Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
Red Barchetta Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
ELKINS, West Virginia, June 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release on May 31, 2023:* * *
Hotel Franchisee Fired Housekeeper Because of her Disability, Federal Agency Charged
* * *
Red Barchetta LLC, a Holiday Inn Express & Suites-brand franchisee in Elkins, West Virginia, will pay $40,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a former employee, the federal agency announced today.
According to EEOC's lawsuit, Red Barchetta employed a housekeeper with chronic obstructive ... Show Full Article ELKINS, West Virginia, June 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release on May 31, 2023: * * * Hotel Franchisee Fired Housekeeper Because of her Disability, Federal Agency Charged * * * Red Barchetta LLC, a Holiday Inn Express & Suites-brand franchisee in Elkins, West Virginia, will pay $40,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a former employee, the federal agency announced today. According to EEOC's lawsuit, Red Barchetta employed a housekeeper with chronic obstructivepulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma for over seven years at its Elkins, West Virginia hotel. After a visit to an emergency room and brief medical absence related to her disabilities, the employee received medical clearance to work from her physician and informed hotel management on multiple occasions that she was ready to return to work, but the hotel's management refused to schedule her for work and eventually fired her because of her disabilities, the EEOC alleged.
After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit May 22, 2023 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (U.S. EEOC v. Red Barchetta LLC, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-8 TSK).
The EEOC and Red Barchetta agreed to settle the lawsuit by consent decree before any adjudication or findings in the case. In addition to paying $40,000 in monetary relief to the former employee, the consent decree enjoins Red Barchetta from discriminating against employees or applicants based on their disabilities.
The company also must institute and enforce comprehensive policies against disability discrimination, including the implementation of an effective process for individualized, objective evaluation of a worker's ability to safely and proficiently perform essential job functions, and for determining any related reasonable accommodations.
Red Barchetta will also provide anti-discrimination training to management personnel with ADA-related decision-making authority. The decree also requires that the company report to the EEOC information concerning any employee or job applicant who was discharged, laid off, not hired for employment, or otherwise excluded or disqualified from a job, because of a medical condition.
"The EEOC commends Red Barchetta for working cooperatively with the agency to fashion a mutually acceptable settlement of this case that provides fair compensation to the disabled worker involved and that will benefit the company, its employees, and job applicants in the future," said EEOC regional attorney Debra Lawrence.
EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie Williamson added, "The EEOC is strongly committed to enforcing the ADA to ensure that employers make careful, individualized, objective assessments of disabled workers' abilities to perform their jobs rather than relying on myths, fears or stereotypes."
The lawsuit was commenced by the EEOC's Pittsburgh Area Office, one of four component offices of the agency's Philadelphia District Office. The Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and parts of Ohio and New Jersey. Attorneys in the Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.
For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/red-barchetta-llc-settles-eeoc-disability-discrimination-lawsuit
NRC Issues Event Notification for Millstone Nuclear Plant, Conn.
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following event notification (No. 56544) involving Millstone Nuclear Plant, Connecticut:* * *
Facility: Millstone
Region: 1
State: CT
Unit: [3] [] []
RX Type: [1] GE-3,[2] CE,[3] W-4-LP
NRC Notified By: Jon Daskam
HQ OPS Officer: Bill Gott
Notification Date: 05/30/2023
Notification Time: 08:34 [ET]
Event Date: 05/30/2023
Event Time: 04:46 [EDT]
Last Update Date: 05/30/2023
Emergency Class: Non Emergency
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B) - RPS Actuation - Critical
50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) - Valid Specif Sys Actuation
Person ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following event notification (No. 56544) involving Millstone Nuclear Plant, Connecticut: * * * Facility: Millstone Region: 1 State: CT Unit: [3] [] [] RX Type: [1] GE-3,[2] CE,[3] W-4-LP NRC Notified By: Jon Daskam HQ OPS Officer: Bill Gott Notification Date: 05/30/2023 Notification Time: 08:34 [ET] Event Date: 05/30/2023 Event Time: 04:46 [EDT] Last Update Date: 05/30/2023 Emergency Class: Non Emergency 10 CFR Section: 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B) - RPS Actuation - Critical 50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) - Valid Specif Sys Actuation Person(Organization): Cahill, Christopher (R1DO)
* * *
Table
[Link to table at bottom of document.]
* * *
REACTOR TRIP
The following information was provided by the licensee via email:
"At 0446 EDT on 5/30/2023, with Millstone Power Station Unit 3 operating at approximately 100 percent reactor power, an automatic reactor trip occurred due to a turbine trip caused by electrical protection. The reactor trip was uncomplicated and decay heat is being removed via steam dumps to the condenser. All systems responded as expected to the trip.
"Auxiliary feedwater actuated automatically as expected following the trip due to low-low levels in the steam generators.
"There was no risk to the public. There was no impact to Millstone Unit 2. The Resident inspector has been informed.
"This event is being reported as a four hour report under 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B) as a condition that resulted in actuation of the reactor protection system while the reactor was critical, and as an eight hour report under 10CFR50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) and 10CFR50.72(b)(3)(iv)(B) for actuation of the auxiliary feedwater system."
* * *
View table at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2023/20230531en.html#en56544
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2023/20230531en.html#en56544
NRC IG: 'Semiannual Report to Congress - Oct. 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023'
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General issued the following semiannual report covering Oct. 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 on May 30, 2023.Here are excerpts:
* * *
A MESSAGE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
On behalf of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, it is my pleasure to present this Semiannual Report to Congress, covering the period from October 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. I continue to be grateful for the opportunity to lead this extraordinary group of managers, auditors, investigators, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General issued the following semiannual report covering Oct. 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 on May 30, 2023. Here are excerpts: * * * A MESSAGE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL On behalf of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, it is my pleasure to present this Semiannual Report to Congress, covering the period from October 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. I continue to be grateful for the opportunity to lead this extraordinary group of managers, auditors, investigators,and support staff, and I am extremely proud of their exceptional work.
During this reporting period, we initiated thirteen audit reports and issued four. We also opened ten investigative cases and completed twelve, six of which were referred to the Department of Justice, and six of which were referred to NRC or DNFSB management for action.
Our reports are intended to strengthen the NRC's and the DNFSB's oversight of their myriad endeavors and reflect the legislative mandate of the Inspector General Act, which is to identify and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Summaries of the reports herein include: reviews of the NRC's financial statement evaluation; top management and performance challenges facing the NRC; DNFSB's financial statement evaluation; and, top management and performance challenges facing the DNFSB. Further, this report includes summaries of cases and/or allegations involving: the NRC's petition process; oversight of technical regulatory issues at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant; computer misuse and computer forensic support; theft of NRC government property; unauthorized telework in NRC Region II; alleged deficiencies in the fire protection program at a nuclear power plant; and, DNFSB's computer misuse and computer forensic support.
Our team members dedicate their efforts to promoting the integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of NRC and DNFSB programs and operations, and I greatly appreciate their commitment to that mission. Our success would not be possible without the collaborative efforts between my staff and those of the NRC and the DNFSB to address OIG findings and implement corrective actions in a timely manner. I thank them for their dedication, and I look forward to continued cooperation as we work together to ensure the integrity and efficiency of agency operations.
Robert J. Feitel, Inspector General
* * *
CONTENTS
Highlights ... 1
Audits ... 1
Investigations ... 3
Overview of the NRC and the OIG ... 7
The NRC's Mission ... 7
OIG History, Mission, and Goals ... 9
OIG Programs and Activities ... 10
Audit Program ... 10
Investigative Program ... 12
OIG General Counsel Regulatory Review ... 14
Other OIG Activities ... 17
NRC Management and Performance Challenges ... 18
NRC Audits ... 19
Audit Summaries ... 19
Audits in Progress ... 21
NRC Investigations ... 29
Investigative Case Summaries ... 29
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ... 36
DNFSB Management and Performance Challenges ... 37
DNFSB Audits ... 38
Audit Summaries ... 38
Audits in Progress ... 40
DNFSB Investigations ... 43
Summary of OIG Accomplishments at the NRC ... 46
Investigative Statistics ... 46
Audits Completed ... 49
Contract Audit Reports ... 50
Audit Resolution Activities ... 51
Summary of OIG Accomplishments at the DNFSB ... 54
Investigative Statistics ... 56
Audits Completed ... 57
Audit Resolution Activities ... 58
Unimplemented Audit Recommendations ... 60
NRC ... 60
DNFSB ... 70
Abbreviations and Acronyms ... 77
Reporting Requirements ... 78
Appendix ... 79
* * *
HIGHLIGHTS
The following sections highlight selected audits and investigations completed during this reporting period. More detailed summaries appear in subsequent sections of this report.
Audits
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
* The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended (CFO Act), requires the Inspector General (IG) or an independent external auditor, as determined by the IG, to annually audit the NRC's financial statements in accordance with applicable standards. In compliance with this requirement, the OIG contracted with CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) to conduct this annual audit. CLA examined the NRC's fiscal year (FY) 2022 Agency Financial Report, which includes financial statements for FY 2022.
* The Reports Consolidation Act of 2001 requires the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to annually update our assessment of the NRC's most serious management and performance challenges facing the agency, and the agency's progress in addressing those challenges. This year, the OIG identified 10 areas representing challenges the NRC must address to better accomplish its mission. We have compiled this list based on our audit, evaluation, and investigative work; general knowledge of the agency's operations; and, evaluative reports of others, including the Unites States Government Accountability Office (GAO), and input from NRC management.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
* The CFO Act requires the IG or an independent external auditor, as determined by the IG, to annually audit the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (DNFSB) financial statements in accordance with applicable standards. In compliance with this requirement, the OIG contracted with CLA to conduct this annual audit. CLA examined the DNFSB's FY 2022 Agency Financial Report, which includes financial statements for FY 2022.
* The Reports Consolidation Act of 2001 requires the OIG to annually update our assessment of the DNFSB's most serious management and performance challenges facing the agency, and the agency's progress in addressing those challenges. This year, the OIG identified five areas representing challenges the DNFSB must address to better accomplish its mission. We have compiled this list based on our audit, evaluation, and investigative work; general knowledge of the agency's operations; and, evaluative reports of others, including the GAO, and input from DNFSB management.
Investigations
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
* The OIG received an allegation from a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that the NRC's policy for handling 2.206 petitions, which is Management Directive (MD) 8.11, Review Process for 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Petitions, does not meet the intent of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Additionally, the NGO questioned if the NRC addressed the concerns identified in the OIG Event Inquiry regarding the Indian Point gas pipeline.
* The OIG initiated a special project in FY 2022 to identify any significant safety and security issues at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. We evaluated almost two dozen technical issues from previous allegations and investigations conducted from FY 2015 to FY 2022. We combined three sets of allegations regarding emergency diesel generators, ranging from fuel leaks resulting from loose bolts, regularly occurring mechanical failures, and undue influence from a licensee on the NRC into one investigation that will be addressed in a case report scheduled in FY 2023.
* The OIG initiated a project at the beginning of FY 2021 to identify any potential cases of intrusions into the NRC Information Technology systems from both inside and outside of the agency. The project resulted in six actions, including the opening of a case in FY 2021 that is still being conducted jointly with a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) field office. The OIG's Cyber Crimes Unit (CCU) monitored an incident involving a software breach and ensured the NRC Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCFO) had all current information from the FBI and the Intelligence Community. The OIG has a CCU special agent assigned to the FBI Baltimore Field Office Cyber Task Force, and OIG CCU agents participate in the daily network OCFO update meetings, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) Information Technology (IT) Sub-Committee meetings, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section meetings to support governmentwide initiatives aimed at intrusions and misuse of government systems.
* The OIG completed an investigation regarding a former contract employee, who failed to return his Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card and NRC laptop after his employment was terminated. The employee acknowledged that he did not return the laptop because he felt "vindictive" about the circumstance of his removal. We executed a search warrant at the employee's premises and recovered his laptop and PIV card. The State's Attorney's Office of Howard County, Maryland charged the employee but dropped the charges three months later. The NRC's Office of the General Counsel issued a notice of debarment against the individual from all federal contracts for three years.
* The OIG received an allegation that an NRC health services contractor was not fulfilling its contract obligations because its subcontractor failed to provide records in a timely manner. Our investigation revealed that while the subcontractor's performance had declined, the records in question had, in fact, been provided.
* The OIG investigated an allegation of unauthorized telework and travel-related issues by an NRC employee, and that management was complicit in these violations. We found the employee had unauthorized telework on 11 dates during 2021, but did not find management complicit. We also found that between January 2018 and July 2021, the employee violated federal and NRC policy by traveling indirectly 17 times, claiming an improper temporary duty location with higher per diem rates on 3 occasions, and overcharging the government for multiple modes of travel once, which resulted in a loss of $1,701.24. Lastly, we found payment of per diem meals and incidental expenses for non-workdays on nine of the employee's travel vouchers between January 2018 and February 2020, totaling an overpayment of $3,867 - a grand total of $5,568.24. We recommended that the agency recover the overpayment.
- The OIG received an allegation regarding deficiencies in the fire protection program at a nuclear power plant, related in part to the plant's transition to a performance-based fire protection model under National Fire Protection Association Standard 805. The alleger asserted that the licensee provided the NRC with inaccurate and incomplete information about potential areas of code noncompliance, and that multiple fire code noncompliance issues remain at the plant. Our investigation identified potential oversight concerns involving fire safety relating to the plant's service water intake structure pump rooms and fire probabilistic risk assessment.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
* The OIG initiated a project to identify potential cases of intrusions to the DNFSB IT system because of emails and website traffic from internal and external sources. The project resulted in the DNFSB migrating to a different website monitoring software system with greater capability to determine which restricted sites internal users accessed. OIG CCU special agents worked with the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) to build relationships with CISO staff members and participated with the FBI Baltimore Field Office Cyber Task Force, the CIGIE IT Subcommittee, and the DOJ Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section to support governmentwide initiatives aimed at intrusions.
* * *
The report is posted at: https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-sa-reports/SARC%20Final.pdf
NLRB Issues Decision on Morrison Management Specialists, Service Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota & Iowa
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following decision (Case No. 18-UC-297357) by Region 18 Director Jennifer A. Hadsall:* * *
MORRISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., Employer and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE MINNESOTA & IOWA, Petitioner
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 8, 2022, Service Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota and Iowa (Union) filed a unit clarification petition seeking to add a group of employees providing dietary services to the Sisters of Saint Francis (Sisters) residing at Assisi Heights, 1001 14th Street, Rochester, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following decision (Case No. 18-UC-297357) by Region 18 Director Jennifer A. Hadsall: * * * MORRISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., Employer and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION HEALTHCARE MINNESOTA & IOWA, Petitioner DECISION AND ORDER On June 8, 2022, Service Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota and Iowa (Union) filed a unit clarification petition seeking to add a group of employees providing dietary services to the Sisters of Saint Francis (Sisters) residing at Assisi Heights, 1001 14th Street, Rochester,Minnesota to an existing unit of food service employees working for Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. (Employer) at various Mayo Clinic locations in the Rochester, Minnesota area./1
The Union argues that the employees at issue are covered by a previous certification encompassing a part of the current bargaining unit, as well as by the recognition clause in the parties' current collective bargaining agreement. The Union further argues that the new employees do not have a separate identity from the existing unit and share an overwhelming community of interest with the unit.
The Employer argues that the petitioned-for employees should not be added to the existing bargaining unit because they are performing different work from that performed by bargaining unit employees and they do not share an overwhelming community of interest with the bargaining unit employees.
A videoconference hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) on Thursday, November 10, 2022, and Monday, November 14, 2022. At that time, the parties were given the opportunity to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce into the record evidence of the significant facts that support their contentions, and to orally argue their respective positions. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs, which I have considered.
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to me under Section 3(b) of the Act. Having considered the parties' positions, the record, and the relevant Board precedent, I find the employees performing dietary services to the Sisters residing at Assisi Heights are performing work distinct from that performed by the bargaining unit employees and do not share an overwhelming community of interest with those employees. The dietary employees have a separate identity from the existing bargaining unit employees. For these reasons, accreting the Sisters' dietary staff employees to the existing unit is not appropriate./2 Accordingly, I am dismissing the petition.
The Employer's Assumption of Food Services at Mayo Clinic
Mayo Clinic operates St. Mary Hospital and Methodist Hospital in downtown Rochester, Minnesota as well as an additional hospital in Albert Lea, Minnesota. The Union represents employees working directly for Mayo Clinic at all three locations. Employees providing food services were originally included in these units, as Mayo Clinic provided its own in-patient dietary services. In 2017, Mayo Clinic contracted out its in-patient dietary services to the Employer.
At this same time, the Employer took over the contract for retail food services on the Mayo Clinic campuses. A contractor named Sodexo had been providing these services, which included providing food for purchase by staff and visitors at cafeterias and small retail outlets such as coffee shops. Sodexo was not responsible for providing in-patient food service. The Union had been certified as the bargaining representative of the Sodexo employees in 2016.
The original certification that issued in 2016 defined the bargaining unit as follows:/3
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the Employer in its food service operations at the Mayo Clinic facilities located at 200 First Street NW and 1001 14th Street NW in Rochester, MN, including Baker, Barista, Cashier, Cashier/ Food Service Workers, Catering Service Worker, Cook, Dining Room Attendant, Driver, Food Service Worker, Sous Chef, Stock Worker and Receiver, Utility Worker, and Vending Technician; excluding all other employees, including confidential, professional, managerial and office clerical employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
As referenced in the certification, part of the retail employees working for Sodexo were working at 1001 14th Street NW. This is the address of Assisi Heights/4, which has historically served as a convent for the Sisters. The complex was originally intended to house 500 nuns but now serves as the home to under 100 nuns. Having been intended for a much larger community, Assisi Heights has a 20,000 square foot kitchen. Sodexo moved some of its employees into a portion of the Assisi Heights kitchen in 2015 because its operation had outgrown the location it was using on Mayo Clinic's downtown campus./5 The Sodexo employees working in the Assisi Heights kitchen made box lunches and prepared large batch food, such as cookies, and packed these items into individual size containers. These lunches and items were then sent to retail locations throughout the Mayo Clinic for resale or were used for pre-sold catering events, such as meetings. When the Employer took over the retail food service contract, it took over the retail operations run out of the Assisi Heights kitchen. There are approximately 17 bargaining unit employees working for the Employer in the Assisi Heights kitchen.
The Employer and Union have bargained two successive contracts that each cover both the in-patient food service employees and the retail food service employees that previously worked for Mayo Clinic and Sodexo. The first was effective from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022, and the second, which is the current contract, is effective from November 1, 2022 through June 30, 2027. Both the first and current contracts describe the bargaining unit as follows:
The Employer hereby recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive representative for the full-time and regular part time/ temporary/ casual Morrison employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in regards to wages, hours or work and other terms and conditions of employment for all of the employees within the bargaining units certified by the National Labor Relations Board or the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services, employed in Food Service Operations at the following locations:
* Mayo Clinic-Harwick- St. Francis Assisi
* MCHS Albert Lea, 404 West Fountain, Albert Lea, MN
* Mayo Clinic Hospital, Methodist Campus, Rochester, MN
* Mayo Clinic Hospital, Saint Mary's Campus, Rochester, MN
Excluded from the bargaining unit shall be nutrition assistants, managers, chefs, sous chefs, cashiers* (excluded at St. Mary's & Methodist facilities only) confidential and clerical employees, office/professional employees, supervisors, and guards as defined in the National Labor Relations Act./6
The collective bargaining agreement's recognition clause tracked the original bargaining units by location, with the former Sodexo bargaining unit represented by the reference to Mayo Clinic- Harwick/7- St. Francis Assisi, and the former Mayo Clinic bargaining units represented by the references to the Albert Lea hospital, the Methodist Campus, and Saint Mary's campus.
In addition to providing retail and in-patient food services at the Mayo Clinic hospitals and office locations, the Employer provides dietary services at Charter House, a retirement home. The food service employees working at Charter House are not part of the bargaining unit.
The Sisters of St. Francis at Assisi Heights
The Sisters of St. Francis of Rochester, Minnesota helped fund the original Saint Mary's Hospital that opened in 1889 and were instrumental in laying the groundwork for what became the Mayo Clinic. Assisi Heights serves as the home of many of the Sisters. As noted above, the building, which is impressive in size, was intended to house 500 nuns. However, today, there are far less living there, with around 100 calling Assisi Heights their home. The Sisters occupy three floors on one side of the complex, with those living independently occupying the first floor and those requiring more nursing care living on the second and third floors.
In addition to being the home of the Sisters, Assisi Heights serves as a community center. Prior to the pandemic, the chapel was open to the public. Additionally, the nuns would offer classes to the public. Currently, there are organizations that rent space at Assisi Heights, including the Southeast Minnesota Youth Orchestra and the Southeast Minnesota Synod of the ELCA.
The Sisters have a staff working for them. This staff includes maintenance, housekeeping, nursing and administrative employees. They employ a taxi driver who provides transportation when necessary. These employees have their own human resources representative.
Until recently, the Sisters also employed their own dietary staff. This staff included cooks and dietary aides, many of whom had worked for the nuns for twenty years. A decision was made to contract the dietary services out. The record does not reflect the reason for this change. However, the Employer was awarded the contract to provide food services to the nuns and, as of March 1, 2022, the dietary staff that had previously been working directly for the Sisters became employees of the Employer, Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.
The Union's Unit Clarification Petition
The Employer and Union began bargaining for a successor contract in May 2022. The Union's President testified that he learned that the Employer had been contracted to provide food services to the Sisters living at Assisi Heights immediately before negotiations started. On May 9, 2022, he emailed an overall contract proposal to the Employer's representatives that included a proposal to revise the recognition language of the contract to add additional locations. As part of this proposal, the Union sought to clarify that the work being performed for the Sisters at Assisi Heights was bargaining unit work. The Union asserted the work was covered by the existing agreement and certifications.
While the parties discussed the matter a couple times during negotiations, they did not come to any understanding regarding the placement of the employees and the Union filed the unit clarification petition at issue in this matter./8
Overview of the Work at Issue
The Sisters' Dietary Staff
There are currently around fourteen employees providing food services to the Sisters at Assisi Heights. All fourteen worked for the Sisters before becoming employees of the Employer. There are 11 dietary aides and 3 cooks. They work only for the Sisters and perform no duties related to the Employer's retail operations run out of the Assisi Heights kitchen.
The employees provide the Sisters' food service 365 days a year. They work two shifts, providing coverage from 6:00am in the morning to 7:00pm at night. They provide three meals a day as well as food for special events such as birthday parties or holidays. For the Sisters living on the first floor (the independent living area), the dietary aides and cooks set up a buffet three times a day in the main dining room. The cooks prepare the hot food and take the food upstairs from the kitchen in the basement to the first-floor dining room. The cooks place the food into hot wells. The dietary aides set up all the cold food, such as salads, desserts and beverages. While the Sisters on the first floor serve themselves, the dietary aides help them carry trays, get glasses of milk and generally get the Sisters set up at their tables.
On the second floor, the Sisters are in need of additional nursing assistance. The dietary aides take hot food up as well as a smaller sampling of cold food. They set up a buffet, but here the nurses will assist the Sisters with going through the line, and the dietary aides will serve the food. The cooks prepare trays for residents on the third floor. The dietary aides take the trays of food directly to the Sisters' rooms. These Sisters typically need more assistance from nurses when eating.
When not serving the Sisters their meals, the dietary aides spend time in the kitchen prepping vegetables, plating desserts and otherwise preparing food. They also are responsible for washing the dishes used by the Sisters. They wash these dishes in a dish room on the first floor. There is an employee who is designated to stock kitchenettes in the corridors where the Sisters live. These kitchenettes serve as pantries where the Sisters can get snacks throughout the day.
A rotating menu is prepared for the Sisters on a five-week cycle. The Sisters are able to determine the make up of this calendar by informing the Employer of meals they do not like and providing their own recipes for meals they want made. They determine their own serving sizes. The Sisters can also request specific items for special occasions, such as cake and ice cream, or beer.
The Sisters' dietary staff goes through the Employer's standard trainings, which include monthly trainings and OSHA trainings specific to healthcare settings. However, they also receive an orientation on the Sisters of St. Francis, which is aimed at teaching the employees' the Sisters' history and values, and how to respect those values. They also receive training on working with seniors, including training on how to make the resident's day better and how to recognize when the Sisters are having problems chewing or slurring their words. It is expected that the dietary staff will develop relationships with the Sisters, learning their names and understanding their dietary needs so that they can help them choose foods that meet those needs.
There are no regulatory bodies overseeing the food service provided to the Sisters, as it is considered service in a private home. Thus, there are no inspections conducted on the operations directed at providing the Sisters their daily meals.
The Bargaining Unit Employees Working in the Assisi Heights Kitchen
There are approximately 17 bargaining unit employees working in the kitchen at Assisi Heights. Of these employees, four are cooks, approximately ten are food service workers, one is a food service utility worker and two are drivers. Their primary duty is to produce and deliver items for sale at retail locations throughout the Mayo Clinic. They do not perform any duties directly related to providing food to the Sisters.
The bargaining unit employees working at Assisi Heights work dayshift, providing coverage between the hours of 5:00am and 5:30pm. The retail operations run from Sunday through Friday. Of the bargaining unit cooks, three serve as bakers and one is dedicated to prepping food. The food service workers spend the morning producing box lunches. These are made for same-day consumption. After completing the box lunches, they move to grab and go items such as salads, snack cups, and bakery items. These are produced to be delivered the next day. All the retail items are packaged, labeled, and dated. The labels contain caloric and nutritional information, as well as a list of ingredients. The products are sold under a brand name. The food produced is intended to be served cold.
The food service utility worker washes dishes and cleans. This employee washes dishes used for preparing food, which includes dishes used in preparing the food for the Sisters. The employees in both groups share items such a pots, cutting boards, spatulas, and pans. The food service utility worker is responsible for washing all these items as well as cleaning in general.
The drivers deliver the prepared items by driving them to various Mayo Clinic locations. The drivers follow a designated route, dropping off at the Harwick building, then Methodist Hospital and finally St. Mary's Hospital. The premade items are distributed to between 40 and 50 retail outlets. A driver spends one week driving and the next week working in the kitchen performing extra tasks such as putting away deliveries.
When preparing the food, the bargaining unit employees follow specific recipes for the production of the quantities ordered. They produce items for not only retail locations, but also for catering orders. The cooks are subject to the Employer's standard training. The retail staff as a whole receive training on how to package food and how to use scales. They do not receive any training on Catholicism or on working with seniors.
The retail operations at Assisi Heights are subject to a yearly county inspection and to an audit that covers food safety and cleanliness. Additionally, there is a regulatory body called the Joint Commission that reviews hospital operations in general and is empowered to shut down departments, including the food service operations. This regulatory body has oversight over the retail operations at Assisi Heights.
The Remainder of the Bargaining Unit Employees
Those bargaining unit employees who were formerly members of the bargaining units of hospital employees working for Mayo Clinic focus on in-patient food service. The bargaining unit employees on the retail side are focused on providing food for sale to staff and visitors./9 Retail operations cover catering, employee cafes and visitor cafes with the goal of making money. All the locations where the bargaining unit employees work are subject to regulatory review by the Joint Commission to ensure they are meeting guidelines on safety and cleanliness.
Bargaining unit employees focused on providing in-patient food services work both day and night shifts, and on the weekends. Retail bargaining unit employees generally work dayshift and do not work on the weekend.
As with the bargaining unit cooks at Assisi Heights, the bargaining unit cooks across the rest of the Mayo Clinic campuses are subject to the Employer's standard training. None of the bargaining unit employees receive training on Catholicism or about being a Franciscan nun. None of the retail bargaining unit employees receive any training on working with seniors.
There are three bargaining unit employees who provide dietary services to four Sisters who reside at St. Mary Hospital. Historically, a group of St. Francis Sisters lived and worked at St. Mary's. As their health declined, they moved to Assisi Heights. While there were once approximately 46 Sisters living at St. Mary's, there are currently only four who continue to live in a wing of the hospital.
The Sisters living at St. Mary's are treated as a catering client by the Employer. In the morning, a catering attendant sets up a cold bar including cereal and other dry goods for the Sisters. The catering attendant then works on other catering assignments unrelated to the Sisters.
There is a part-time cook and full-time cook who are dedicated to cooking for the Sisters at St. Mary's. A sous chef meets with one of the Sisters to discuss what the Sisters would like to eat. It appears from the record that the Sisters can choose from the Employer's offerings and, at least historically, have been able to make special requests. The cooks prepare the food in a kitchen in the St. Francis building and then transport the food across two buildings to bring it to the Sisters in the Domitilla building. The cooks set up the food and then leave. The Sisters serve themselves. The cooks do not serve the Sisters or assist them with the food. The bargaining unit employees are not allowed to deliver food to the Sisters' rooms or otherwise go into their private living areas. The cooks come back at a later time and clean up the cafe area where the food was left. The cooks collect soiled trays from a tray line where the Sisters leave them and take them back to the utility dish room in the St. Francis building. The cooks set up breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the Sisters. There is a flat top grill available for the Sisters to use and they have their own cooler and dry storage area for storing their own food.
The bargaining unit employees providing food service to the Sisters living at St. Mary's do not receive any specialized training on the Catholic faith or on working with the elderly. The bargaining unit employees are expected to respect the Sisters' privacy and do not engage in prolonged social interactions with them.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ On June 29, 2022, the Union amended the petition to outline the existing and proposed units more clearly.
2/ Additionally, I make the following findings:
* The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
* The Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
* The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. The parties stipulated to the following commerce facts: The Employer, Morrison Management Specialists, Inc., is a Georgia private food service company engaged in the business of supplying food, nutrition, and related services to healthcare and senior living communities, including facilities located in the State of Minnesota. During the past 12 months, a representative period, the Employer derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at its Minnesota facilities goods or supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Minnesota.
3/ The certification issued in Case No. 18-RC-184697.
4/ The legal name of Assisi Heights is the Academy of Our Lady of Lourdes.
5/ While not clearly reflected in the record, Sodexo and now the Employer appear to have a lease arrangement with the Sisters for this space, as there is testimony that the Sisters have the ability to force them to vacate.
6/ The cashiers and diet techs at St. Mary's and Methodist Campuses organized as a separate unit in 2017. The Employer and Union bargain separately for this unit.
7/ Harwick refers to the Harwick building in downtown Rochester.
8/ I note that the Employer did not challenge the timeliness of the petition, and I find that the petition is appropriately before me. A unit clarification petition is an appropriate method "for resolving ambiguities concerning unit placement of individuals who . . . come within a newly established classification of disputed unit placement." Union Elec. Co., 217 NLRB 666, 667 (1975). Further, the fact that the parties executed a successor collective bargaining agreement after the petition was filed does not render the issue moot. While the Board will not generally clarify a bargaining unit during the term of a collective bargaining agreement, it will do so where the parties cannot agree on whether a classification should be included in the unit, but otherwise reach a collective bargaining agreement. Under those circumstances, "the Board will entertain a petition filed shortly after the contract is executed, absent an indication that the petitioner abandoned its request in exchange for some concessions in negotiations." St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 282 NLRB 950, 951 (1987). Here, the petition was filed when the parties were still engaged in contract negotiations and there is no evidence the Union abandoned its position during the negotiations.
9/ The collective bargaining agreement lists the following job classifications under the article covering wages: Attendant/Catering; Barista; Cashier; Customer Dining Associate; Cook; Cook, Sr.; Food Service Utility; Food Service Workers/ Cashier; Food Service, Commissary; Food Unit Lead; Storeroom/ Delivery; Commissary Driver; Patient Services Line Cook; and Patient Dining Associate.
* * *
View full decision at: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583a86a1a
* * *
Original text here: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583a86a1a
NCUA Prohibits 1 Individual From Participating in Affairs of Any Federally Insured Depository Institution
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, June 1 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release on May 31, 2023:The National Credit Union Administration issued one prohibition notice in May 2023. The individual named below is permanently prohibited from participating in the affairs of any federally insured depository institution.
* Kaitlin Kastet, a former employee of Citizens Credit Union, and First Community Credit Union, Jamestown, North Dakota
An Order of Prohibition prohibits a party from ever working for a federally insured depository institution.
In addition to Orders of ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, June 1 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release on May 31, 2023: The National Credit Union Administration issued one prohibition notice in May 2023. The individual named below is permanently prohibited from participating in the affairs of any federally insured depository institution. * Kaitlin Kastet, a former employee of Citizens Credit Union, and First Community Credit Union, Jamestown, North Dakota An Order of Prohibition prohibits a party from ever working for a federally insured depository institution. In addition to Orders ofProhibition, the NCUA, on occasion, issues administrative orders, which are formal, legally enforceable orders issued pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Credit Union Act. Generally, the NCUA issues administrative orders when it finds that a credit union -- or persons affiliated with a credit union -- have violated a law, rule, or regulation; breached a fiduciary duty; or engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice.
The three most common orders issued by the NCUA include:
* An Order to Cease and Desist, which requires a party to take action (or refrain from taking action), including making restitution;
* An Order of Prohibition, which prohibits a party from ever working for a federally insured depository institution; and
* An Order Assessing Civil Money Penalties.
Agency enforcement orders and notices are searchable by name, institution, city, state, and year on the NCUA's Administrative Orders webpage. The webpage also provides links to the federal enforcement actions of federal banking agencies against other institutions or their affiliated parties.
The public may view NCUA enforcement orders online or the public may order copies by mail from the NCUA at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
* * *
Original text here: https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2023/ncua-prohibits-one-individual-participating-affairs-any-federally-insured-depository-institution
FDIC Issues Community Reinvestment Act Examination Schedules for Q3 2023, Q4 2023
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release on May 31, 2023:The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today issued the lists of institutions scheduled for a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examination during the third quarter 2023 and fourth quarter 2023. CRA regulations require each federal bank and thrift regulator to publish its quarterly CRA examination schedule at least 30 days before the beginning of each quarter.
The Community Reinvestment Act is a 1977 law intended to encourage insured banks and thrifts to help meet the credit ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release on May 31, 2023: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today issued the lists of institutions scheduled for a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examination during the third quarter 2023 and fourth quarter 2023. CRA regulations require each federal bank and thrift regulator to publish its quarterly CRA examination schedule at least 30 days before the beginning of each quarter. The Community Reinvestment Act is a 1977 law intended to encourage insured banks and thrifts to help meet the creditneeds of the communities in which they are chartered to do business, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. CRA examinations allow federal regulators to assess an institution's record of helping to meet those needs.
CRA examinations are scheduled based on an institution's asset size and CRA rating. Absent reasonable cause, an institution with $250 million or less in assets and a CRA rating of Satisfactory can be subject to a CRA examination no more frequently than once every 48 months. Absent reasonable cause, an institution with $250 million or less in assets and a CRA rating of Outstanding can be subject to a CRA examination no more frequently than once every 60 months.
The schedules of institutions to be examined July 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023, and October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, are based on the best information now available and are subject to change. For example, a regulated financial institution not otherwise scheduled for an examination may be examined in connection with the application for a deposit facility. Alternatively, some institutions may require more time and resources than originally allotted, thus delaying other scheduled examinations. If an institution is rescheduled for a different quarter, that information will be included on a later list.
Federal bank and thrift regulators encourage public comment on the institutions to be examined under the CRA. Comments about FDIC-supervised institutions should be directed to the institutions themselves or to the Deputy Regional Director of the appropriate FDIC regional office (attached). All public comments received prior to completion of a CRA examination will be considered.
The CRA examination schedules for the third quarter of 2023 and fourth quarter of 2023 are attached. Schedules also can be obtained by calling (703) 562-2200 or (877) 275-3342, faxing a request to (703) 562-2296, or writing to:
FDIC
Public Information Center
3501 Fairfax Drive
Room E-1002
Arlington, VA 22226
Attachments:
* CRA Exam Schedule Listings for Third Quarter 2023 and Fourth Quarter 2023 (https://www.fdic.gov/resources/bankers/community-reinvestment-act/examination-schedule/index.html)
* FDIC CRA Regional Office Contacts (https://www.fdic.gov/resources/bankers/community-reinvestment-act/cra-regional-contacts-list.html)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23044.html
CFPB Orders Installment Lender OneMain to Pay $20 Million for Deceptive Sales Practices
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following news release on May 31, 2023:* * *
Lender pushed employees to hit sales targets and illegally withheld refunds
* * *
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has ordered installment lender OneMain Financial to pay $20 million in redress and penalties for failing to refund interest charged to 25,000 customers who cancelled purchases within a purported "full refund period," and for deceiving borrowers about needing to purchase add-on products to receive a loan. OneMain will pay $10 million in refunds to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following news release on May 31, 2023: * * * Lender pushed employees to hit sales targets and illegally withheld refunds * * * The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has ordered installment lender OneMain Financial to pay $20 million in redress and penalties for failing to refund interest charged to 25,000 customers who cancelled purchases within a purported "full refund period," and for deceiving borrowers about needing to purchase add-on products to receive a loan. OneMain will pay $10 million in refunds toconsumers it harmed, and an additional $10 million penalty to the CFPB's victims relief fund.
"OneMain pressured its employees to load up its loans with extra charges through false promises of easy cancellation with full refunds," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "We are ordering OneMain to refund borrowers it cheated and to clean up its business practices."
OneMain is a nonbank personal loan installment lender headquartered in Evansville, Indiana and is a subsidiary of OneMain Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:OMF). OneMain is one of the largest non-depository personal installment lenders in the United States. It has a nationwide network with more than 1,400 branches across 44 states. The company offers loans and makes extra profits by upselling borrowers with products such as roadside assistance, unemployment coverage, and identity theft coverage.
OneMain expected its employees to upsell borrowers on every loan. Employees were incentivized to push more products, and company training materials directed them to upsell them even when consumers had already declined the products on previous loans. Salespeople were evaluated on the basis of their sales rate and could even be fired if they did not upsell enough.
The CFPB found that OneMain:
* Tricked borrowers into signing up for optional products: OneMain customers were led to believe that they could not receive a loan without signing up for an add-on product. Some employees added the products to paperwork without verbally informing the consumer that the products were included or optional, a practice referred to internally as "pre-packing." If the consumer identified the products and asked for their removal, employees were expected to make it seem difficult to remove the products. In other cases, employees obscured written disclosures from consumers' view, or verbally contradicted them.
* Kept $10 million in interest charges despite its "full-refund" policy: OneMain told borrowers they would receive a "full refund" on add-on purchases if they cancelled within a certain period (generally 30 days). However, OneMain unfairly failed to refund interest charges for about 25,000 borrowers who signed up for add-ons such as roadside assistance benefits, identity theft protection, or entertainment discounts. Because of how OneMain precomputed interest on some loans, customers had already been charged significant amounts of interest that the company did not refund. Over the past four years, OneMain kept approximately $10 million in interest charges attributable to add-ons cancelled within its purported "full refund period."
Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the CFPB has the authority to take enforcement action against institutions violating consumer financial laws. The CFPB found that OneMain's practices violated the CFPA's prohibition on unfair practices by charging and then failing to refund the full premium or fee and interest that accrued on add-on products consumers did not agree to purchase. OneMain also charged and failed to refund interest that accrued on add-on product fees during an advertised full refund period. Finally, the CFPB found OneMain was illegally interfering with consumers' ability to understand that certain products were optional, and that OneMain charged non-refundable interest during the purported full-refund period.
The order requires OneMain to:
* Adjust cancellation policies: The order requires OneMain to stop its unlawful activities, adjust its policies to make cancellation of add-on products easier, double the period in which a consumer can cancel an unused add-on product without cost from 30 to 60 days, and include interest in refunds after add-on product cancellations at any time.
* Provide redress to consumers: The order requires OneMain to pay $10 million in refunds to consumers for improper charges.
* Pay $10 million in penalties: OneMain is required to pay a $10 million penalty to the CFPB, which will be deposited into the CFPB's victims relief fund.
Read today's order (https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/onemain-financial-holdings-llc-et-al/).
Consumers can submit complaints about financial products or services by visiting the CFPB's website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).
Employees of companies who they believe their company has violated federal consumer financial laws are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-installment-lender-onemain-to-pay-20-million-for-deceptive-sales-practices/