Question: What was the reason that SeaWorld filed a complaint with the Department of Labor against an OSHA worker?
About the article "Blackfish (film)", section "SeaWorld response".

Candidate passages:
SeaWorld Entertainment refused to take part in the production of "Blackfish", and later claimed the film was inaccurate, saying in a statement:SeaWorld responded further with an open letter rebutting the claims.
The Oceanic Preservation Society and The Orca Project, a non-profit focusing on orca in captivity, responded with open letters criticizing SeaWorld's claims.
Marine researcher Debbie Giles also offered rebuttals to SeaWorld, finding its assertions inaccurate.
SeaWorld also created a section of its website titled "Truth About Blackfish," addressing the claims stated above and highlighting other problems with the film:
The implication that SeaWorld separates mothers and very young calves, pointing out that Tillikum was not collected by SeaWorld; that Takara was 12 years old when moved and Kalina was moved when she was over 4 years old.
The inclusion of a SeaWorld video of a female trainer riding a killer whale, while one of the cast members, Samantha Berg, talks about her experience at Shamu Stadium, pointing out that the segment implies that Berg had relevant experience when the video used in the film was actually shot 10 years "after" Berg had left SeaWorld (The trainer depicted in the video is not Berg but rather a current SeaWorld employee at the time of "Blackfish"'s production).
The film's use of animal rights activists who have aggressively campaigned against marine mammal display and have no expertise with killer whale behavior in captivity, specifically Howard Garrett, Lori Marino and Ken Balcomb; the film's reliance on statements by David Duffus, a professor of geography whom Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Judge Kenneth Welsch found "has no expertise in the training of captive killer whales."
The film's use of false and misleading statements about the circumstances of Brancheau’s death, specifically the opening sequence's separate generic training and performance footage edited together and synched with actual 911 calls, "to mislead the audience into believing it is viewing the actual footage of Ms. Brancheau swimming with Tilikum prior to the fatal incident," when the opening sequence does not depict either Brancheau or Tilikum, or even an attack, and that no one was ever allowed to swim in the water with Tilikum, including Brancheau; and the use of an edited recording of an EMT technician, subsequently proved to be mistaken, suggesting that Tilikum swallowed Brancheau’s arm during the attack.
On February 27, 2014, SeaWorld filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, claiming the Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigator who investigated Brancheau's death had behaved unethically by aiding the filmmakers.
Cowperthwaite denied claims of improper collaboration.
In March 2014, Cowperthwaite responded with rebuttals to several but not all of SeaWorld's website claims and challenged SeaWorld to a public debate.
Planet Airways terminated the Director of Operations (“DO”) for misconduct.
The DO filed an OSHA complaint that was ruled in favor of Planet.
The DO then filed an appeal that was also ruled in favor of Planet.
The DO’s termination with cause was upheld and he was awarded no money at any time.
'"US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD; ALJ CASE NO.
02-AIR-19 ARB CASE NO.
04-056 April 28, 2006FRANK BARBER, Complainant v. PLANET AIRWAYS, INC., Respondent FINAL ORDER: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1737345/Department-of-Labor-04-056-“On February 15, 2002, Planet Airway’s fired Barber.”-“Barber filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) on February 22, 2002, alleging that Planet had terminated his employment in retaliation for raising safety concerns.
OSHA dismissed the complaint, and Barber requested an administrative hearing, which was held on February 11–14, 2003.”-“Instead, the ALJ found that Planet fired Barber because he sexually harassed employees, retaliated against other employees for raising safety issues with the FAA, and maintained an inappropriate relationship with Halloran, the FAA inspector.
The ALJ concluded that Planet fired Barber for non-discriminatory reasons unrelated to his protected activity, and therefore denied his AIR 21 claim.”-“Finally… the ALJ found that Barber ‘seemed to be conspiring with Inspector Diane Halloran to the detriment of Planet’ –together, they intimidated Planet’s employees and forced Planet’s owners to make personnel decisions that Barber and she wanted.
The ALJ correctly found that this ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unusual’ personal relationship between a high-ranking airline official and an FAA inspector charged with regulating that airline contributed to Barber’s firing, not the safety concern reported to Halloran.”-“CONCLUSION: Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding that Planet did not fire Barber because of his protected activity...
Furthermore, we have considered, but rejected, Barber’s arguments on appeal.
Accordingly, we DENY the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Wayne C. Beyer, Administrative Appeals Judge; Oliver M. Transue, Administrative Appeals Judge.” 
United States.
In the United States, President Richard Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act into law on the 29th day of December 1970.
The act created the three agencies that administer it.
They include the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
The act authorized the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to regulate private employers in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories.OSHA was established in 1971 and is headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia with regional offices spread across the nation.
OSHA develops safety standards in the Code of Federal Regulation and enforces those safety standards through compliance inspections conducted by Compliance Officers.
Furthermore this agency provides training and publications at little or no cost.OSHA is an agency under the Department of Labor whose purpose is to ensure safe and healthful workplaces in America.
It fulfills its mission through the implementation of a five-year plan (Department of Labor, 2003).
The agency’s vision is that “Every employer and employee in the nation recognizes that safety and health adds value to American businesses and workplaces and workers lives” (Department of Labor, 2003).
The original plan was for OSHA to oversee 50 state plans with OSHA funding 50% of each plan.
Unfortunately it has not worked out that way.
There are currently 26 approved state plans and no other states want to participate.
OSHA manages the plan in the states not participating.
OSHA has three goals: (1) reduce occupational hazards through direct intervention, (2) promote a safety and health culture through compliance assistance, cooperative programs, and strong leadership, and (3) maximize OSHA’s effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening its capabilities and infrastructure (Department of Labor, 2003).OSHA operates through ten regional offices that are further broken down in to districts.
They are organized into three sections; compliance, training, and assistance.
OSHA's primary efforts are built on what they call a strong, fair, and effective enforcement program.
OSHA provides assistance to employers who want to do the right thing and focuses enforcement resources on high-hazard industries.
Each state has consultation services available for small businesses that are funded by OSHA.
In addition, OSHA has 73 specialists in local offices to provide tailored information and training to employers and employees.OSHA also has an Alliance Program that enables trade or professional organizations, businesses, labor organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies to collaborate with OSHA.
Representatives from OSHA and the organization sign a formal agreement with goals that address training and education, outreach and communication, and promoting the national dialogue on workplace safety and health.
Furthermore, OSHA has a Strategic Partnership Program that targets construction, shipbuilding, food processing, logging, silica mining, and nursing homes.
This program zeros in on specific hazards or specific geographic areas.
OSHA also has a Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
Potential VPP worksites apply to OSHA.
A review of the application is conducted and if approved OSHA conducts an on-site inspection.
If the organization passes the inspection it is given VPP status.
This means OSHA will not conduct annual inspections and normally not visit a site unless there is a fatal accident or an employee complaint.
What does the organization get for all this work?
VPP sites have injury and illness rates more than 50% below the average for their industry.
This relates to savings of millions of dollars each year.OSHA manages a Susan B. Harwood grant that provides money to nonprofit companies to provide training.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 along with the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act Authorize this grant.
The grant provides funds to train workers and employers to recognize, avoid, and prevent safety and health hazards in the workplace.
In 2002 there were Targeted Topic Grants and Institutional Competency Building Grants.
These grants were awarded for 12 months and averaged $200,000.
In 2003 there were Targeted Topic Grants, OSHA Training Material Grants, and Ergonomic Guidelines Training Grants.
These grants were awarded for 12 months and averaged $150,000 each  
Whistleblowing in the U.S. is affected by a complex patchwork of contradictory laws.
In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state in which the case arises.
In passing the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the "patchwork and vagaries" of varying state statutes.
Still, a wide variety of federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions.
The first US law adopted specifically to protect whistleblowers was the 1863 United States False Claims Act (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the Civil War.
The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government and protects them from wrongful dismissal.
Another US law that specifically protects whistleblowers is the Lloyd–La Follette Act of 1912.
It guaranteed the right of federal employees to furnish information to the United States Congress.
The first US environmental law to include an employee protection was the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Similar protections were included in subsequent federal environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law) (1980), and the Clean Air Act (1990).
Similar employee protections enforced through OSHA are included in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982) to protect truck drivers, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ("AIR 21"), and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, enacted on July 30, 2002 (for corporate fraud whistleblowers).
Investigation of retaliation against whistleblowers under 20 federal statutes falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program of the United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
New whistleblower statutes enacted by Congress which are to be enforced by the Secretary of Labor are generally delegated by a Secretary's Order to OSHA's Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program (OWPP).
The patchwork of laws means that victims of retaliation need to be alert to the laws at issue to determine the deadlines and means for making proper complaints.
Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (for Arizona State Employees to file a "Prohibited Personnel Practice" Complaint before the Arizona State Personnel Board; and Ohio public employees to file appeals with the State Personnel Board of Review).
It is 30 days for environmental whistleblowers to make a written complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Federal employees complaining of discrimination, retaliation or other violations of the civil rights laws have 45 days to make a written complaint to their agency's equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer.
Airline workers and corporate fraud whistleblowers have 90 days to make their complaint to OSHA.
Nuclear whistleblowers and truck drivers have 180 days to make complaints to OSHA.
Victims of retaliation against union organizing and other concerted activities to improve working conditions have six months to make complaints to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Private sector employees have either 180 or 300 days to make complaints to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (depending on whether their state has a "deferral" agency) for discrimination claims on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin or religion.
Those who face retaliation for seeking minimum wages or overtime have either two or three years to file a civil lawsuit, depending on whether the court finds the violation was "willful.
"Those who report a false claim against the federal government, and suffer adverse employment actions as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil suit for remedies under the US False Claims Act (FCA).
Under a "qui tam" provision, the "original source" for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government recovers from the offenders.
However, the "original source" must also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovery of the federal funds fraudulently obtained, and must avoid publicizing the claim of fraud until the US Justice Department decides whether to prosecute the claim itself.
Such "qui tam" lawsuits must be filed under seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from becoming public until the federal government makes its decision on direct prosecution.
Federal employees could benefit from the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the No-FEAR Act (which made individual agencies directly responsible for the economic sanctions of unlawful retaliation).
Federal protections are enhanced in those few cases where the Office of Special Counsel will support the whistleblower's appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
The MSPB rejects the vast majority of whistleblower appeals, however, as does the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Efforts to strengthen the law have met with failure in recent years, but minor reforms seem likely.
See, e.g.,Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011, S. 743, H. Rep. 3289, 112th Cong.
(2011). 
Foster oversaw an investigation in the summer of 2007 of multiple branches in the Boston area of the subprime division.
Investigators found evidence that employees had forged borrower signatures, altered and fabricated income and asset documentation, and manipulated the company's automated underwriting and property valuation systems.
The investigation was opened after receiving a tip from a former branch employee who had been fired after objecting to the fraudulent practices.
After her investigation, a number of employees were let go and Countrywide shut down six branch offices in Boston.
By February 2008, Foster had found similar activities in investigations in Miami, Chicago, Cincinnati, San Diego, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Foster believed that Countrywide Employee Relations and Lending Managers were colluding to circumvent fraud reporting channels in order to conceal the fraud perpetrated by high-producing loan officers and managers.
According to a 60 Minutes interview, whistleblowing employees were told to circumvent Foster’s office and were instead directed to report fraud and wrongdoing to the company's Employee Relations department.
Those employees were allegedly being transferred, demoted, harassed or terminated.
Foster asked Countrywide's Internal Audit to investigate Employee Relations.
The company chose to conceal Foster's allegations from Bank of America (with whom they were merging) and instead directed Employee Relations to investigate Foster.
Foster’s allegations of retaliation were ignored and Countrywide's Employee Relations convinced Bank of America managers to terminate Foster on September 8, 2008.
Foster was offered $228,000 for her silence.
She instead filed a Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), challenging the legality of her firing.
In September 2011, OSHA ruled that Foster had been retaliated against in violation of the employee protection provision of the Sarbanes Oxley Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002.
The Department of Labor ordered her reinstatement and $930,000 in damages.
Bank of America has challenged OSHA's ruling.
Another hearing has been set for October 2012.