Home » Government Articles » Was Move to Windowless Basement Whistleblower's Punishment?
Was Move to Windowless Basement Whistleblower's Punishment?
In a recent congressional hearing, federal lawmakers heard testimony from an engineer whistleblower about the retaliation he experienced from his former employer for raising safety concerns about the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Project.
January 26, 2012 /Government PR News/ -- In a recent congressional hearing, federal lawmakers heard testimony from an engineer whistleblower about the retaliation he experienced from his former employer, URS Corp., for raising safety concerns about the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Project.
The Project
The Hanford Waste Treatment Plant is currently under construction in southeastern Washington state. Bechtel National Inc. and URS Corp are the major subcontractors. According to the Department of Energy, the plant would be the first chemical waste processing facility in the world that is able to separate radioactive liquid waste and alter it into a more stable form capable of safe disposal. The plant sits on about 65 acres of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. While working on the WTP Project, the engineer documented a number of safety issues. He submitted his documentation along with suggestions for improved safety to URS Corp. in June 2010.
Instead of considering his suggestions for improvements, the engineer claims that URS removed him from the project as punishment for speaking out. He was not fired, but was reassigned to a desk in a basement office that he shares with two copying machines -- and where he has reported to work for nearly the last year and a half. He believes the move was an attempt to make an example of him and send a message to other workers that they could face similar consequences should they raise safety concerns.
The Congressional Hearing
The engineer testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ad hoc subcommittees on contracting oversight recently regarding the situation. He recounted the circumstances that led to his "firing" on the project, and noted that the DOE was complicit in the actions of his employer.
The subcommittee appeared troubled by the story, particularly concerning whether the company's treatment of the engineer, including the reassignment to a basement office, was a threat to other employees. The panel is currently considering a new law that would greatly expand the protections afforded to whistleblowers for employees working for companies with government contracts. As it stands, government contractors do have some legal protections, but they come from a hodgepodge of laws and often apply in limited circumstances.
The Whistleblower Lawsuit
In addition to testifying before the subcommittee, the engineer filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit against his employer and the DOE over his treatment on the project. The lawsuit contains allegations that DOE officials exchanged emails and conversed with the engineer's superiors at URS prior to his removal from the project. The engineer is not seeking monetary damages, but wants to be reinstated to his position on the project.
In response, URS and Bechtel deny that the engineer was removed from his position on the project due to the concerns raised over safety. The DOE has also weighed in, emphasizing their commitment to ensuring safety and addressing technical issues effectively on the project.
Despite the challenges, the engineer insists that he would not change what he did. "...I would do it again," he said. "It was the right thing to do."
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
FL Web Advantage
|
|
|
|
|
| GOVERNMENT ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us