Opinion ID: 616359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Entergy's Additional Actions With Respect to Tepperwien

Text: On January 7, 2006, Tepperwien was the subject of another fact-finder. A gas mask was discovered missing from a building on Tepperwien's security route. A fact-finder was conducted to find out why Tepperwien had not reported the mask missing. Tepperwien acknowledged that he had not checked all his assigned equipment when he took over the post, but he explained that it was physically impossible for him to check his equipment at that post, as the equipment was not stored there. Approximately two weeks later, a counseling letter was issued to Tepperwien confirming that he had been counseled to check and inspect assigned equipment when assuming a post. Another security officer, who held the post the shift before Tepperwien took over, was similarly given a fact-finder and counseling letter for failing to inspect the contingency equipment and failing to notice a gas mask was missing. The other officer accepted his fact-finding and counseling. As discussed below, Tepperwien objected, and his counseling letter was later rescinded. In late January of 2006, Tepperwien filed a complaint with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) regarding the alleged sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior at the Indian Point firing range. On February 2, 2006, Barry asked Tepperwien to attend a meeting on an NRC regulatory matter for Entergy. Barry told Tepperwien that his name had been picked out of a hat, and even though it was Tepperwien's day off, he pressed Tepperwien to come in for the meeting. In fact, the meeting was about the complaint that Tepperwien had filed with the NRC, and Entergy's outside counsel attended. Tepperwien asked if he could tape-record the meeting. He was told by one of the lawyers no. Tepperwien asked again and was told no again, this time by a supervising attorney, Darryl Shapiro. Tepperwien asked a third time about recording the meeting, and this time Shapiro responded We don't have a tape recorder. . . . If you continue this line, we will requestsince you're not cooperating, we will request that the company immediately terminate you. Tepperwien asked if he could call his lawyer. He was allowed to do so, and a paralegal from his lawyer's office was permitted to participate in the meeting by telephone. In January or February 2006, when Tepperwien was on duty at approximately 7 a.m., another officer came in, about an hour and a half late. Tepperwien stopped him because there was a tremendous odor coming off of him. The officer left, returning half an hour later. Tepperwien let him in, and reported to a supervisor a few minutes later that the officer had come in late reeking. Tepperwien also told the officer: I don't want to get the guy in trouble. He seemed fine. He didn't slur his words, didn't trip over his feet. The officer was later sent home as being unfit for duty. Two other supervisors initiated a fact-finder the same day and asked Tepperwien why he admitted a drunk officer into the work site. Tepperwien responded that [n]obody said he was drunk and advised that he had submitted an incident report. As Tepperwien described it, the fact-finder pretty much ended right then and there. In mid-February 2006, Tepperwien met with Barbara Taggart, the coordinator of Entergy's Employee Concerns Program (ECP) at Indian Point, to raise certain concerns. She instructed him to put his concerns in writing, and he did so, on or about February 13, 2006. Tepperwien complained about a number of matters. He complained about the gas mask fact-finder, explaining that he could not have possibly discovered and reported the missing mask upon assuming his post. He complained about the counseling session and counseling letter. He asserted that morale in the security department was extremely low. He complained about his meeting with Barry, and how Barry told him his name had been pulled from a hat. He expressed concern about retaliation from management. Although he did not include the matter in his memorandum, Tepperwien told Taggart when he met with her of Messina's sexual behavior. On March 6, 2006, Taggart responded to Tepperwien. As for the sexual harassment, Taggart noted that the matter had been investigated and corrective actions taken, including moving the other officer (Messina) off Tepperwien's shift. As for the actions relating to the missing gas mask, Taggart noted that the counseling session provided to Tepperwien was appropriate at the time based on the known information, as management understood that Tepperwien had not checked his equipment. Based on additional information, however, Taggart noted that management had revisited the issue and was rescinding the counseling letter. As for the meeting with Barry, Taggart acknowledged that the notification for the meeting was not handled as well as it could have been, and that action had been taken to address the issue and prevent recurrence. Tepperwien thereafter completed an ECP Customer Satisfaction Survey, and he noted that overall he was satisfied with his interactions with ECP and he was satisfied with the response to his concerns. In March 2006, there was an outage at Indian Point, during which the reactors were shut down for repair. During outages, additional security is required and consequently shifts are combined. Tepperwien was scheduled to work with Messina the first two days. He complained both days and was switched to another assignment both days. On the third day, Tepperwien spoke to his union representative, who suggested that Tepperwien switch to the night shift. Tepperwien discussed it with his wife. He agreed, in part because he would have every weekend off. He asked to be and was moved to the night shift. After the outage was completed, he decided to stay on nights a little bit longer. Just prior to the outage, Barry conducted a meeting of the day crew of the security force as well as several managers. Another security officer asked a question about staffing at a particular gate, and Barry exploded and yelled at the officer that he should not be asking such questions. At some point Barry addressed the issue of conflicts, saying: [T]here are people. . . that don't like each other. He said: There are people here I don't like, and stared at Tepperwien. In July or August 2006, Tepperwien was stationed in a bullet-resistant enclosure (BRE). Once a security officer was inside a BRE, he was not supposed to leave until he was relieved by another officer. At approximately 4 a.m., Tepperwien received a telephone call from a lieutenant who asked Tepperwien to watch a truck that was parked in the yard. The truck was partially in Tepperwien's view, and he watched it from inside the BRE for about two hours before being relieved by another officer. He told the relief officer of the lieutenant's order, and suggested that the relief officer call his supervisor to get instructions on whether to continue watching the truck. A week later, Tepperwien was asked if he had passed on the orders to the officer who relieved him and Tepperwien responded yes. A week after that, Tepperwien was pulled in for a fact-finder and asked about the assignment to watch the truck. In particular, he was asked whether he had taken escort dutyphysical chargeof the truck. The fact-finder ended, and Tepperwien never received a counseling letter with respect to this incident.