Did OSHA conduct proper 

investigations of the whistleblower complaints filed by 

the complainant? 

READ THE FULL REPORT 

To view the report, including the scope, methodology, 

and full agency response, go to: 

http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2011/02-11-

202-10-105.pdf. 

 March 2011 

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM 

COMPLAINT 

WHAT OIG FOUND 

OSHA did not conduct proper investigations of the 

whistleblower complaints filed by the complainant. As a 

result, it could not provide any assurance that the 

complainant was protected as intended under Federal 

whistleblower laws. 

OSHA failed to establish a basis for conducting its 

investigations in that it did not adequately document a 

logical reason for employer coverage under AIR21 or 

document a specific activity that would have afforded 

the complainant protection under AIR21. Once OSHA 

proceeded with it field investigations, it did not follow its 

own policies and procedures. Moreover, it exceeded its 

authority by dismissing one complaint without 

conducting any sort of investigation. 

These findings were consistent with our September 

2010 report entitled, “Complainants Did Not Always 

Receive Appropriate Investigations Under the 

Whistleblower Protection Program,” which revealed 

pervasive and systemic weaknesses in the program. 

WHAT OIG RECOMMENDED 

OSHA agreed with the recommendations we made in 

our prior report and is taking corrective actions. We also 

recommend the Assistant Secretary for Occupational 

Safety and Health implement controls to ensure that 

supervisors review all complaints for coverage and the 

presence of a prima facie allegation prior to beginning 

an investigation. 

In response to our draft report, the Assistant Secretary 

for Occupational Safety and Health stated that OSHA is 

committed to improving the whistleblower protection 

program and intends to implement the recommendation 

by requiring supervisory review of complaints during the 

intake process. OSHA is also in the process of finalizing 

a top-to-bottom audit of the whistleblower program 

which it says will address the weaknesses and 

inefficiencies in the program and incorporate the results 

of our prior audit. 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table of Contents 

Assistant Inspector General’s Report ......................................................................... 1
 

Results In Brief.............................................................................................................. 2
 

Objective — Did OSHA conduct proper investigations of the whistleblower 

complaints filed by the complainant? ......................................................................... 3
 

OSHA failed to establish a basis for conducting its investigations and did 

not conduct proper investigations ......................................................................... 3
 

Finding 1 — OSHA failed to establish a basis for conducting its 

investigations .................................................................................................. 3
 

Finding 2 — OSHA did not follow its own policies and procedures during 

its investigations.............................................................................................. 5
 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 10
 

Exhibit 

Exhibit Whistleblower Complaint Details ............................................................ 13
 

Appendices 

Appendix A Background ..................................................................................... 17
 

Appendix B Objective, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria .................................. 19
 

Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................... 21
 

Appendix D OSHA Response to Draft Report .................................................... 23
 

Appendix E Acknowledgements ......................................................................... 25
 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

March 31, 2011 

Assistant Inspector General’s Report 

David Michaels, PhD, MPH 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

 Occupational Safety and Health 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for enforcing 

and administering the whistleblower protection provisions of 21 federal statutes, 

including the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR21). 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns, then Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, requested that we conduct a review into allegations that OSHA 

“did not conduct a proper investigation and wrongfully dismissed a case or cases 

relating to Mr. Terry Wallum [complainant], a former employee of Bell Helicopter Textron 

(Bell-Textron), who allegedly was retaliated against by his employer for reporting a wide 

variety of wrongdoing, including reporting air safety violations under [AIR21].” 

In order to address these concerns, we conducted an audit to answer the question: 

Did OSHA conduct proper investigations of the whistleblower complaints filed by 

the complainant? 

The audit covered three AIR21 whistleblower complaints filed with OSHA from 

September 2005 through May 2009 (see Exhibit for details related to each complaint). 

The audit was limited to the investigations conducted by OSHA; we did not review any 

matters related to appeals filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) or 

the Administrative Review Board (ARB), nor did we test the appropriateness of OSHA’s 

determinations with respect to the three complaints. As such, our work should not be 

construed as a comment on the merits of any of the complaints. 

To accomplish our objective, we obtained an understanding of applicable laws, 

regulations, and OSHA policies and procedures governing AIR21 whistleblower 

investigations; reviewed the investigative case files for the three complaints; reviewed 

documentation provided by the Honorable Edolphus Towns, Pamela Wallum 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

1 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

(complainant’s widow), and OSHA’s Regional Office in Dallas, Texas. We also 

interviewed OSHA management from the National Office and Dallas Regional Office 

and the complainant’s widow. Field work was conducted at OSHA’s headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Our objective, scope, methodology, and 

criteria are detailed in Appendix B. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

OSHA did not conduct proper investigations of the whistleblower complaints filed by the 

complainant. It failed to establish a basis for conducting the investigations and did not 

follow its own policies and procedures during the investigations. As a result, it cannot 

provide any assurance that the complainant was protected as intended by Federal 

whistleblower laws. 

OSHA failed to establish a basis for conducting its investigations. In each investigation, 

OSHA asserted that the employer, Bell-Textron, was covered under AIR21 but it never 

adequately documented a logical reason for that coverage. Additionally, OSHA 

conducted an investigation into the first complaint without documenting a specific 

activity that would have afforded the complainant protection under AIR21. 

Once OSHA proceeded with its field investigations, it did not follow its own policies and 

procedures. OSHA never conducted a formal interview with the complainant to detail his 

allegations and obtain a signed statement; never adequately corroborated BellTextron’s defenses to the complainant’s allegations; never allowed the complainant an 

adequate opportunity to refute Bell-Textron’s defenses; and never conducted a closing 

conference with the complainant. There was also no evidence that any of the 

investigations were adequately supervised. Moreover, OSHA exceeded its authority by 

dismissing the third complaint without conducting any sort of investigation. 

These findings were consistent with our September 2010 report entitled, “Complainants 

Did Not Always Receive Appropriate Investigations Under the Whistleblower Protection 

Program,” which revealed pervasive and systemic weaknesses in the program. In that 

report we found OSHA was not following its policies and procedures in 77 percent of the 

investigations it conducted. The report’s recommendations addressed those 

weaknesses in OSHA’s internal controls. 

OSHA agreed with the recommendations we made in our prior report and is taking 

corrective actions. We will continue to follow up with OSHA regarding its implementation 

plans. We also recommend the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health 

implement controls to ensure that supervisors review all complaints for coverage and 

the presence of a prima facie allegation prior to beginning an investigation. 

In response to our draft report, the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and 

Health stated that OSHA is committed to improving the whistleblower protection 

program and intends to implement the recommendation by requiring supervisory review 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

2 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

of complaints during the intake process. OSHA is also in the process of finalizing a topto-bottom audit of the whistleblower program which it says will address the weaknesses 

and inefficiencies in the program and incorporate the results of our prior audit. 

The Assistant Secretary’s response is included in its entirety as Appendix D. 

RESULTS AND FINDINGS 

Objective — Did OSHA conduct proper investigations of the whistleblower 

complaints filed by the complainant? 

OSHA failed to establish a basis for conducting its investigations and did not 

conduct proper investigations 

Finding 1 — OSHA failed to establish a basis for conducting its investigations 

In each investigation, OSHA asserted that the employer, Bell-Textron, was covered 

under AIR21, but never adequately documented a logical reason for that coverage. 

Additionally, OSHA conducted an investigation into the first complaint without 

documenting a specific activity that would have afforded the complainant protection 

under AIR21. This occurred because OSHA did not require supervisors to review 

complaints for coverage and the presence of a prima facie allegation prior to beginning 

an investigation. As a result, OSHA had no assurance that the complainant was ever 

entitled to protection under Federal whistleblower statutes. 

Employer Coverage Under AIR21 

OSHA’s Final Investigation Reports (FIR) indicated that Bell-Textron was covered under 

AIR21 because it operated under a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA); and therefore, it relied on the FAA to carry out its duties. However, OSHA never 

documented why that meant that Bell-Textron was an “air carrier or contractor or 

subcontractor of an air carrier” as required by AIR21. 

AIR21 provides whistleblower protection to employees of an “air carrier or contractor or 

subcontractor of an air carrier.” The statute defines “contractor” as “a company that 

performs safety-sensitive functions by contract for an air carrier.” 

The OSHA Whistleblower Investigations Manual states: “When initially receiving the 

whistleblower case, it is important to confirm that the complaint ... is covered under one 

of the whistleblower statutes OSHA investigates.” 

Although Bell-Textron cooperated with OSHA’s investigation, it stated in its initial written 

position paper that it was not covered under AIR21 and OSHA had no jurisdiction over 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

3 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

it. The company maintained this position during the complainant’s subsequent 

complaints and appeals1. 

According to an email from the complainant to the Regional Supervisory Investigator 

(RSI), the complainant had questioned the investigator about the agency’s jurisdiction 

and the investigator responded that she felt she could find a reason for proceeding with 

the case. 

Although the OSHA Whistleblower Investigations Manual stresses the importance of 

confirming that a complaint is covered under one of the whistleblower statutes OSHA 

investigates, there were no policies or procedures requiring a supervisor to review a 

case for coverage prior to conducting an investigation. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that the region has 

started to conduct weekly conference calls to discuss the technical aspects of different 

whistleblower statutes with the investigators because some investigators were not 

technically proficient with the requirements of the newer statutes that OSHA has been 

charged with enforcing. The Region has also improved its working relationship with the 

Regional Solicitor of Labor (RSOL) so that they can get more rapid and definitive advice 

when faced with legal issues. The RSOL has also provided training during the weekly 

conference calls. 

Complainant’s Protected Activity 

The complainant, in his initial written complaint, alleged that he was threatened and 

intimidated for reporting improper work procedures but he did not cite any specific 

safety violations or Federal laws that may have been violated. 

During a screening interview with OSHA, the complainant provided additional 

information about his safety complaints, such as: supervisors stamping off paperwork 

instead of mechanics, unsafe housekeeping, foreign object debris, and hurried 

inspections. However, none of these allegations was ever identified as a possible 

violation of any order, regulation, or standard of the FAA or any other provision of 

Federal law relating to air carrier safety. 

In its determination letter, OSHA stated that the complainant reported “various aircraft 

assemblies were being released during the manufacturing process without being 

approved in accordance with Federal Air Regulations” and that “evidence indicates the 

approval procedure is regulated by the FAA;” however, there was no evidence to 

support either of these statements in the case file, nor was a specific Federal Air 

Regulation cited. 

1 When the complainant appealed OSHA’s dismissals of his second and third complaints, the OALJ dismissed both 

complaints after ruling that Bell-Textron was not a covered employer under AIR21. In response, the complainant 

appealed the OALJ dismissal of his second complaint which, at the time of this report, is pending further review by 

the ARB. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

4 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

To further confuse matters, in 2008, OSHA indicated that this complaint was dismissed 

because it appeared the issues raised in the complainant’s allegations were 

“labor/management issues.” 

AIR21 provides whistleblower protection to an employee who “provided ... information 

relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard of the 

[FAA] or any other provision of Federal law relating to air carrier safety....” 

The OSHA Whistleblower Investigations Manual states: “When initially receiving the 

whistleblower case, it is important to confirm that the complaint is valid....” In order to be 

considered a valid complaint, it must present a prima facie allegation (protected activity, 

employer knowledge, adverse action and a nexus). 

Although the OSHA Whistleblower Investigations Manual stresses the importance of 

confirming that a complaint alleges a protected activity, there were no policies or 

procedures requiring a supervisor to review a case for this information prior to 

conducting an investigation. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that the Region 

has been restructuring the whistleblower program so that the RSI now reviews all 

whistleblower complaints for prima facie standing prior to beginning an investigation and 

discusses cases with the investigators throughout the life of the investigations. 

Finding 2 — OSHA did not follow its own policies and procedures during its 

investigations 

Despite OSHA’s failure to establish a basis for its investigations into the complaints, it 

proceeded with field investigations; however, during those investigations, OSHA did not 

follow its own policies and procedures. OSHA never conducted a formal interview with 

the complainant to detail his allegations and obtain a signed statement; never 

adequately corroborated Bell-Textron’s defenses to the complainant’s allegations; never 

allowed the complainant an adequate opportunity to refute Bell-Textron’s defenses; and 

never conducted a closing conference with the complainant. There was also no 

evidence that the investigations were adequately supervised. Moreover, OSHA 

exceeded its authority by dismissing the third complaint without conducting any sort of 

investigation. 

These findings were consistent with our September 2010 report entitled, “Complainants 

Did Not Always Receive Appropriate Investigations Under the Whistleblower Protection 

Program,” which revealed pervasive and systemic weaknesses in the program. In that 

report we found OSHA was not following its policies and procedures in 77 percent of the 

investigations it conducted. The report’s recommendations addressed those 

weaknesses in OSHA’s internal controls. OSHA agreed with the recommendations we 

made in our prior report and is taking corrective actions. We will continue to follow up 

with OSHA regarding its implementation plans. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

5 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Formal Interview With Complainant 

OSHA never conducted a formal interview with the complainant to detail his allegations 

and obtain a signed statement. 

The Whistleblower Investigations Manual states that investigators will arrange to meet 

with a complainant as soon as possible to interview and obtain a signed statement 

detailing the complainant's allegations. Signed statements are highly desirable and 

useful for purposes of case review, subsequent changes in the complainant's status, 

possible later variations in testimony, and documentation for potential litigation. 

Complainants should never be instructed to submit a statement without engaging in the 

interview process. 

There were no signed statements in the case files, nor any evidence that the 

investigator conducted a formal interview with the complainant. 

OSHA did conduct a screening interview with the complaint upon receipt of the first 

complaint, but these types of interviews are used to determine whether an investigation 

should be conducted. In this case, it resulted in a memo-to-file that lacked details that 

would have been necessary to conduct a proper investigation. For example, the 

complainant alleged that he was told if he reported items he would be fired, but the 

individual who said that was not identified in the case file documentation. 

The complainant, in the notes accompanying the documentation provided by the 

Honorable Edolphus Towns, confirmed he was never interviewed by OSHA. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that investigators 

have been directed to conduct face-to-face interviews with complainants when possible 

and obtain complainant statements for every investigation. 

Corroboration of Employer’s Defense 

OSHA never adequately corroborated Bell-Textron’s defenses to the complainant’s 

allegations. 

The Whistleblower Investigations Manual states that assertions made in the employer’s 

position statement do not constitute evidence, and generally, the investigator will still 

need to contact the respondent to interview witnesses, review records, and obtain 

documentary evidence, or further test the employer’s stated defense. The investigator 

should interview all company officials who have known direct involvement in the case 

and attempt to identify other persons (witnesses) at the employer’s facility who may 

have knowledge of the situation. 

There was no evidence in the case files (outside of what Bell-Textron provided in its 

position papers) that the investigator reviewed records, obtained documentary 

evidence, or further tested Bell-Textron’s stated defenses. Other than three interviews 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

6 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

conducted during the first investigation, there was also no evidence in the case files that 

the investigator interviewed (or attempted to interview) any company officials with direct 

involvement in the case, or attempted to identify any other persons or witnesses at BellTextron who might have knowledge of the situation. 

During the first investigation, the investigator interviewed a supervisor and two Defense 

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) inspectors. Those interviews focused on safety 

complaints made by the complainant and death threats the complainant alleged he 

received from DCMA inspectors approximately two years prior to filing his whistleblower 

complaint with OSHA. According to the FIR, other witnesses provided by the 

complainant were not interviewed because the complainant only gave names of 

managers in his area and it did not appear necessary to interview them because BellTextron provided a lengthy position paper. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that investigators 

now regularly make company visits to conduct on-site interviews. In addition, the Region 

now conducts weekly conference calls where they discuss best practices for obtaining 

relevant evidence at a facility and conducting quality interviews. Investigators have also 

been coached on developing independent witnesses and investigative leads. 

Complainant’s Opportunity to Refute 

OSHA never allowed the complainant an adequate opportunity to refute Bell-Textron’s 

defenses. 

The Whistleblower Investigations Manual states that the investigator will contact the 

complainant during the investigation to resolve any discrepancies or counter allegations 

resulting from the investigator’s contact with the employer. A complainant should never 

be instructed to submit a statement or fill out a questionnaire without engaging in the 

interview process. 

According to documentation in the case files, the investigator simply forwarded 

Bell-Textron’s position papers to the complainant and asked him to submit rebuttals to 

the company’s claims, which he provided in the form of notes annotating numerous 

issues he had with statements Bell-Textron had made. There was no evidence that the 

investigator ever discussed any issues with the complainant concerning Bell-Textron’s 

position paper, the complainant’s rebuttal, or specific discrepancies between the two. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that since it began 

restructuring the whistleblower program, cases have been returned to investigators if all 

applicable leads are not pursued. 

Closing Conference 

OSHA never conducted a closing conference with the complainant. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

7 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

The Whistleblower Investigations Manual states that the investigator will conduct a 

closing conference with the complainant after completion of the investigation (after 

discussion of the case with the supervisor and Solicitor of Labor as necessary). A 

thorough, tactful closing conference is a valuable step to achieve a successful 

conclusion to an investigation. Assuring the complainant that his or her concerns have 

been fully explored and the investigative findings impartially evaluated will minimize the 

likelihood of appeals or objections, even though the complainant may not be totally 

satisfied or in agreement with the determination. The closing conference also allows the 

complainant another opportunity to offer new evidence or witnesses. During the closing 

conference, the investigator must inform the complainant of his rights to appeal or 

objection under the appropriate statute, as well as the time limitation for filing the appeal 

or objection. 

Although the FIR for the first investigation referenced two conversations with the 

complainant in the “Closing Conference” section, there was no evidence that the 

investigator discussed OSHA’s determination with the complainant, informed him of his 

right to file an appeal, or gave him an opportunity to offer new evidence or witnesses 

during either of these conversations. In the second investigation, the investigator left a 

message for the complainant indicating that OSHA was sending his file to the RSOL 

and asked if there was anybody the complainant wanted OSHA to interview. There was 

no evidence that the complainant got the message, that the investigator explained why 

OSHA was sending the case to the RSOL, or what OSHA’s determination was, or that 

the complainant was informed of his right to file an appeal. In addition, OSHA did not 

issue its decision to dismiss the complaint until four months later, indicating that the field 

investigation was not complete when the message was left. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that investigators 

have been coached on conducting quality closing conferences, with emphasis on asking 

complainants for any additional information or leads that can be pursued. 

Supervision 

There was no evidence that OSHA provided adequate supervision over the 

investigations. 

The Whistleblower Investigations Manual states that the supervisor is responsible for 

providing guidance, assistance, supervision, and direction to investigators. The 

supervisor will review the completed investigative case file to ensure technical accuracy, 

thoroughness of the investigation, applicability of law, completeness of the report, and 

merits of the case. Supervisory concurrence with the investigator’s analysis and 

recommendations will be documented on the FIR or documented via memorandum to 

the Regional Administrator (RA). Additionally, upon receipt of the case file from the 

supervisor, the RA (or delegate)2

 will review the recommendations and the file, and sign 

2 According to the Whistleblower Investigations Manual, the RA may delegate his responsibilities but no lower than 

the Assistant Regional Administrator or Area Director level. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

8 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

the appropriate letter of determination as prepared by the Supervisor or return the file 

for further clarification or additional investigation as appropriate. 

Supervisory concurrence with the investigator’s analysis and recommendations was not 

documented on any of the FIRs or via memorandums to the RA. There was also no 

evidence that the RA (or delegate) reviewed the file and recommendations because the 

determination letters were signed by the RSI. Additionally, in the first investigation, there 

was no evidence in the case file that the supervisor provided any guidance to the 

investigator concerning the coverage issue that was brought to his attention by the 

complainant. 

Regional Office management acknowledged this issue and indicated that since the 

region began restructuring the whistleblower program, supervision has dramatically 

improved. Investigators have been coached to discuss all cases with the RSI. Also, the 

RSI now signs off on all FIRs and cases have been returned to investigators for 

additional work if all applicable leads have not been pursued. 

Case Dismissal 

OSHA exceeded its authority by dismissing the third complaint without conducting any 

sort of investigation. OSHA accepted the complaint and immediately dismissed it to 

allow the complainant an opportunity to consolidate the complaint with his previous 

complaint which was appealed, dismissed by the OALJ, and awaiting review by the 

ARB. According to an email from OSHA’s National Office to the RSI, OSHA did not 

have statutory or regulatory authority to recommend consolidation without first 

conducting an investigation to determine the merits of the complaint. Additionally, the 

OALJ step in the appeals process cannot be bypassed for direct review to the ARB3

. 

The OSHA Whistleblower Investigation Manual allows a case to be dismissed if a 

complaint is untimely or if the complainant does not present a prima facie case, 

otherwise the investigator should proceed with a field investigation. 

OSHA had no written policies and procedures to address consolidation of whistleblower 

complaints. Neither AIR21 nor the regulations address complaint consolidation or allow 

OSHA to consolidate complaints without first conducting an investigation. 

The complainant, in the notes accompanying the documentation provided by the 

Honorable Edolphus Towns, stated that he wanted a full investigation but the RSI said 

that “this was the best way to handle it.” 

Regional Office management acknowledged that it had made a mistake when it 

dismissed this complaint. Consolidation had been done in the past at the OALJ level but 

not the ARB level. 

3 When this complaint was reviewed by ARB, it denied the complaint consolidation because the OALJ had not issued 

a recommended decision on the complaint. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

9 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health 

implement controls to require that supervisors review all complaints for coverage and 

the presence of a prima facie allegation prior to beginning an investigation. 

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies that OSHA personnel extended to the 

Office of Inspector General during this audit. OIG personnel who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in Appendix E. 

Elliot P. Lewis 

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Audit 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

10 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Exhibit 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

11 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

12 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

13 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 

Exhibit 

Whistleblower Complaint Details 

Whistleblower Complaint Details 

Complaint 1 Complaint 2 Complaint 3 

Date Filed 9/21/2005 3/14/2008 5/28/2009 

Suspended after filing a 

Intimidated and police report against Fired for questioning 

threatened by Bell-Textron Security and reporting fraudulent 

government and Administrator (related to work (and history of 

company personnel for history of reporting non- reporting nonreporting improper work compliance and safety compliance and safety 

Basis for Complaint procedures violations) violations) 

Dismissed – Dismissed – Protected 

Complainant suffered activity not a Dismissed – To 

no adverse employment contributing factor in consolidate complaint 

OSHA Decision action suspension with previous complaint 

Current Status Closed Awaiting ARB review Closed 

Did OSHA conduct an 

investigation? Yes Yes No 

Did OSHA establish 

employer coverage? No No No 

Was an alleged Yes (filed prior Yes (filed prior 

protected activity whistleblower whistleblower 

identified? No complaints) complaints) 

Did OSHA conduct a 

formal interview? No No * 

Did OSHA corroborate 

Bell-Textron’s defense? Inadequate No * 

Did OSHA give 

complainant an 

opportunity to refute? Inadequate Inadequate * 

Did OSHA conduct a 

closing conference? No No * 

Did OSHA provide 

adequate supervision? No No No 

* = Not applicable – no investigation was conducted. 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

14 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendices 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

15 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

16 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix A 

Background 

OSHA is responsible for enforcing and administering the whistleblower protection 

provisions of 21 Federal statutes, including AIR21. The AIR21 statute protects 

employees of air carriers from retaliation for having disclosed information to their 

employer or to the government concerning “any violation or alleged violation of any 

order, regulation or standard of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other 

provision of Federal law relating to air carrier safety...” 

A person filing a complaint of retaliation will be required to show that he or she engaged 

in protected activity, the employer knew about that activity, the employer subjected him 

or her to an adverse action, and the protected activity contributed to the adverse action. 

Adverse action is generally defined as any action that would dissuade a reasonable 

employee from engaging in protected activity. 

Effective administration of the whistleblower program is integral to OSHA’s core 

mission. If workers believe the system established by OSHA adequately protects them 

from retaliation, they will be more willing to report violations. Likewise, if employers 

believe they will suffer financial consequences for retaliating against whistleblowers, 

they will be less likely to do so. 

In September 2010, we reported that OSHA was not following its policies and 

procedures in 77 percent of the investigations it conducted under 3 specific 

whistleblower statutes and issued 6 recommendations to address weaknesses identified 

in OSHA’s internal controls. 

In August 2010, GAO reported similar internal control weaknesses in OSHA’s 

Whistleblower Protection Program. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

17 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

18 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix B 

Objective, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria 

Objective 

The objective of the audit was to determine if OSHA conducted proper investigations of 

whistleblower complaints filed by the complainant. 

Scope 

The audit examined three AIR21 whistleblower complaints that the complainant filed 

with OSHA from September 2005 through May 2009, and covered OSHA policies and 

procedures during that time period. The audit was limited to the investigations 

conducted by OSHA and we did not review any appeals to the OALJ or ARB, nor did we 

test the appropriateness of OSHA’s determinations. As such, our work should not be 

construed as a comment on the merits of any of the complaints filed by the complainant. 

We performed field work at OSHA headquarters in Washington, D.C., where we 

reviewed the case files for the three complaints filed by the complainant. We also 

reviewed documentation provided by the Honorable Edolphus Towns, the complainant’s 

widow, and the Dallas Regional Office. We also interviewed OSHA management from 

both the National Office and Dallas Regional Office and the complainant’s widow. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objective. 

Methodology 

To accomplish our objective, we obtained an understanding of OSHA’s policies and 

procedures governing whistleblower investigations under AIR21, and applicable laws 

and regulations. We reviewed the three case files for compliance with OSHA’s 

Whistleblower Investigations Manual. We also interviewed the complainant’s widow and 

OSHA personnel at the national and regional levels, and reviewed other documents 

related to the complainant’s whistleblower complaints. 

Documents reviewed as part of the case file review included the complainant’s original 

written complaints and rebuttals, memos-to-file, investigative reports, investigator notes, 

e-mails, position statements and letters from Bell-Textron, notification and determination 

letters, OALJ and ARB decisions, and internal agency communications. 

In planning and performing our audit, we considered whether internal controls significant 

to the audit were properly designed and placed in operation. This included reviewing 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

19 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA’s policies and procedures related to conducting whistleblower investigations. We 

confirmed our understanding of these controls and procedures through interviews and 

case file review and analysis. We evaluated internal controls used by OSHA for 

reasonable assurance that investigations were conducted according to Federal 

requirements and guidance. Our consideration of OSHA’s internal controls for 

conducting investigations would not necessarily disclose all matters that might be 

significant deficiencies. Because of inherent limitations in internal controls, 

misstatements or noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. 

Criteria 

We used the following criteria to accomplish the audit objectives: 

•	 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR21), 49 U.S.C. §42121 

•	 OSHA Directive Number: DIS 0-0.9, Whistleblower Investigations Manual, 

August 22, 2003 

•	 Secretary’s Orders 5-2002 & 5-2007 – Delegation of Authority and Assignment of 

Responsibility to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health 

•	 29 CFR Part 1979 - Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints 

under Section 519 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 

for the 21st Century 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

20 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix C 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AIR21 

ARB 

Bell-Textron 

CFR 

DCMA 

FAA 

FIR 

GAO 

OALJ 

OSHA 

RA 

RSI 

RSOL 

U.S. 

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 

Century 

Administrative Review Board 

Bell Helicopter Textron 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Final Investigation Report 

Government Accountability Office 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Regional Administrator 

Regional Supervisory Investigator 

Regional Solicitor of Labor 

United States 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

21 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

22 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

u.s. Department of Lebor 

MAR 31 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUB1ECT: 

AssIstant Secletary b 

OccupatlQl'W Safaly 81"(1 HGaI\t1 

Vvil$hr-.gt<;>"l, D.C 202tO 

ELLIOT P. LEWIS 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

1:i~~ Response to OIG's Draft Audit Report No. 02·11-202-10-105 

··Whistlcblowcr Protection Program Complaint" 

This memorandum is in response to your March 21, 2011, transmittal of the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) Audit Report No. 02- 1 1-202· 10- 105, ··Whis\!eblowcr Protection Program 

Complaint" The Agency appreciates the opportunity to submit a statement in rcsponse to this 

report. As you know, the Agency is committed 10 improving this program. 

In FY 2010, OS HA completed the initial draft. report on the top.to-bottom audit orlhl:: 

whistleblowcr protection program. In FY 201 1, after the report and accompanying 

recormncndations are finalized, OSHA wi!1 make any chlLnges necessary to address the 

weaknesses and inefficiencies in the operation of the program, including programmatic changes 

to ensure consistency and improved program delivery and possibly restructuring the Office of the 

Whistleblower Protection Program. r assured you that the results of your prior comprehensive 

evaluation of the program (Audit Report No. 02-10·202-10-105) would be addressed in this 

process. Likewise, our plan will incorporate your latest recommendation, discllssed below. 

Recommendlllion: 'Ve recolllmend that th e Assistant Secretary for OccupatioLLal Safety 

and Health implcmcnt controls to require that supervisors review all complaints for 

covCl"age and the presence of a prima/llcie a llegation IJrior to beginning an investigation. 

OSHA Response : I intend to implement such controls. The WMslleblowcr Inresligaliol1s 

Mallual. which will be issued in the coining weeks, will include such supcrvisory review as a 

step in the intake process. In addition, the training we provided to all users when we 

implemented the recent change to the Whistleblower application in the Integrated Managelllcnt 

Infom1a!ion System (1M IS) should reinforce this requirement. We stated in the training that 

decisions on whether to docket and investigate complaints under three statutes must be reviewed 

and approved by supervisors. 

OSHA apprcciatcs the opportunity to COmment on the report. 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix D 

OSHA Response to Draft Report 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

23 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

24 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix E 

Acknowledgements 

Key contributors to this report were Mark Schwartz and Steve Sovich. 

OSHA Whistleblower Complaint 

25 Report No. 02-11-202-10-105 
 

 

TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE OR ABUSE, PLEASE CONTACT: 

Online: http://www.oig.dol.gov/hotlineform.htm 

Email: hotline@oig.dol.gov 

Telephone: 1-800-347-3756 

202-693-6999 

Fax: 202-693-7020 

Address: Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

 Room S-5506 

Washington, D.C. 20210