Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

MEETING OF
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Chaired by Emily Spieler
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
10:30 a.m.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue NWWashington, D.C. 20210

Reported by: Andrew Knous, RPR/CSR,
Capital Reporting Company

APPEARANCES

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES

Emily Spieler, Chairperson
Edwin W. Hadley Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
400 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA
Email: e.spieler@neu.edu

Richard Moberly
Associate Dean for Faculty and
Professor of Law
University of Nebraska, College of Law
103 McCollum Hall
P.O. Box 830902
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
Telephone: (402) 472-1256
Email: rmoberly2@unl.edu

MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES

David Eherts
VP and Chief Safety Officer
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
6900 Main Street
Stratford, CT 06615
Telephone: (203) 386-8666
Email: deherts@sikorsky.com

Gregory Keating, Shareholder
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
1 International Place, Suite 2700
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 378-6000
Email: gkeating@littler.com

Marcia Narine
University of Missouri-Kansas City
UMKC School of Law
500 E. 52nd Street
Kansas City, MO 64110
Telephone: (816) 235-1005
Email: narinem@umkc.edu

Kenneth Wengert
Director, Safety and Environmental
Kraft Foods Group
Three Lakes Drive
Northfield, IL 60093
Telephone (847) 646-0859
Email: KWengert@Kraftfoods.com

LABOR REPRESENTATIVES

Ava Barbour
Associate General Counsel
International Union, UAW
8000 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48214
Phone (313) 926-5216,
Email: abarbour@uaw.net

Eric Frumin, H&S Director
Change to Win
110 William Street, Room 1201
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 341-7065
Email: eric.frumin@changetowin.org

Nancy Lessin, Program Coordinator
Steelworkers' Charitable and Educational
Organization
c/o Health, Safety and Environment Department
Room 902
United Steelworkers International Union
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 562-2581
Email: nlessin@uswtmc.org

STATE PLAN REPRESENTATIVE

Christine Dougherty
Principal Discrimination Investigator
State of MN
443 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Telephone: (651) 284-5051
Email: osha.compliance@state.mn.us

FEDERAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES

Rina Tucker Harris
Enforcement Attorney
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of Enforcement
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Telephone: (202) 435-9196
Email: Rina.harris@cfpb.gov

Jason Zuckerman
Senior Legal Advisor to Special Counsel
1730 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20036-4505
Telephone: (202) 254-3606
Email: jzuckerman@osc.gov

WPAC - DOL STAFF CONTACTS

Beth Slavet, Director
Directorate of Whistleblower Protection
Programs
OSHA-USDOL
Room N-4624
Telephone: (202) 693-2531
Fax: (202) 693-2403
Email: slavet.beth@dol.gov

Laura Seeman
Designated Federal Officer
Division Chief, Field Operations
Directorate of Whistleblower Protection
Programs
OSHA-USDOL
Room N-4624
Telephone: (202) 693-2230
Fax: (202) 693-2403
Email: seeman.laura@dol.gov

Rob Sadler
Counsel for Ethics
USDOL
Room N-2700
Telephone: (202) 693-5528
Email: sadler.robert2@dol.gov

Edmund C. Baird
Committee Counsel
Office of the Solicitor
USDOL
Room S-4004
Telephone: (202) 693-5445
Fax: (202) 693-5466
Email: baird.edmund@dol.gov

Cori Hutcheson
Program Analyst
Directorate of Whistleblower Protection
Programs
OSHA-USDOL
Room N-4624
Telephone: (202) 693-2519
Fax: (202) 693-2403
Email: hutcheson.cori@dol.gov

Philippe Blancato
Senior Investigator
Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs
OSHA-USDOL
Room N-4624
Telephone: (202) 693-2191
Fax: (202) 693-2403
Email: Blancato.philippe2@dol.gov

Ms. Frances Durant
(Travel)
OSHA, Office of Communications
Room N-3647
Telephone: (202) 693-1999
Fax: (202) 693-1634
Email: durant.frances@dol.gov

Ms. Veneta Chatmon
(Travel)
OSHA, Office of Communications
Room N-3647
Telephone: (202) 693-1999
Fax: (202) 693-1634
Chatmon.veneta@dol.gov

SPEAKERS

David Michaels, Assistant Secretary
of Labor, OSHA

Rob Swain, Counsel for Legal Advice, OSHA
Division, Solicitor's Office

Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor

PUBLIC COMMENTS SPEAKERS

Richard Renner, Attorney, Private Practice

Bill Kojola, AFL-CIO

Rick Inclima, Director of Safety,
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees Division in the Teamsters
Rail Conference

Vince Verna, Director of Regulatory Affairs
for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
and Trainmen

DISCUSSION OF STATUTE 11(c) SPEAKERS

Michael Mabee, Supervisory Investigator
Region 1, New England States

David Baskin, Regional Solicitor's Office

IDEAS DISCUSSION

Patricia Smith, Solicitor

OBSERVERS

Bruce Rolfsen
Christopher Cole
Cassandra Lewis
Susan Lindhorst
Kathleen Hughes
Ron Johnson
John Risch
Mark Lerner
Debbie Berkowitz
Richard Miller
Ed Watt
Jeff Kurtz
Gary Visscher
Paul Tanner
George Chartier
Roy Maurer
Charlie Lord
Sherrill Benjamin
Brian Broker
Carla Marcellus
Sabina Khadka
Katelyn Wendell
Anna Laura Bennett
Sarah Marcus
Megan Guenther
Jacquelyn
Cori Hutcheson
Josie Gross
Nicole Vitale
Paul James
Katie Weatherford
Randy (illegible)

CONTENTS

GREETING AND HOUSEKEEPING

Emily Spieler, Chair

Page 15

COMMITTEE MEMBER INTRODUCTIONS

Page 18

OSHA REPRESENTATIVES INTRODUCTIONS

Page 21

AUDIENCE INTRODUCTIONS

Page 22

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

 

Emily Spieler, Chair

Page 26

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

 

David Michaels

Page 29

Beth Slavet

Page 51

DOCUMENT OVERVIEW

 

Edmund Baird

Page 66

COMMITTEE MEMBERS' COMMENTS

 

Eric Frumin

Page 68

Nancy Lessin

Page 72

Greg Keating

Page 75

David Eherts

Page 78

Christine Dougherty

Page 82

Rob Swain

Page 83

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Richard Renner

Page 87

Bill Kojola

Page 93

Rick Inclima

Page 99

Vince Verna

Page 106

DISCUSSION RE STATUTE 11(c)

 

Michael Mabee

Page 112

David Baskin

Page 128

DISCUSSION RE MANAGING OF COMPLAINTS

Page 198

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Page 223

WORKING GROUPS DISCUSSION

Page 228

ADDITIONAL IDEAS

Page 244

Patricia Smith

Page 246

PROCEEDINGS

MS. SPIELER: Good morning. My name is Emily Spieler. I'm honored to be the Chair of this new Advisory Committee, to OSHA and the Department of Labor, that focuses on the Whistleblower laws. There are a number of logistical and housekeeping matters that we need to take care of first, so bear with us. I'm going to turn this over to Beth Slavet, who will run us through some of those things.

MS. SLAVET: Good morning, everybody. Given the fact, particularly the fact that we're OSHA, we need to do just some basic housekeeping facility issues. Our restrooms, in this hallway, down here behind me. Okay? Go to the left and the right, as you exit the doors. During the breaks, you're welcome to go up to the sixth floor and use the cafeteria facilities. There's both a gift shop, and you can purchase sodas and snacks. You'll see that upstairs, on the sixth floor. The sixth floor does have a cafeteria. It has coffee, that both includes regular coffee and Starbucks, and obviously, you're welcome to sit up there during the lunch period. There are several restaurants behind the building, on Second Street.

Finally, in the case of an emergency, there will be an audible sound, that we'll all hear, and you'll be notified that this event is a shelter in place, which means we stay right here, during that period. If we're asked to evacuate the building, our meeting location is in front of the Metropolitan Police Department, at D Street, between Third and Fourth. If we do have to evacuate, there are staff here, who will help you find your place to the exits and help you get out to the street. Okay? But hopefully, that won't be a problem.

MS. SPIELER: That's it?

MS. SLAVET: That's it.

MS. SPIELER: Okay. Just a word for those of us who are at the mics, and later for anyone else who's speaking, the sound from the fans in the back of the room is very loud. I know that it makes it difficult to hear us, and it also makes it difficult for the people who have to do the transcription of the meeting. I'm going to ask everyone, when you speak, to get your face pretty much up to the mic, so people can really hear the sound of your voice.

As you know, what we're doing here today, is to figure out how, within the limits of resources, we can help OSHA improve the Whistleblower work that they do. Our job is to assist the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary to improve their handling of Whistleblower complaints. So that in the end, we can improve the situation for people who come forward with safety and other concerns, covered by the Whistleblower laws. Our role is to help OSHA's commitment, that has already been made, to continuously improve this program, by bringing us and other stakeholders formally into the conversation, with ideas that will help the agency achieve its goals.

What I'd like to do actually, is have everyone in the room introduce themselves. I'm going to ask, first, that the Committee Members introduce yourselves. When you introduce yourselves, if you could also give your affiliation, indicate whether you're a labor or a management representative, public, or come from another agency. As I think everyone in the room knows, the representatives from the other agencies are members of the Committee, but they are nonvoting members, as we go forward. We'll start there, and then representatives from OSHA will introduce themselves. Then I'd like to ask everyone in the room to just, quickly, tell us your name and your affiliation, and why you're here, so that we all know who's in the room, together. Greg, if you could start?

COMMITTEE MEMBER INTRODUCTIONS

MR. KEATING: Sure. My name is Greg Keating. I'm a Management Representative. I'm with the firm of Littler Mendelson. I chair the firm's Whistleblower Practice Group, and I'm from Boston. I'm delighted to be here.

MR. FRUMIN: Good morning. My name is Eric Frumin. I'm the Health and Safety Director for Change To Win. It's a Labor Union Federation of four National Unions, representing about four-and-a-half million workers. I'm from New York City. I'm happy to be here.

MS. DOUGHERTY: I'm Christine Dougherty. I'm from the State of Minnesota. I'm the Representative for the State Plan States. I am a Discrimination Investigator.

Ms. LESSIN: I'm Nancy Lessin. I'm a Labor Representative. I work for the Steelworkers' Charitable and Educational Organization, which is the nonprofit educational organization affiliated with the United Steelworkers International Union.

MR. MOBERLY: Good morning. I'm Richard I'm a Professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, in Lincoln, and I represent the public.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Good morning. My name is Jason Zuckerman. I'm with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. We're an agency that helps individuals who blow the whistle in the U.S. government.

MR. WENGERT: Good morning. I'm Ken Wengert. I am a Management Representative. I am Director of Safety and Environmental for Kraft Foods Group, based outside of Chicago, Illinois.

MR. EHERTS: I'm Dave Eherts. I'm a Management Representative. I'm Vice President and Chief of Safety at Sikorsky Aircraft, a division of United Technologies.

MS. NARINE: Marcia Narine. I'm a Management Representative from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I'm Former Deputy General Counsel and Compliance and Ethics Officer of Ryder.

MS. TUCKER HARRIS: Good morning. I'm Rina Tucker Harris. I'm a Federal Employee Representative. I am currently working at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

MS. BARBOUR: Good morning. I'm Ava Barbour. I'm a Labor Representative. I'm in the Legal Department of the International Union, UAW, in Detroit.

MS. SPIELER: Great. We have three members of the Committee -- I think it's three -- who are absent today. I just want people to know that Billie Garde, who is a Labor Representative; John Brock, who is a Public Representative. Both of them could not attend the meeting today. Jack Van Steenburg, who's a Federal Agency Representative, from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, could not come as well.

Now, I'm going to ask the Assistant Secretary and the others, up here, to introduce themselves, and then we'll go to the people in the audience.

OSHA REPRESENTATIVES INTRODUCTIONS

MS. SLAVET: I'm Beth Slavet. I'm the Director of the new Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, and good morning.

MR. MICHAELS: Good morning. I'm David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor, for OSHA.

MR. BAIRD: Good morning. My name is Ed Baird. I'm an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor, the Department of Labor, and I'm the Counsel for the Committee.

MR. MABEE: Good morning. I'm Michael Mabee. I'm a Supervisory Investigator with OSHA's Whistleblower Program, in the New England States, Region 1.

MR. BASKIN: I'm David Baskin. I'm the Counsel for Whistleblower Litigation in the Department's Regional Solicitor's Office, in Boston, Massachusetts.

MR. SWAIN: I'm Rob Swain. I'm the Counsel for Legal Advice, in the Occupational Safety and Health Division of the Solicitor's Office.

MS. SPIELER: Okay. If we could just, very quickly, have the mic passed around the room, and have those people sitting in the audience, just tell us who you are and what you're doing here.

AUDIENCE INTRODUCTIONS

MR. ROLFSEN: I'm Bruce Rolfsen. I'm a writer with BA Bloomberg's Occupational Safety and Health Reporter, and I'm covering this meeting.

MR. RENNER: I'm Richard Renner. I'm an attorney in Silver Spring, Maryland.

MR. INCLIMA: Good morning. Rick Inclima, Director of Safety, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, in the Teamsters Rail Conference.

MR. VERNA: Good morning. My name is Vincent Verna. I'm the Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, a Trainmen Division of the Teamsters.

MR. COLE: Hi. I'm Chris Cole. I'm a Reporter with Inside OSHA.

MS. LEWIS: Hi. I'm Cass Lewis. I work at a management firm in DC.

MS. LINDHORST: Susan Lindhorst. I'm a member of the Whistleblower Team for Union Pacific Railroad.

MS. HUGHES: Kathleen Hughes. I'm Senior Counsel at Union Pacific, and I head the Whistleblower Team.

MR. JOHNSON: Ron Johnson, and I'm here for the Association of American Railroads.

Mr. RISCH: John Risch. I work in the Legislative Office for the United Transportation Union, here in DC.

MR. LERNER: Mark Lerner. I'm an attorney in the Solicitor's Office, Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Debbie Berkowitz, Chief of Staff, OSHA.

MR. MILLER: Richard Miller, Democratic Staff Committee on Education. I work for the House of Representatives.

MR. WATT: Ed Watt. I'm the Director of Health and Safety for the Transport Workers Union.

MR. KURTZ: Jeff Kurtz. I was Legislative Board Chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, part of the Teamsters Rail Conference.

MR. VISSCHER: I'm Gary Visscher, with the Law Office of Adele Abrams.

MR. TANNER: Paul Tanner, OSHA's Office of State Programs.

MS. CHARTIER: George Chartier, OSHA Office of Communications.

MR. MAURER: Roy Maurer. I cover Occupational Safety for HR News, SHRM.

MR. LORD: I'm Charlie Lord. I'm an attorney with the Solicitor's Office in the Mine Safety and Health Division.

MR. BLANCATO: Philippe Blancato. I am an Investigative and Compliance Specialist with OSHA's Whistleblower Program.

MR. BENJAMIN: I'm Sherrill Benjamin. I'm with the Whistleblower Program, out of Region 5, Chicago. I'm currently on detail, working with Beth here, for the next couple of months.

MR. BROKER: I'm Brian Broker. I'm a Presidential Management Fellow, here at OSHA's Whistleblower Program.

MS. MARCELLUS: Hi. I'm Clara Marcellus. I'm a Program Analyst, with OSHA's Whistleblower Program.

MS. SEEMAN: Hi. Laura Seeman. I'm the Division Chief, for Field Operations, for the Whistleblower Program.

MS. KHADKA: Hi. I'm Sabina Khadka, with OSHA's Office of the Assistant Secretary.

MS. WENDELL: I'm Katelyn Wendell. I'm also a Presidential Management Fellow, with the Whistleblower Program.

MS. BENNETT: I'm Anna Laura Bennett. I'm in the Solicitor's Office, here in the Honors Program.

MS. MARCUS: Sarah Marcus. I'm an attorney in the Fair Labor Standards Division, of the Office of the Solicitor, here in the Department.

MS. GUENTHER: Megan Guenther. I'm the Counsel for Whistleblower Programs, in the Fair Labor Standards Division, in the Solicitor's Office.

MS. THOMPSON: Jacquelyn Thompson. I'm an attorney with the Law Office of Keller and Heckman.

MS. HUTCHESON: I'm Cori Hutcheson, Office of Whistleblower Protection Programs.

MS. CHATMON: Veneta Chatmon, with the OSHA Office of Communications.

MS. GROSS: Josie Gross, Director of Whistleblower Protection Program.

MS. VITALE: Nicole Vitale. I'm also a Presidential Management Fellow, with the Whistleblower Program.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
EMILY SPIELER, CHAIR

Thank you so much. I always do think it's incredibly important, not only because this should be as inclusive a process as possible, but also because we should know who we're talking to, when we're talking about people. I'm particularly delighted at the breadth of the people who are here, both representing employers, and unions, and employees in Whistleblower cases, but also the other parts of the Labor Department, that I think are working on some very similar issues, particularly from wage an hour and from MSHA. A particular welcome to you, as well.

I think that the Committee, at least, has reviewed the charter any number of times, but I just want to remind people a few things about the charter. This Advisory Committee is a new Advisory Committee, for OSHA. This is its very first meeting. We will be learning how to do this, in the course of today, and perhaps in our next meeting. It's our responsibility to advise the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary on ways to improve what the charter says is the fairness, efficiency and transparency of OSHA's Whistleblower investigations. There are additional things enumerated, but all of them, essentially, come under that goal of fairness, efficiency and transparency.

We'll be meeting two or three times a year, as a full Committee, but we're also authorized to establish working groups, if they are appointed by the Assistant Secretary or subcommittees, that will then come back to this Committee, and bring forward issues to us. There may be work done between Committee meetings, but that will also be transparent. I believe, although I don't think it's required by Federal Advisory Committee Act, I do believe that at least OSHA, generally, has a transparency that accompanies this Committee's work into those subcommittees and working groups. There will be public notifications about when those occur.

In fact, I think there's a very high commitment on the part of the Department, and certainly on my part, to high levels of transparency in this process. Really, I think what we can bring to this commitment, that the Department of Labor and OSHA has already made to improvement of the Whistleblower Programs, is outside perspectives and creative ideas, that may not have occurred to people who are right in the mix of the day-to-day work. I want to say, at the get-go, that it is my impression that the agency has been working very hard, in the last couple of years, to really improve the Whistleblower Program and the creation of the Directorate, that Beth Slavet heads, is really evidence of that. She and I have had a series of conversations about both the challenges and the opportunities as they go forward. I really look forward to the Committee being able to be extremely helpful in this process. We're all delighted to be here, and honored to be able to be of assistance in something that I think all of us agree is critically important for how the laws of Congress, the passes get enforced, which is the people who work in places, who know what's going on, have the opportunity to come forward and raise concerns without fearing retaliation.

I'm going to turn this part of the meeting over the Assistant Secretary and to the Director of the Program. After they complete their remarks, we will also have an opportunity for questions from the Committee, and discussion of their remarks, before lunch.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
DAVID MICHAELS
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR OSHA

Thank you. Welcome, all of you, and let me begin also, by thanking every one of you, the first members of this Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee. We've asked you to join us because you have both knowledge and experience and can help OSHA ensure that our Whistleblower investigations are done thoroughly, efficiently and effectively.

I have even higher hopes and expectations of you, and I'll return to that. You've all agreed to take on this task without remuneration. It's your commitment to public service, to helping this government agency fulfill its very important charge, a charge given to us by the Congress of the United States. I particularly want to thank Emily Spieler, our Chair, who really has already put in many hours of work to support this committee. I know her work is vital to the functioning of this committee. Thanks are also due to many others and the OSHA staff. Debbie Berkowitz, my Chief of Staff, is in the room, here.

You'll eventually meet Jordan Barab and Rich Fairfax, our Deputy Assistant Secretaries. Beth Slavet and the staff, and Laura Seeman, the Deputy. We have a small group and a high large percentage of them are here. The Director of the Whistleblower Protection Programs has taken on this committee, in addition to a tremendous number of other tasks they do. They've done a really great job putting this together. I want to thank them for their work, and equally, I want to thank the Representatives and the people from the Solicitor's Office. Ed Baird, you met; and Rob Swain; Megan Guenther and the staff of lawyers, many of whom are Presidential Management Fellows. We look at this, our Whistleblower Protection activities, as a true collaboration between OSHA and the Office of the Solicitor of Labor. I really appreciate the nature of this collaboration, how we've been able to work so closely together.

Finally, our field staff. Much of our work is done outside of Washington. The Regional OSHA staff and the Regional Solicitor staff do a fabulous job. You'll meet a couple of representatives of that group, this afternoon, to talk about how the things that we talk about, here in Washington, really occur in the field and where we need some of our help.

I want to talk about the story, in terms of putting Whistleblower Protection in the context. April 20, 2010, a crew, working on the offshore oil rig, called the Deepwater Horizon, saw fire. Shortly afterwards, the rig exploded. I don't need to tell you how catastrophic that was. Eleven workers were killed. It was the largest oil spill in American history; billons of dollars in damage to the economy, of the Gulf States. The environmental damage, it's still being addressed. A horrific impact on those States, that still are paying for those costs. When the Presidential Commission, investigating the Deepwater Horizon, went back and interviewed workers, they learned that there was a confidential survey of workers on the Deepwater Horizon, several weeks before the explosion, that showed that many workers had safety and health concerns, but they felt they couldn't bring them forward. The environment just didn't allow it. The workplace culture on the Deepwater Horizon did not support workers exercising their right to voice safety and health concerns. If that culture had been different, perhaps many lives could have been saved and an environmental catastrophe could have been averted. There are many stories like this. This is just one that's particularly well known.

There are equal tales that come out of the financial securities industry as well. In some ways, the one that's told most involves the Enron Corporation, which is a Houston-based energy company. It's no longer exists. But Fortune Magazine called it, "America's Most Innovative Company," for six consecutive years. I probably don't need to remind you exactly what it was innovative in doing. Enron employed more than 20,000 people, and reported annual revenues of $101 billion dollars, in the year 2000.

In 2001, shares dropped by $1.2 billion. The company announced massive losses, and shortly after that went bankrupt. Congressional Investigators discovered that an Enron employee, Sherron Watkins, had approached company founder, Kenneth Lay, two months prior to the public announcement. Sherron was employed as Vice President of Accounting, did not share her concerns outside of Enron. Eventually, she cooperated with Congressional Investigators, to paint a picture of corruptive practices, so deeply impacted on Enron's employees and shareholders, but it didn't get to the regulators. It wasn't made public. Again, the results are very clear.

We can do better. We have to ensure that the culture of corporations is such, that workers can raise concerns without fear of retaliation. You might ask why OSHA is conducting investigations into retaliation against workers who raise concerns about, for example, fraudulent behavior in the world of financial securities. We are a Safety and Health Agency. OSHA had one of the first, if not the first, nationwide anti-retaliation provisions, provisions that protected workers who raised their voices. That's Section 11(c) of the OSHA Act passed in 1970. It said -- I'll read it to you -- "No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint; or instituted or caused to be instituted, any proceeding under or related to this Act; or has testified, or is about to testify, in any such proceeding; or because of the exercise by such employee, on behalf of himself or others, of any right afforded by the Act."

Now, when we read this, we essentially explain it saying, first of all, "You can't fire an employee, or discriminate against them, or retaliate against them, in any way, if they file a complaint with their employer or with OSHA; if they participate in an inspection; if they testify about safety and health issues; or in any other way, exercise their right under the OSHA Act, or represent another employee in doing so."

This is a very logical component of the OSHA Act, and the authors of the OSHA Act understood this. The law says employers must provide a safe workplace and OSHA's job is to encourage them to do that, but within that context, workers were given the right to call OSHA, and OSHA has to respond when they call. So if a worker was retaliated against for calling OSHA or for raising a concern with their employer, it would defeat the purpose of the law, and that's very clear. Workers have to have the ability to protect the health and safety of themselves, and also of their coworkers. Of course, that means more than just calling OSHA.

Ideally, when the worker identifies a safety and health hazard, OSHA is never called. Ideally, again, there's a process in every workplace, through which workers raise their concerns with their supervisors and workers feel they can raise their concerns without fear of retaliation.

I think we see that workers complain to OSHA, in many cases, when they have raised concerns, but their concerns haven't been addressed; or they're afraid to raise their concerns, because of fear of retaliation. So it's in our interest. It's in everyone's interest to have a system in place, a process in which workers can raise their concerns, without having to go to OSHA. But sadly, there are too many employers, where workers don't feel they can do this.

Now, under our 11(c) Statute, OSHA receives more than 1,700 complaints. We received more than 1,700 complaints last year, the most of any of the statutes that we investigate. That number, of the 11(c) complaints, is increasing every year.

Under the OSHA Act, complainants under 11(c) have only 30 days to file complaint after the adverse action occurs. In many cases, workers don't even learn their rights until well after 30 days has passed. I shutter to think of the number of complaints OSHA would receive, if workers had longer to file, or if all workers, across the United States, were informed of their rights.

Frankly, it's a poorly written statute and doesn't provide workers with an adequate level of protection. We really need your help thinking about that. That'll be some discussion, that we'll have later on today.

The OSHA law also says that employers must keep track of injuries. February is coming very soon, and I think many people on this panel know that that will be the time for posting the OSHA Log. Why the OSHA Act, and why does OSHA require employers to keep track of injuries? Because tracking injuries is the basis for preventing injuries. If injuries aren't identified, if they're not kept track of, it's very difficult to prevent future injuries from occurring.

I go to many meetings, and I'm asked, "What does OSHA do with all the OSHA Logs it gets?" Of course, OSHA doesn't get OSHA Logs, except from a small percentage of employers. The OSHA Log is a tool for employers and for employees to know what's going on at their workplace.

I think everybody in the Occupational Safety and Health world, everyone in public health, would like to see low injury rates, at all employers. Low injury rates generally means fewer people are being injured. That's something we all want. It's better for workers. It's better for the employers. It's better for the bottom line. But even in the true absence of fewer injuries, lower injury rates are a value to some employers. We recognize that this is an important issue, that we have to grapple with.

For certain construction contractors, for example, a high rate bars you from getting certain jobs, certain contracts. OSHA is more likely to inspect an employer with more injuries on their Log. We actually have a program that focuses on employers who do have high injury numbers and high injury rates on their Log. There's even contests out there -- or there were. For years, the railroad industry had the Harriman Award, that provided a prize, essentially, to the railroad with the lowest injury rate in the country. So there's lots of incentives to keep injury rates down, beyond just simply the safety of workers.

Another one, which we see quite commonly around the country, is that manager bonuses are often pegged to various metrics, including, of course, injury rates. All of this makes sense, on one level, that it's reasonable to want low injury rates. There's some not so good reasons as well, to have low injury rates. We're quite concerned about this.

We've particularly seen this problem in the railroad industry. I'm very pleased that there are a lot of representatives from both Management and Labor, in the railroad industry here, sitting in the audience. Because we've been, very much, focused on the railroad industry, in recent months.

One of the 22 Statutes that we enforce is the Federal Railway Safety Act. I believe it's the second or third -- Yes. After 11(c), the largest number of our complaints come under FRSA, and we had 353 complaints last year, from railroad employees, alone. More than 60 percent of the complaints filed with OSHA, under the Federal Railway Safety Act, involve an allegation that a worker has been retaliated against for reporting an on-the-job injury. So OSHA is taking a corporate-wide approach to our FRSA enforcement.

We get complaints from workers at virtually all the railroad companies. The largest number of complaints have come from the BNSF Railway, and we currently have 94 pending FRSA complaints against BNSF, more than against any other railroad. OSHA has worked very closely, with the Office of the Solicitor, here at Labor, to identify BNSF personnel policies that we believe violate the statute, the Federal Railway Safety Act, and we developed a list of cases that involved those policies. We looked at these, and we said, "We have to figure out a way to take these cases on, not individually, but on the policy level, and affect policy change."

The result was a voluntary revision of company policy by BNSF, an offer to settle 36 of these cases. Needless to say, we are very pleased with this development. We think the offer, by BNSF, to change their policies is a very progressive development, and one that we see as a model for other employers to follow. I think we'll be discussing that, not necessarily today, but over the course of the next meetings of this Advisory Committee.

On the flip side of this, we're not pleased by a very different development, which is the widespread use of programs that provide a benefit to workers who don't report an injury. Some people call these rate- based incentive programs. On the face of it, it makes sense. I mean, sure. It could be said you're providing an incentive, or a reward, for people not being injured. How could that be problematic? Well, it is.

The first reason, I believe, it essentially says that changing worker behavior is the key to preventing injuries. We know that's simply not true. There have been many, many studies, that look at injury causation, and simply focusing on behavior can't be the primary component of any sort of injury prevention program. The primary component has to be abatement of hazards. That's why people are injured. The goal of safety programs has to be to eliminate hazards, not simply to change behavior. Incentivizing an outcome, no injury, rather than an activity, finding and eliminating hazards, will simply not work most of the time.

I've looked at the literature. I've read many, many articles on this. I've yet to see an explanation of how this mechanism works, other than it rewards people for not reporting injuries. I've actually never seen any empirical evidence that it reduces injuries. Even if people do have evidence of this, I'm eager to see it. I hope we'll have an interesting discussion of this, down the line.

Of course, there's a larger problem. When there's a disincentive to actually reporting real injuries, there are many unfortunate consequences. One, obviously, relates to the individual, and their inability to get Workers' Compensation. The second is that injuries aren't identified, and therefore can't be investigated, and can't be prevented. If you don't know it occurred, or if it's never been recorded, then there's no incident investigation.

This has been raised to us by at least one GAO Report, which told us that these malevolent incentives result in distorted data. We've been pursing this. We try to make it very clear that certain types of disincentives are not allowable.

Let me talk about one extreme example. I heard this Report from our State Consultation Program in New Mexico, of a gas-drilling operation, that provided a month's bonus, if no worker was injured for three months. So you had contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractors, dozens of workers working on this one rig, and the owner of the whole rig, said, "If no one's injured, over three months, everybody will get one month's bonus."

Now, let's say, two-and-a-half months into this, you injure yourself. You're injured. You have a laceration. What's the likelihood that you're going to report that laceration, if it's going to mean not just you, but all your coworkers are going to lose a month's salary? Now, that's an extreme example, but it's a real one. Equally, and commonly, we see pizza parties at the end of the week. I find it hard to believe someone's going to work differently on Tuesday, for a slice of pizza on Friday. But at the same time, if you have situation where there's peer pressure on workers not to report, because someone's not going to get a reward, we think that's problematic, and it can be an 11(c) violation.

We hope that with this scenario, we get some assistance in thinking about, from this Committee, and ways we can address it and encourage programs that incentivize hazard abatement, training, and things that really do make a difference, and reduce injuries.

I think Congress understood, and continues to understand, that workers play a very important role, not just in protecting themselves, but in protecting the public. Incidents, like what happened at Enron, or Deepwater Horizon, led Congress to including anti- retaliation provisions in many pieces of legislation. It's important, and it's been included in legislation on Environmental Protection. There are anti- retaliation provisions in the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the Pipeline Safety Act.

It's important to protecting the integrity of the financial system. Sarbanes-Oxley, and the new Dodd-Frank bill, have very clear anti-retaliation provisions. It's important in protecting transportation safety. The laws protect truck drivers, locomotive engineers, airline pilots, and many other transportation workers, if they raise concerns that impact the safety of themselves or the traveling public. It's important in food safety, protecting workers who report adulterated food, that could be eaten by our kids.

We now have 22 Statutes. In fiscal year 2012, we received almost 2,800 complaints, which is a 44 percent increase in 2005, and every reason to expect it will go up, every year. We get new statues and some of the statutes become increasingly important. After 11(c), as I told you, the largest number of complaints come from FRSA, where we had 350, approximately, complaints last year. Sarbanes-Oxley is our third- largest Statute, in terms of complaints, where we received 164 complaints in fiscal year 2012.

I think everybody knows that we're a relatively small agency, and our Whistleblower Protection staff is a small, but mighty fraction, of our staff. We do our Whistleblower Protection work jointly with our Solicitor's Office, and the Solicitor of Labor also covers not just OSHA and Whistleblower, but all the other statutes and responsibilities of the Department of Labor. The Solicitor's Office, I think, is equally small and overburdened. Together, we have to select our cases. We have to select our investigations strategically, to have the biggest impact we can, given our very limited resources. That will become a particular challenge as new regulations including the Affordable Care Act, come onboard, and we can expect more and more cases to investigate.

So we have a big mission here. Congress has given us a tremendous responsibility, to help protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the United States. I've said this publicly in the past, I believe we haven't done this job as well as we should have done. Our Whistleblower program has come under scrutiny from both the General Accounting Office and the Office of the Inspector General. In January, 2009, the GAO issued a Report with eight recommendations, focusing on improved data integrity, use of an audit system, to ensure program quality, provisions to the field manual, to ensure consistency, increased training.

Our Inspector General also issued a Report that concluded that OSHA was not adequately managing the Whistleblower Program, specifically looking at field supervisory controls and the management of case file assignments. Despite the addition of several new Statutes since 2005, OSHA has not increased staffing fully enough to handle the additional burden. So all these reports noted a number of our field staff had not received initial Whistleblower training. As of last month, we have provided training to all field Whistleblower Investigators. We have made training of the Whistleblowers one of our highest priorities. We're very pleased with how far we've gotten with that.

That's really part of a larger initiative of the Obama Administration, to revitalize this Whistleblower Protection Program. We've made this a very high priority. I think we made some progress. I think we still have far to go, and we really do need your help doing this. A program of this importance must happen to the best thinkers in the country, and I think we've assembled a sizeable number of you here, who really do fit that description.

The importance of this program, our dedication to this program, it's not the flavor of the month. OSHA has strong support on this issue from both Democrats and Republicans. I think, in this era of partisanship, this is a program that is unusually bipartisan.

In September, 2011, as we were planning a nationwide training program for Whistleblower staff, I received a letter written by Senator Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, which is in your handouts here. Both still serve on the Senates Committee on Judiciary. At the time, Leahy was the Chairman. He still is, and Grassley was the ranking member. The Senators praised OSHA's efforts in the area of protecting Whistleblowers. Very clearly, what they said was, "Strengthening Whistleblower protections is not a bipartisan issue, but simply the right thing to do." I recommend you read this letter. It's a lovely letter, pointing out why this is important, and directions we should go with it.

We're looking for your help. What I hope to get from this committee, we want you to look at our work, to help us improve it. What can we learn from the experience of other agencies? How can we work most effectively with other agencies, whose laws we enforce? I'd like you to help us understand how we can best work with workers who have alleged retaliation, and with employers who have alleged and retaliated against a whistleblower. How can we best work with them to resole these despites quickly and fairly? If retaliatory firing has occurred, how do we get that worker back to work and make that person whole, as quickly as possible?

Today, I'd like to start the discussion about 11(c), which is one of our most important statutes, and in many ways, the most frustrating and difficult one. Christine Dougherty, from the State of Minnesota is here. The State OSHA Plans enforce 11(c) in 21 States, and it's very important that, as we think about this, we include thinking about how State Plans can take on 11(c) as well. That's why the charter of this committee includes a Representative of the State Plans as a permanent member. I believe you're a voting member, not an ex-officio member. Though, frankly, I don't imagine you have many votes on this committee.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Right.

DR. MICHAELS: But symbolically, it says that that you're a full member of this committee. This afternoon, we have two guests, who will join us. One of our top Supervisory Investigators, and a very dedicated member of the Solicitor staff, who can begin to detail some of the concerns about which we need your help.

But even more importantly, than any individual statute, we need your help on the big picture. One of the primary objectives of this committee is to help us bring about a change in culture among employers across the country. I'd like our Whistleblower Protection Program to play an important role in preventing the next Deepwater Horizon and avoiding the next Enron. I'd like to see employers adopt systems that embrace whistleblowers and listen to them. In some cases, their concerns may not be well- founded, but that's fine. Workers should feel free to be able to raise their concerns, and they should feel that they won't be retaliated against for doing that. So I'm asking you, how do we change that culture? How can we get OSHA out of the business of Whistleblower investigations?

Again, thanking you, welcoming you into the OSHA family, and I'll turn this over to Beth Slavet, the new Director of our Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs.

BETH SLAVET, DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
PROGRAMS

Thank you, Dr. Michaels, and Chair Spieler. I appreciate it. Both my staff and I are honored to host this first meeting of the Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee. You've heard from Dr. Michaels, the challenges of your charge as an Advisory Committee, at least the initial challenges. First, to focus on the original Act and our stable of laws, 11(c) of the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act. That is, to protect workers from safety and health, dangers and threats in the workplace, and to do so by focusing on their first line of defense. That is by being able to express their concerns, if they aren't safe and that there is a problem in the workplace. The second, to change the corporate culture and the attitudes of employers towards whistleblowers.

The fact of the matter is that there has been a sea change in society's attitude towards Whistleblowers. I need only point to Time Magazine's cover story of 2002, in the naming of three

Whistleblowers: Coleen Rowley, of the FBI; Cynthia Cooper, of WorldCom; and as Dr. Michaels mentioned, Sherron Watkins, of Enron, as "Persons of the Year," to point out that the public looks at Whistleblowers and admires them. Why is that? Because Whistleblowers constitute our societies', and our agencies', first line of defense in keeping workers and the public free of workplace injuries or illnesses. From the railroad crews, on the Union Pacific, to the sanitation workers in New Jersey, to the auto industry in Detroit or Georgia, to the workers in the entertainment, food and health services industries, it's Whistleblowers who are societies' first line of defense against both everyday, in unanticipated dangers to our societies' health and safety.

While OSHA's mandate is to ensure workers' safety and health, OSHA simply doesn't have the resources or the personnel to be everywhere, at all times, and to ensure statutory and regulatory protection for all workers, all the time. The Whistleblower Protection laws over the years, have expanded and supplemented the resources and capabilities of OSHA, as well as a myriad of other regulatory agencies. Whistleblowers are our eyes and ears in the workplace. They are in places where we do not have the resources to focus on, at all times, and when we are unable to be present. Whistleblowers are committed and, indeed, they are sometimes passionate. By bringing to the Department's attention, retaliation from their employers, 11(c) Whistleblowers are protecting not only themselves, but also their fellow workers, their employers, and frequently, the public.

According to a variety of studies, Whistleblowers don't want money. They don't want recognition. What they do want is their bosses' appreciation and recognition of the safety problem, not the bosses sweep it under the rug, or otherwise ignore it.

So I want to, in the past few years, recognize that not only have we gotten more responsibilities, but in the past few years, we've actually been able to identify recent accomplishments of this OSHA leadership. We are currently working on, and anticipating doing, in the next six months, in the next year. I cannot emphasize how important the visions and accomplishments of Dr. David Michaels, and his staff, have been in the past few years. It just can't be overestimated. OSHA has revamped its 11(c) Appeals Program. We've eliminated three-years appeal backlog.

In September of 2011, OSHA had a three-day conference for both Federal and Safety Whistleblower professionals. At that conference, there were approximately 150 attendees, who participated in workshops, for training, enforcement, with a myriad of topics involving OSHA's enforcement in their Whistleblower Protections. In addition to Federal OSHA Whistleblower Programs, managers and investigators were there from every region, as well as from several State Plans, and participated in conference events.

The Whistleblower Program has worked closely, and gotten closer ties with the Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor, to both teach and discuss recent developments in whistleblower protection and the appropriate handling of Whistleblower investigations.

Nongovernmental participants also contributed to the conference, as the representations three stakeholder groups, regarding their role in the Whistleblower Protection community. So as Dr. Michaels mentioned, OSHA has now completed providing basic 11(c) training to all its Whistleblower Investigators. As we speak, in Chicago, we are providing that training to State employees who have similar whistleblower responsibilities and investigatory responsibilities in their States.

OSHA has provided specific guidance to the field regarding employer incentive and disincentive programs, which Dr. Michaels referred to. We've substantially updated, and we are continuing to update, our Whistleblower Investigations Manual. Dr. Michaels has worked with the Solicitor's Office, the Solicitor of Labor, to enhance the cooperation between OSHA and the Regional Solicitors, and that's resulted in a definable increase of 11(c) cases being filed in District Court. You'll hear, this afternoon, from Region 1, about the close relationship the Solicitor's Office and the Investigators have.

OSHA, under Dr. Michaels' leadership, has added over 35 FTE's positions, for Whistleblower field staff nationwide, and added new Whistleblower Supervisors, to more effectively manage resources and investigators.

In mid-December of 2012, the Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program was reorganized into the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, fondly christened, "Do-Wop, Do-Wop." This new Directorate has its own budget and is dedicated to providing technical advice in support to the field, as well as working to ensure consistency across OSHA's ten regions.

I asked Jordan Barab, when I got this notice, that we are now a Doctorate, Deputy Assistant Secretary, "What does this mean, as a practical matter?" He responded by sending me a scene from Walt Disney's, "Pinocchio," where it's the very end of the movie and Geppetto thinks he's dead, and he crying over his boy and suddenly, Pinocchio wakes up, and he says, "Father, I'm a real boy!" That was Jordan's way of trying to telling me what being a Directorate meant, and it was quite effective.

But the fact of the matter is, that the status of being a Directorate does eliminate some of the bureaucracy that's been imposed on our everyday workday functions and our ability to get things done. So making that change is significant.

Lastly, of course, it was Dr. Michaels, that ensured that this Advisory Committee be established, so that we could continue to improve the program. I'm looking forward to working with you and listening to your recommendations. Now, I'm not going to use my introductory time to talk about our statistics. You've got that in your package, and that's also available to the public. I want to make sure that you have a chance to take a look at that.

But sufficient it is to note, that with the additional new Whistleblower Protection Statutes added in recent years, Section 11(c) still makes up the majority of the complaints in the programs we investigate. So I want to read you some of the more recent milestones, and expected milestones of our Directorate.Maybe while I'm talking, you can have a chance to look at our statistics.

We expect to promulgate seven Whistleblower Rules this fiscal year, that lay out the process for filing complaints. Those rules will establish procedures and time frames for processing employer whistleblower retaliation complaints. I'm happy to report that OMB has waived the requirements of the Seaman's Protection Act. We are on those regulations, so we are scheduled to go to publication on that, later this week.

We're also in the processing of finalizing interim rules for procedures for handling retaliation complaints, under the Food Safety Modernization Act. You may know, if you've been reading the press, that this month -- I guess it was this month -- the Food and Drug Administration published its own interim Final Rules, making far-reaching changes in the Food Safety industry. These rules include guidelines for Food Safety, covering all fruits and vegetables. It focuses on areas of risk, such as agricultural water, biological soil amendments, health and hygiene, domesticated and wild animals, and equipment, tools and buildings. The FDA will soon issue its proposed rule on importer foreign supplier verification, and has future proposed rules addressing preventive controls for animal food and accreditation of third-party auditors.

I can assure you, with the expansion of these FDA rules, and with the recent deaths and illnesses, which have occurred in the U.S. and aboard, as the result of poor food mishandling procedures, we will be seeing -- there's no double in my mind -- an increase in whistleblower retaliation complaints brought with regard to food safety.

We also expect, as Dr. Michaels mentioned, for the handling of retaliation complaints to come under the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, which provides protection to employees of health insurance insurers or other employers, and for those employees who may have been subjected to retaliation for reporting potential violations of the law's Consumers Protection's provisions. Prohibitions and denials on insurance coverage due to preexisting conditions, for example, and other things having to do with access to health insurance, premium tax credits, and other employee concerns.

We are also working on regulations for the handling of retaliation complaints against workers in the consumer financial services industry, under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. I am really thrilled to have a Representative here from that agency. We plan to publish final procedures for the handling of retaliation governing workers in the railroad industry; and NHTSA workers, in public transportation.

Now, there's been a lot of stuff happening recently, with regard to the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), and the National Office has had opportunities to provide additional guidance to regions, with regard to that. As we recognize the laws, that Congress is giving us, it's good to also recognize that some of those laws are giving us not only retaliation on anti-retaliation provisions, but also affirmative responsibilities. One of the affirmative responsibilities under FRSA is actually making it unlawful to deny, delay or interfere with medical or first aide treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment. That actually is an additional responsibility, in addition to an anti-retaliation reprisal provision.

Since 2007, when OSHA was assigned responsibility for whistleblower complaints under FRSA -- On September 30th, of 2012 -- more than 60 percent of the FRSA complaints filed with OSHA have involved an allegation that a worker has been retaliated against fork, again, as Dr. Michaels said, reporting an on-the- job industry (sic).

We could refer to some of these policy programs as the ultimate disincentive and incentive programs. If you take a look at another item in your package, you'll see the March, 2012 Memo, that Dr. Michaels referenced, that deals directly with the disincentive and incentive programs. As Dr. Michaels mentioned, we've been coordinating with the regions to take a corporate-wide approach to FRSA enforcement, and most notably, as a result of the strong enforcement effort, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) has agreed to enter, in accord with OSHA, and agreed to change its policies.

In addition, I want to emphasize that part of that accord is an agreement to adopt training programs for managers, labor relations and human resource professionals, and other personnel, and to actually begin training those personnel within the first six months of 2013, and then thereafter, to incorporate training on FRSA, in its annual Supervisor Certification training.

We still have complaints pending against Burlington Northern -- we need to understand that -- as well as against other railroads. We tend to continue vigorous enforcement, but we take pleasure, pride and hope in the fact that we have a corporate-wide program in which the employer has adopted, voluntarily, this accord that directly addresses these issues.

As Dr. Michaels pointed out, what we've asked your assistance with, today particularly, is addressing the problem of corporate and employer culture. Because regardless of what employer or what corporation is involved, it's the culture of retaliation that must change. So I ask you to think about that, and to think about how we can change that culture.

We are trying to change the culture, in making it easier for whistleblowers to file complaints in a number of different ways. We're creating an Online Complaint Form. There's a draft of that form. It's been submitted to OMB -- that's in your package -- so that complaints can be filed more easily through the internet. Right now, with regard to complaints, we have a policy. Complaints do not have to be written. They can be oral. I think that's a pretty incredible provision, in terms of a whistleblower anti-retaliation reporting provision, that complaints can be filed orally.

We're piloting an alternative dispute resolution program in two regions. It's made up of two separate kinds of programs. The first is basically early resolution opportunity. That's making clear, that the opportunity to resolve quickly and at the very beginning of the process. It's there, if the parties want to take it. The second is a more FMCS-directed participation, where the parties can participate with the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service, that we've contracted with, to try to mediate some of those disputes.

Wehad hoped to have some conclusions about this pilot program actually this month, but I just directed the two regions to extend it for another 120 days, because we just didn't have enough experience to make any conclusive findings, mediations. We're really just beginning under the program. We're also looking at, in our programs, in order to develop a more comprehensive and better audit program.

Finally, I guess this is dear to my heart -- actually, I guess, my brain, because it's what I consider one of the most important, if not the most important thing, that I've tried to address, since I've been here, which is working closely with the IT Department, our Technology Department of OSHA and an outside contractor, to try to ensure that our tracking of complaints is reliable, comprehensive, credible and accessible to anyone reading our statistical Reports. Anybody who reads our Reports should be able to understand what exactly it is they are conveying, without having a team of experts explaining it to them.

I anticipate that by working with you, we'll improve the program even more. Both Dr. Michaels and I have indicated we're happy to answer any questions.

We'll be available throughout the day, as well as other people, that we've identified from the program, and some of whom are in the audience. I want to thank, again, my staff: Mike, David, Rob, Megan Guenther and the rest of the staff, as well as Emily and all of you, for helping to prepare and being so cooperative in what I hope will be an incredibly productive meeting. Thank you.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you very much. Before I open it up for questions, I'm going to ask Ed -- We have a number of documents that were referenced, both my David and Beth, in their remarks. Ed had suggested that we kind of formally indicate what's being included in the record. He's going to do that now, so that everyone here can understand what's included. I believe that copies of these are on the back table, if people in the audience are interested in seeing them.

MS. SLAVET: Yes, everything is on the back. Everything should be on the back table.

DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
ED BAIRD, COMMITTEE COUNSEL

Members of the Committee have had the Federal Advisory Committee Act briefed this morning. Just for the public, that statute requires all the documents that are reviewed by the committee members, to be made public and put in a publicly-assessable docket. So this is just part of that process. These documents will be available at regs.gov, Docket No. OSHA-2012- 0020. The documents are as follows:

Exhibit 1 is the Agenda for today's meeting. Exhibit 2 is a letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley, to David Michaels, dated September 20, 2011. Exhibit 3 is a compilation, by OSHA, of the various Statues that it administers, a compilation and summary.

Exhibit 4 is the highlights page, the Summary page of a Report by the General Accountability Office, dated January, 2009, called, "The Whistleblower Protection Program, Better data and improve oversight would help ensure program quality and consistency."

Exhibit 5 is a compilation of statistics on the Whistleblower Protection Program, from Fiscal Year 2005 to 2012. Exhibit 6 is an Email from Edna Fordham, dated December 20, 2010, regarding Information for Public Members of the Whistleblower Advisory Committee. Exhibit 7 is the March 12, 2012 Memorandum from Richard Fairfax, to Regional Administrators and Whistleblower Program Managers, regarding Employee Safety, Incentive and Disincentive Policies and Practices.

Exhibit 8 is a Draft Whistleblower Complaint Form, subject to OMB approval. And Exhibit 9 is a BNA News Article, dated January 24, 2013, entitled, "Record Number of Whistleblower Cases Filed, Resolved by OSHA in Fiscal 2012." Thank you.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you, Ed. After lunch today, we're going to have a period for Public Comments, and then we're going to move into a focused conversation about what's going on under 11(c). I'd like to, now, invite committee members to ask any questions or make any comments you'd like to make, with regard to the sort of overall picture of the investigation of whistleblower complaints by OSHA, that have been addressed by the Assistant Sectary and Director, at this point. We'll be able to kind of hone in on 11(c) this afternoon.

MR. BAIRD: If I could? Just a reminder. If you could identify yourself before you speak, to help out the Court Reporter.

ERIC FRUMIN, H&S DIRECTOR
CHANGE TO WIN

Okay. I'll kick it off. Eric Frumin, with Change To Win. First, just to generally salute the Department for the effort that's been in the work for sometime. Obviously, to review carefully and reorganize the program. I thought the internal review, that was done by Mike Mabee and the others, from the different 15 regions, was pretty remarkable for an internal organizational piece of self-criticism. You don't often see an organization able to give that sort of an unvarnished evaluation, and those recommendations were important. I just wanted to recognize the career staff, who've spend careers doing this, and making a huge contribution to trying to turn this program 22 around.

In terms of two issues that had been mentioned already, by David and Beth, on the question of corporate culture. The culture question is pretty vague to me. I have a hard time sort of seeing it as a way to get a handle on how organizations behave, whether they're corporations, or labor unions, or government agencies, or anything else. So I tend to try to look for things that are more definitive.

From the standpoint of an enforcement agency, like OSHA, I think that the notion of carrots and sticks is sort of more credible, as an advantage point. I've been a big fan of deterrents, as a way of dealing with organizations that don't get it. That's true on the compliance side, for compliance with OSHA's standards, in general, as well as on the whistleblower side of things. I think that's an important aspect to any consideration of changing whatever you want to call it, the corporate culture and so forth, is to ask the question, "Well, as part of this, what's the potential for creating some real deterrents here?" That's not easy, when dealing with whistleblower issues, particularly for the 11(c) program. We'll talk about that more later. So I think that's an important component.

Then the second thing I wanted to mention, briefly, was in response to David's point about the importance of State Plans, and I'm sitting next to Christine Dougherty from Minnesota, and to recognize that that needs to be an important focus of what happens in any evaluation of how the workers, who complain about problems are protected from retaliation. Because there's a lot of States doing it. Some are doing a better job than others. We need to, both, find out where the problems are. It was good that the State Plan reviews, last year, focused on that. In some great detail, some of those States got, shall we say, some help. But we can't let the legitimate focus on the internal reorganization that the U.S. Labor Department allow us to lose sight of the need to help the States, who do need a lot of help with that problem as well. Thank you.

DR. MICHAELS: Can I respond? Thanks very much for your comments. This is David Michaels. I certainly agree that deterrents plays a big role, certainly in OSHA's Safety and Health activities. We look at deterrents as one of our strategies, but again, it's one of many strategies. We recognize that there's a really range of employer commitments to safety and health, and also a commitment to encouraging worker voice. While for some employers, fear of a large fine may be effective, I think there are other employers who would like to do the right thing but need assistance in getting there. I think we can learn from the experienced employers who have implemented programs.

For example, in the Sarbanes-Oxley law, there's requirements for Compliance Committees, where corporations actually set up systems to accept anonymous reports, anonymous concerns. I'm hoping that this can help us evaluate those thing, and think about how can they be implemented in other areas? Should they be implemented in other areas? I really do think that we have to look at all sorts of different approaches to address this problem. While deterrents will always be very important, we spend a lot of time doing these investigations. We're not going to change what goes on in every employer across the country, just by issuing a small number of large fines. We have to think about how to balance that.

MS. SPIELER: Nancy?

NANCY LESSIN, STEELWORKERS

Nancy Lessin, Steelworkers. I want to just echo what Eric said about the progress that is being made here, at this agency, looking at the issue of whistleblower. And in particular, I'll throw in how thrilled many of us were with what's been called the Fairfax Memo, the March, 2012 Memo, about employer practices, that discouraged the reporting of injuries and illnesses.

I have a list of many, many things, but I'm going to just focus now on a couple things, based on what you were talking about and what we heard earlier. The issue of performance measurement, I think is really important, and looking over some of these statistics, trying to get a sense of what's been happening and what do we want to see. But I want to raise the caution of kind of the law of unintended consequences. For example, if a goal is to get rid of backlog, one way is to have more resources actually working through the cases; and the other would be to dismiss it. Both ways may get rid of a backlog, but one is very problematic, if things are done that way. At some point, I want toget into the story behind the data and the statistics.

The other issue that I'll bring up here, is trying to understand some of the changes that have beenmade with some of the pilots that you've tried in various regions. I know that they've been going on for some time, and this has to do with just the regional structure and how things are managed. I would love to get a report back on the analysis of the pilots that have been going on and what you've learned from them, and therefore, what you think might work other places. I think there's a lot that goes on at the national level, but I think the Whistleblower Program is really a regional program. It's what's happening in the regions. How are the Investigators able to do what they do? Do they have the resources that they need? Do they have the equipment? Do they have the training? It was certainly wonderful to hear about his big conference in 2011. Is that an annual conference? Are folks continuing what they need? When you get these new statutes, what's the protocol? How is that working? So I'll just leave it there.

MS. SPIELER: I wonder if it would be possible. I know that the evaluations on most of these pilot programs have not yet been done. Some of them, as Beth indicated, have been extended. I wonder if we could put this, at the appropriate time, on a committee agenda, to really take a look at the evaluations of the pilot programs, and have a conversation about how effective they've been.

Also, I think it would be helpful for the Committee to understand what the performance metrics are, that are being established for the Whistleblower Program, and how those data will be kept. I understand there are many challenges on the data front. So having performance measures, when you don't have a particularly good data source is a little problematic as well. But I understand this is an ongoing process, as this Committee will be an ongoing Committee. It would be useful, I think, for us, in the future, to have some conversation about these issues, as more information becomes available to the Directorate.

BETH SLAVET, DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAMS

I'm only going to really respond to one thing, which I think was very -- I think everything you said was valuable, but I think your point about numbers and dismissals is something I am very conscious of. It was something that was an issue in my prior life, when I was at the Merit Systems Protection Board. Because when I got there, everything was timeliness, timeliness, timeliness. And if you are not making sure that you properly investigate the case, and if it processes up through the region, and what ends up happening, in terms of performance requirements, is basically someone gets the performance measures, but then you end up remanding back to the region, that there was something wrong. That's one of the things that's been addressed and we will be doing, through the Appeals Committee. We have been doing, but it's something I'm very, very conscious and concerned about. It'll certainly not happen on my watch.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah, Greg.

GREGORY KEATING, SHAREHOLDER
LITTLER MENDELSON

Not to beat a drum, but I, too, also have to acknowledge that the tangible, concrete improvements that we have seen, that have happened in the last 18 months, Dr. Michaels, under your watch, and with the support of a lot of other people, is really palpable. The fact that there's this energy and there's this momentum in this room is a terrific thing. I'm very honored and glad to be here and to be able to be a part of it.

I want to just seize upon some words, that you used, Dr. Michaels, because my perspective, obviously, is as a representative of management, I'm at the largest law firm in the country, representing only employers. I, literally, every day, work with all different size employers. You mentioned, I think the quote was, "You'd love to effectuate a change in the culture among employers across the country." I would just like to say, having spent the last -- I focused 10 years of my life working with employers in this area. There is a desire and a willingness, and an eagerness to change, among many employers. There are some, who unfortunately, may taint the well for a lot of others. But there are a lot of employers, be it Fortune 100 companies, all the way down to much smaller, who are yearning for concrete tools and guidance on how can they become a more ethical and compliant organization, which embraces people speaking up and letting them know what's going on.

Eric mentioned, a moment ago, a system of carrots and sticks. I would just hope that among your many policies and ways of trying to foster development and change in this area, there would be some thought given to the carrots; and how employers, which do embrace an ethical and compliant landscape, that will be not only taken into consideration, but more importantly, there may be ways to get word out to employers about what concrete things can they be doingnow, in this day and age. Because there's a lot of newrevolutionary tools out there. There's a lot of thecompliance world, that I'm aware of, way beyondanonymous complaint procedures, now becoming moreintegrated. It is an exciting time. But employersneed to know what is out there and that their role isan important shared responsibility.

DR. MICHAELS: Greg, thank you for those comments. In fact, that's exactly how we see this dynamic working. I think we can play a very useful role in disseminating some of that material and those guidance products, but frankly, we don't have the experience that you do, in identifying them and evaluating them. In the world of safety and hazard abatement, we do have that.

In Whistleblower, this is quite a complex world, with many sorts of employers, dealing with very different sorts of situations. We really look to you to identify and help us pick out the materials, or develop the materials, if they're not there, and suggest ways that we can use our resources to disseminate those materials. We welcome that.

MS. SPIELER: David?

DAVID EHERTS, VP & CSO
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

David Eherts, from Sikorsky Aircraft. To add on towhat Nancy was talking about with metrics, we pay a lot of attention to this in aviation. I wanted to pass along a lesson learned. We put in programs, like Near Miss Reporting, and you encourage pilots to come forward with near misses. What you see, the initial measure of success is that the numbers go way up. I would point out to you guys, I hope that the number of Whistleblower complaints go way up. But long-term success comes over time, with burning those numbers down, as employers understand, like airlines did, that this is important data to have, and they make changes to make the workplace safer, make aviation safer. Then employees don't feel they need to report anymore, because things have gotten better. I just wanted to pass that along.

MS. SLAVET: Beth Slavet. When Dr. Michaels and I were talking about some of these performance metrics, etcetera, and I actually talked to him about what I call the "Gawandi List." The actual Gawandi List, which is based on the pilot's check-off list. I think that is very important. And relating that back to what Greg said and changing corporate culture, I think when you look at some of the changes that have come, at least sea changes that have come, in recognizing different Ethics Codes, etcetera, that corporations, companies have been adopting over the last 15 years, with regard to workers, whether it's overseas or here.

That's something that employers could do and help us with, in this field. There's lots of different ways to encourage culture change. You obviously don't want to have a program in place that is a sham or not working. So I think that's one of the things that we're talking about, in terms of creating corporate and employer cultures, where employers get used to and understand, and implement what the problems are.

MS. SPIELER: I sometimes think about this, that the employers' responsibility, ultimately, if this is going to work, it's a matter of driving fear out. It seems to me that the Enron story, or the BP story, or for that matter, the story about Upper Big Branch, which is an MSHA responsibility, not an OSHA responsibility. Are all stories about how afraid people must be, because they did not come forward in situations in which there were life -- well, BP and Upper Big Branch, there were life-threateningsituations that they were to report. That was even true in the case where there were anonymous ways to make complaints. Yet, they did not come forward, for fear of somebody finding out they had been raising the complaints. So it seems to me, that at the end of the day, part of this conversation is about driving fear out.

And as we move forward, in a conversation about corporate culture, what that means, looking at it from the bottom up, as well as looking at it from the top down, becomes very critical. I hope that we'll be able to explore some of those issues, at least begin to explore them, later today. So that we can think a little bit about how to carry them forward, as a committee. Because it seems like an area that's tremendously important, ultimately, for the long-term success of the program.

MS. SLAVET: that would be great. Fear and frustration is what I think is the most.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. Well, fear, first, and then frustration. Okay. Is there anyone else who wants to ask a question? Christine?

CHRISTINE DOUGHERTY
PRINCIPAL DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATOR, STATE OF MN

Christine Dougherty, the State of Minnesota. In representing the State Plan States, our focus is 11(c), but we're very concerned about the other Acts that OSHA covers, because we refer people. We're often the first line of contact with the worker, who may have one of these other areas. So we try to keep ourselves updated, on a regular basis, on your Acts and cover everything, so that we can then refer them to the proper place. But then we also are concerned about how that's being handled by the regions and how the regions are actually processing these complaints. Because we do hear back from people, about what's happening.

A lot of times, they're call us, because we're the friendly voice. When people call and do an intake with me, they get my direct phone line, and they call me back, even if I referred them over to the Federal OSHA. They'll call me, and say, "What's going on? Can you tell me?" Then I have to refer them back, but at least I'm a person that they can talk to about what's happened, and will often call over there, and say, "We haven't heard. This person says they haven't heard; or this happened to them," and we funnel them through. We are, as a State Plans State, not only concerned with 11(c), but with the other Acts as well.

MS. SPIELER: I think a really important point. Thanks for bringing it forward. Okay.

ROB SWAIN
COUNSEL FOR LEGAL ADVICE
OSHA DIVISION, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE

I'm Rob Swain. I just, since Christine was just speaking, the incentive programs, obviously, has been a concern of OSHA's for quite sometime. We now have available to us, the first piece of incentive program litigation. It was very, very successful for the agency. A case involving AT&T, in your neighboring state of Michigan. I'm pleased that the first successful incentive program's 11(c) prosecution was in a State Plans State. So kudos to you, guys.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you. Anything else? Nancy, go ahead.

MS. LESSIN: The discussion of culture, I want to register a concern here. I do hear what people are saying about how to move something without the stick, that Eric was talking about. But being from Massachusetts, the cautionary tale is from the "Mill Girls," as they were called, in 1845, when they became ill from the cotton dust, or they just saw the dust and the long hours. They came before the Massachusetts legislature, and said, "You've got do something to improve our conditions." The Massachusetts legislature, in 1845, had a discussion among themselves and said, "Well, if we regulate the mills inMassachusetts, they're just going to move to Connecticut or Rhode Island." So they said, "We don't think the answer lies in regulation. We think the answer lies in the wider spread of Christian principles among mill owners." 1845. It wasn't until 1978, that thing changed with cotton dust, when OSHA came in, with the Cotton Dust Standard, and regulated and enforced.

I think that, when thinking about why our whistleblower is going to get a fair shake, when the most that can happen to them -- at least under some of the statutes -- is they get made whole. There's no punishment. There's no punitive nature to this. It is of concern. And I think from the standpoint of where I've seen things, there are so many workers, today, that are afraid to raise their voice. And even with the cards that OSHA has put together, about, "You have 11(c) rights," or "You have this," or "You have that," I don't think that there's a big trust, that there is something backing up that voice. What backs up that voice, I think, is something that we need to grapple with.

Even with the groundbreaking accord with BNSF, I think we're going to have to wait to really see what's really changing. A lot of rail carriers, I think, once they get big fines to begin with, they appeal it to the court system. So it's not that their culture is changing, in how they deal with these things. I think really thinking through, you know, carrots and sticks, but understanding if there's not a stick, what's backing up voice, when if I raise my voice, I can lose my job? I can lose my ability to feed my family. I think those things are really front and center.

MS. SPIELER: I'm wondering if we could break for lunch and continue this conversation, probably after we've had the 11(c) introduction. We'll have about an hour and a half for the Committee Discussion. I think these are incredibly important issues, that we're not going to resolve in the next five minutes. I'd like to ask the Committee to stay for a minute. There's a request for a formal photograph. Otherwise, we will reconvene at 1:00, at which time we will have a portion of the meeting to hear public comments. Thank you.

(11:59 a.m., break for lunch)

MS. SPIELER: Is there anyone in the room, who wasn't here this morning? Because I'd like to have you introduce yourself, if you weren't here during the introductory period, this morning.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. SPIELER: We've had, as I think you all know, the announcement of this meeting included an invitation for people to give comments on the website and a number of people did that, and also an invitation for people to come and address the Committee. Four different people have asked for five minutes or so, to address the Committee. I'm going to call upon you, each in turn. If you could just come up to the table, when I call you. Introduce yourself, and then give us the comments you would like.

I would just like to caution you about one thing, which is, obviously, this Committee does not consider and make any determinations at all, about individual complaints. Although, obviously, individual stories can be quite illustrative of systemic problems. To the extent, that's the purpose of your story, that's fine. But please do be aware, that we are not in aposition to do, other than refer you to the Whistleblower Program, if you have an individual concern.

A number of the people, who posted issues on the website, in fact, do have individual concerns, and the Department will be following up with those people. Is Bill Kojola here? No. Okay. Richard Renner?

RICHARD RENNER
ATTORNEY, PRIVATE PRACTICE

Thank you. Richard Renner here. I'm an attorney in private practice, in Silver Spring, Maryland. I submitted written comments, but the discussion today has generated a few more thoughts I wanted to share. It was pretty clear that, this morning, concern was raised about problems with OSHA 11(c), one of the oldest, and at this point, most antiquated Whistleblower Protections. One of the key problems of OSHA 11(c) is that workers do not own their ownwhistleblower claim. They make a complaint to OSHA, but OSHA makes the decision about whether or not it will exercise its rights to bring the claim to court and to enforce those rights. So that's meant that very few of the many thousands of 11(c) complaints that come in actually get to court and get adjudicated. That would change, if Congress would pass the Protecting American Workers Act (PAWA). This has been introduced many times, and it's introduced again now.

Under this law, you would give whistleblowers their own claim. If OSHA decided not to pursue it, they would have a right to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. If the whistleblower prevailed, the whistleblower's attorney would recover attorney's fees. With that provision then, private attorneys could take on the role of enforcing OSHA 11(c). This is a provision that's made a significant difference in the environmental area, where I got my start. It's been used effectively in Sarbanes-Oxley, and of course, in the other more modern Whistleblower Protections.

But another concern I have is that State Courts often provide employees a tort remedy for wrongful discharge. But many States have an exception to that tort claim, where State or Federal law provides an adequate remedy. Several States have reached a conclusion, that I think is incorrect, that the OSHA 11(c) remedy is adequate. Because there is some possibility of relief.,

But if OSHA, itself, were to declare that it believes the 11(c) remedy is not adequate, then those of us who practice in this area could cite the State Courts to that declaration and ask that they reconsider their decisions on the adequacy of 11(c), so that the employees would at least have the same remedies as other whistleblowers under State law, and would not be denied relief, because of the existence of the ineffective 11(c) remedy.

Now, I want to get to some of the comments that I submitted in my written comments. I noticed that Director Slavet made a couple of points this morning, that I think are interrelated: (1) is that she wants to address the corporate culture; (2) she would like to see earlier resolution of whistleblower claims; (3) she would like the statistics to be understandable; and (4) she would like the program to have effective deterrents. To me, effective deterrents would be look into the mind of a manager, who's making a decision about whether or not to impose an adverse action. If that manager has the belief that he or she can get away with it; can suppress the violations that suppress the reporting, well then there's no deterrent effect. So key to that deterrent effect then are the statistics, and seeing that whistleblower remedies are effective.

In my review of the statistics that were published, and are available here in the back, I noticed there's a significant chunk for settlements. And, unfortunately, it's difficult to assess the effectiveness of those settlements. If it's an employee saying, "I give up. I'll take whatever I can get," then that settlement does not reflectaccomplishment of the enforcement purpose of encouraging whistleblowers to come forward.

So I think it would be more effective if those settlements were broken out into those that included reinstatement, or the employee staying on the job, and those that did not. That would be a measure of whether or not we are accomplishing the legislative purpose of seeing that whistleblowers who have the spine to speak truth to the power, whether or not we are keeping them on the job. That's what I think we can look at. The one statistic, that there can be no doubt about, is the comparison between the merit determinations and the dismissals. I noticed, that in the last four years, we picked up that rate from where it used to be, at 1.3 percent. Now, it's about 2.3 percent. But even at 2 percent, I don't think that's much of a deterrence. I'd like to see some type of program that would make that a better number. Indeed, when whistleblowers have a full due process remedy, in front of the Administrative Law Judges, we do see a better rate, with that type of process.

My suggestion, that I made in my written comment, is this. Let's transfer the final determination of whistleblower complaints from the Regional Directors to the National Directorate, here in Washington. That way, there'd be one office, with one Director, who was accountable; that put a public face on the program. The decisions would be made by a staff that was dedicated solely to enforcement of the Whistleblower Program. I would hope that that type of organization and accountability within the Department of Labor would see an improvement in that number, and an improvement in the deterrent effect of the Whistleblower Protection Program.

One other point I want make, here on the Fairfax Memo. I notice that in Point 2, he raises a concern about those employers that discipline employees for violating a company rule about the time or manner of reporting injuries. Of course, there's some notorious examples of whistleblowers, who came forward and reported within hours after an incident, and then were disciplined for reporting too late, even on the same day as the incident.

I think, as Martin Luther King said, "The time is always right, to do what is right." And the Fairfax Memo indicates that those rules should be reasonable. I suggest that there is no reasonable time limit on reporting injuries. That even if an injury happened a long time ago, if the rule means that the employee's going to be disciplined for coming forward, because they're coming forward too late, then that rule is unlawful and it still deters reporting. Reporting should be protected at all times. Thank you very much.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you, Mr. Renner. I think Bill Kojola may have come into the room. Is that right? Come join us at the....

BILL KOJOLA
SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF AFL-CIO

Yeah. I apologize for not being here, when my name was called. I never want to be late for lunch, but in this case, I was at lunch. So at any rate, let me introducemyself. My name is Bill Kojola. I'm with the Safety and Health Department of the AFL-CIO.  I'm very pleased to be here, and we're pleased for a couple of reasons. One is, we're pleased because the agency has given the heightened focus on Whistleblower

Protection: the creation of this Advisory Committee; a more assertive defense of whistleblowers; recently, the creation of an office within OSHA, that will provide a focal point for addressing whistleblower cases, among the many statutes that the agency is responsible for.

And in the Health and Safety arena, which is where we've been, and our department has been, worker intimidation and discipline, or bribery through incentive programs has been going on for decades, for workers who report injuries, report hazards. It's only now, that this agency, I think, has really taken this issue seriously.

Until recently, 11(c) of the OSHA act, that's supposed to protect workers from discrimination for exercising their rights under the Act, has been, as I would say, pretty dismal. The 11(c) statute is weak, in itself. The recordkeeping requirements are weak as well, under the Recordkeeping Rule, and OSHA has not done a very good job of ensuring that workers can come forward and make reports.

One of the things that we've been working on -- we, being the AFL-CIO, and the other Unions -- have been collecting examples of written policies and programs, and descriptions of events that have taken place, where workers have clearly been discriminated against for exercising their rights to either report injuries or to report hazards. We've been collecting these policies and we've been sharing it with the agency. We've been asking the agency to please move forward, to address what we consider to be a serious problem in defending workers who are exercising those rights.

So what do we want or need from OSHA and from this Advisory Committee? Well, we think, in general, we need an assertive defense of whistleblowers who report injuries, and hazards, and protect workers. And not only protect workers, but send a message to the affected employers, that these practices will no longer be tolerated, and have a deterrent effect on employers.

Secondly is, we think that the Committee needs to identify the impediments and recommend solutions to enhancing the Whistleblower Protection that the workers have. That's looking at all the various layers, that this Advisory Committee can look at. That being statutory, regulatory and policy. We think that it's critical, if true Whistleblower Protection is going to occur, that the Investigators who investigate allegations of discrimination, that those Investigators are well-trained, well-staffed. They can do their jobs well, and they, as Investigators, can feel that the agency has their backs. So that when they're taking on a tough employer, they know that they've got the weight of the agency behind them. I think this Committee can do a lot towards advocating that the Investigators be properly and fully trained.

I think it's important that OSHA develop a coordinated national strategy that encourages workers to report problems across all the statutes for which you have responsibility; and that there be uniform application of the Whistleblower Protections across the >U.S. We've had reports from some of our Unions, where some of the regions are doing a decent job of defending workers with 11(c) complaints; and other regions are not doing a very good job. We think that that uniform application is critical.

We also think that, and we're not certain of, how the management structure is going to work in the field, with this enhanced effort at Whistleblower Protection. So some coherence between the national effort and what's going on in the field is critical, as we see it.

In addition, assessing the effectiveness of whatever strategies are put in place to enhance Whistleblower Protection is important. I think it would be useful, not only for the agency to look at the effectiveness and what's working and what's not, but also for this Committee to take a look at that as well, to provide its own thoughts.

One of the things, in the creation of this Advisory Committee, is that not all sectors are represented on this Committee. Obviously, there are a lot of sectors, that given the size of the committee, can't be represented. So we believe that there needs to be a mechanism for ensuring that all sectors have the ability to be heard by this Committee. You would take note that Transportation, I think, is a glaring omission, in terms of representation on the Committee, itself. Particularly, given the efforts that OSHA has recently made to defend workers in the Transportation industry, particularly those covered by the Federal Railroaded Safety Act. To not have that voice on the Committee, I think, weakens it. So you need to find a mechanism to engage the other sectors. We suggest the use of work groups on other Advisory Committees, where they work groups that invite people from other sectors, who are not on the Committee. That's a very useful, and I think effective way of doing that.

Lastly, I just want to say something about OSHA's 11(c). It's really, in many ways, the biggest Whistleblower Program that the agency has. It's 19 probably the weakest statute that you have to defend, and that workers can rely on. In our own advice to workers covered by the OSHA Act, we don't look to 22 11(c), in many cases, as a really viable option for confronting employers. In many ways, at least in unionized facilities, the grievance or arbitration procedure is much more effective.

We think 11(c) needs a lot of attention, particularly attention around what would this Committee recommend as changes to the statute, that Congress can address, so that the 11(c) provision of the Act is stronger?

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wish you well in your future work here, on a really critical issue. The AFL-CIO and its Unions are ready, willing and able to help you in any way that we can, was you move forward on this issue. I want to thank you for your time.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you very much. Rick Inclima? Did I pronounce it right?

RICK INCLIMA
SAFETY DIRECTOR FOR BROTHERHOOD OF
MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

Inclima, yes. Hello. My name is Rick Inclima. I'm the Safety Director for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, the Division of the Teamsters Rail Conference. Our members build, maintain, inspect, repair the railroads, tracks, bridges, and related structures around the United States. You're going to hear, today, from another Rail Conference partner, with the Teamsters Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, today, as well. The two Rail Unions in the Teamsters Rail Conference (BMWE and BLE), along with 10 other National Rail Unions collectively represent about 165,000 rail workers covered by the Federal Rail Safety Act, Whistleblower Provisions of 20109.

We first, certainly want to congratulate all of you, for your appointment to the Committee. I know there's going to be a lot of work to do, and it's going to be a rough slog. But I think you've got a good group here to do it, and that's a great thing. BMWE and the Teamsters Rail Conference certainly looks forward to working with you to improve FRSA enforcement, and other Whistleblower Provision enforcements and to end the persistent pattern of management intimidation against railroad employees not to report unsafe conditions, accidents and on-the-job injuries.

I want to offer my help, to help you understand how the railroad industry is much outside the norm of most other commercial enterprises, that you might be familiar with. For example, few people know that the railroad industry has its own Labor laws. We're covered by the Railway Labor Act, not the National Labor Relations Act. We are not generally governed by the usual environmental laws or antitrust laws. We are not subject to the Workers' Compensation system. We are not covered by Social Security, and there are many other differences. For instance, virtually every single on-the-job injury is met with a formal investigation, where the railroad is judge, jury and jailer.

In over 99.9 percent of these investigations, the railroad employee is found guilty of nonferrous charges such as inattentiveness, not being careful or some other general charge. Lost time, up to and including dismissal is the penalty. Railroad workers know this, and they are often intimidated not to report an on-the-job injury, due to the certainty that they will be charged and disciplined, or dismissed, if they do report. This has been going on forever, and we appreciate OSHA's efforts to change the tide in thisarea.

It's been a genuine pleasure for me, personally, and for the BMWE, as an organization, to work with Dr. Michaels and Richard Fairfax and the National Directors of the Whistleblower Office and staff; Area Director Solicitors, and even down to the level of Field Investigators. With the help of these abled and committed people, we've made some progress, but much more needs to be done. There is still substantial changes that need to be made in the rail industry, and it will be hard work against the well-financed and entrenched railroad managers, who truly believe, for whatever reason, that retaliation and intimidation are important tools for productivity, profitability and control of the workforce.

One hundred and fifty years of engrained culture will not be changed by a few Whistleblower merit findings. It will take continued effort and determination. The BMWE and is willing and able to help OSHA and this Committee in this long overdue effort. Now, there has been progress with OSHA, and there has been progress at the bargaining table. We welcome the ability to work with the railroads, to change what's going on in most sectors of the railroad industry.

Wehave made an agreement. The BMWE has a signed an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad, and we hold this up as an example of some of the right ways to do business. We have an agreement that has greatly reduced whistleblower cases, discipline against BMWE members for injuries, and it's added greatly to the labor management cooperation across the board.

On the Union Pacific Railroad today, and I speak only for BMWE members, because we're the only ones that have this agreement. On the Union Pacific Railroad, BMWE productivity is up; our injury rates are down; whistleblower cases are down; and a joint Labor Management Committee initiates a root cause analysis, and it results in hazard abatement. That's really the model that we would like to see spread across the rest of the industry. We think that would help OSHA in their caseload, and it would certainly help the railroads, and the employees do the business of perating the railroad.

With that being said, I also want to say that OSHA's made great strides in helping us along, but there is obviously room for improvement, as there always is, both in policy-making and in the lower management of lower level employees. We need to guard against investigators deferring to railroad disciplinary investigations, where the carrier is always judge, jury and jailer. We must improve the training of OSHA Investigators -- and this has been said by others -- and give them the support and the resources required to do their jobs in a timely and thorough fashion. And we must find ways to improve uniformity in the application of the laws among the various OSHA regions.

The BMWE and the Teamsters Rail Conference look forward to an open and honest dialogue with all of you. We remain at your disposal and will assist the Committee in any way possible, both formally and informally. When we, together, get it right, not only do rail workers get the protection, they so desperately need, the public and our communities are protected through prevention of catastrophic railroad accidents.

I want to thank you all, for your willingness to do all this hard work. I know it's not going to be easy. We offer our unique knowledge and expertise to assist the Committee in the critical role you will play in improving the fairness, efficiency and transparency of whistleblower investigations. Thank you.

MS. SPIELER: I'm sure we will be calling upon you and the others for your assistance. I wondered whether you would be willing to give the Committee a copy of the Union Pacific Agreement. It might be very helpful for us to see an example, like that. It could be made part of the record, if we keep the record open, and we could distribute it to the committee members, and post it as well.

MR. INCLIMA: I think we could certainly do that.

MS. SPIELER: If you send it to Beth Slavet, she'll make sure that that gets distributed to us.

MR. INCLIMA: Great.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you very much.

MR. INCLIMA: Thank you very much. Thank you.

MS. SPIELER: Vince Verna?

VINCE VERNA
DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS FOR
THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS & TRAINMEN

Good afternoon. My name is Vince Verna. I'm the Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which is also a division of the Teamsters Rail Conference. I guess I should explain to some of the people here, who may not know, we're not the type of engineers who design bridges. We're the type of engineers who used to wear the pinstripe overalls and drive trains through your cities. Some still do wear the pinstripe overalls, believe it or not.

Anyway, on behalf of the BLET, I welcome the opportunity to address the Committee, on your commencement of work, on issues relating to OSHA's Whistleblower laws, pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act, at 49 USC Section 20109. Becoming a whistleblower is a hard decision for our members to make. A culture of harassment and intimidation by rail carrier management has continued, although it is being weakened daily, thanks to OSHA's enforcement measures. As a result, we can point to many examples where the law's protections have benefited our members, who have reported unsafe conditions or actions.

In accordance with Section 20109, an employee covered by the Federal Railroad Safety Act is protected from retaliation for engaging in certain protected activities, including refusing to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal Rule or regulation, related to railroad safety or security; filing or testifying in a proceeding, under one of these laws or regulations; notifying or attempting to notify the railroad, or Secretary of Transportation, of a work- related personal injury or illness; reporting hazardous safety or security conditions; refusing to work under certain conditions; or refusing to authorize the use of any safety or safety-related equipment, track or structures, under certain circumstances, when the employee believes the equipment, track or structures are in a hazardous safety or security condition; and requesting medical or first aide treatment, or following orders of a treatment plan of a treating physician.

Despite these protections, whistleblowing remains an unknown option for far too many BLE team members. Our goal is to foster a railroad culture, where whistleblowing becomes a standard option in our safety toolkit. When one of our members is presented with an unsafe condition at work, they should never have to think twice about whether it's a good idea to report or not, due to a potential retaliation action by the railroad. In an effort to reduce unsafe conditions, railroad management should commend whistleblowers as early warning systems, who create a safer workplace. A robust system is needed, where the messenger is rewarded, rather than punished; and where reporting unsafe conditions or actions is seen as routine, rather than an act of courage, that puts your job on the line.

While we believe the law provides our members with excellent protections, the implementation and enforcement of the law, as well as education about the law's protections, remain a mystery to the BLET team members, who should share full enjoyment of its benefits. The BLET congratulates and applauds the members of this Committee and your willingness to work towards the same ends as I've described. The BLET is open to assist this Committee as well, in providing our members with the law's protections, whenever it is necessary or whenever we're called upon to do so, to help the Committee. I thank you for letting me speak.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you very much. Again, I expect we will be calling on all of you, at some point, in the course of this Committee's work, to help us out.

MR. VERNA: We're here to help. Thanks.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you. That concludes the Public Comment period of this agenda. There will similar comment periods during our future meetings, for anyone who would like to come forward and offer advice, counsel, criticism, or suggestions to the Committee. That will always be noted in the Federal Register of Notices regarding our Public Meetings. DISCUSSION OF STATUTE 11(c)

At this point, we're going to shift to a more focused discussion about 11(c), and I'd like to ask Mike and Beth, maybe if you could go sit at the other end of the table.

MR. FRUMIN: Emily? Could I just ask a procedural question? Is the docket number on regulations.gov, where people have signed up to speak and so forth; posted comments. I guess there's one that's included in our packet. Is that a vehicle for people, not at committee meetings, to bring things to the committee's attention? Do you know if that's the case?

MS. SPIELER: I defer to Ed or Beth on that question.

MR. BAIRD: Yeah. I'm not sure if it's open any longer, but certainly you can direct anything you want to Beth and we'll put it up there, so people can take a look at it.

MR. FRUMIN: I was thinking of us so much, as a broader public. Is there some particular way that people can do that or not? It just occurred to me, since we were inviting documents and comments.

MS. SLAVET: The docket number is closed. The reason we provided that with the record, was that it had come during the time period. But now the docket number is closed.

MS. SPIELER: But people's contact information and so on, are public the including the Committee.

MR. FRUMIN: Right. So we can forward things.

MS. SPIELER: And so if things are sent to individual members of the Committee, as we discussed prior to the public meeting, you can forward those to Beth or to the full Committee, and we'll make sure they become part of the Committee's record in deliberations going forward. So at a future meeting, they will, again, move things into the Committee's Minutes, record and they will be considered. So I don't think we keep up a sort of a continuous place for comments, but there are lots of different access points.

MS. SLAVET: There may be a different docket number, is basically --

MS. SPIELER: Well, in the future, there will be, but there's isn't -- in the interim, without a new Federal Registrar Notice up, I doubt there will be. Okay. I think the two of you should identify yourselves and perhaps tell us how you're going to do this presentation. Then I'll just leave it to you, and then will have Committee Questions and a Discussion.

MICHAEL MABEE
SUPERVISORY INVESTIGATOR
REGION 1, NEW ENGLAND STATES

Sure. May name is Michael Mabee. I'm the Supervisory Investigator with Region 1, which is the New England States; and then to my right, is David Baskin, who has a very long impressive title, two words of which are Whistleblower Counsel. In my mind, those are the two most important words. He works for the Regional Solicitor's Office, in Region 1, which is also the New England States. Together, we do the Whistleblower cases, in the New England area, along with some help of some investigators and other attorneys.

First of all, I'd like to thank Chairman Spieler for the opportunity to come here today. I'd like to thank the Committee, for your attention to this important matter, with Whistleblower. Also, I'd like to acknowledge the members of the public, who came here and who took time out of their busy schedules to come and listen in on a very, very important topic, which is Whistleblower Protections. Finally, Dr. Michaels and Beth Slavet, who made this all possible.

I've been the Whistleblower Program for 14 years. I never envisioned that I would have the opportunity to talk about what I do on a day-to-day basis, with such a Committee of esteemed and accomplished people on many, many different perspectives in the Whistleblower arena. I became a Whistleblower Investigator in 1999. I know, Beth, I'm going to talk slower, with shorter sentences, I swear. I lived in New York for a long time, so you have to excuse me.

MS. SLAVET: I was just going to say, it's a Yankee.

MR. MABEE: That's right. I started with the Whistleblower Program in 1999, as an Investigator. I became a Supervisor in 2003. I've been a Supervisor in two different OSHA Regions. I've got a fairly good perspective on the program, I believe. Also, in terms of my past resume, I've been both on the Labor side and the Management side. I've been a Union Steward and a Local President; as well as on the Management side, I've supervised everywhere from three to 3,000 people, in various capacities with the government and military. So having had experience on both sides, I think really kind of puts me in a unique position, when I'm looking at Whistleblower cases. I don't believe anybody. I don't believe the complainant. I don't believe the respondent. I certainly don't believe the attorneys. What I believe are the facts, that we're able to uncover in our Whistleblower investigations.

I'm going to take the time today. Briefly, what Dave and I are going to do, I'm going to talk, very briefly, about the history of OSHA's Whistleblower Program. Dave and I are each going to talk about what we do and our various perspectives. Me, from the OSHA perspective, in doing and supervising the investigations; Dave, from the Regional Solicitor's perspective, in prosecuting these investigations. Then we're going to talk, briefly, about the challenges that 11(c) poses. Then finally, some lessons learned from some of the other Statues we have. So 11(c) is clearly a focus here, but we also have 21 other Statutes that desperately need attention of the Committee. So we want to talk a little bit about the lessons learned.

Now, when the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, in 1970, it received accolades from all sides, which you don't always get with a piece of legislation. But President Nixon lauded it as an important piece of social legislation. The Chamber of Commerce said that it was an important victory for those looking for an effective, yet fair law, for workplace health and safety. And the AFL-CIO President, George Meany, called it a long step towards a safe and healthy workplace.

Now, when the Act was first enacted, and it created OSHA, it contained this Whistleblower provision, which we called Section 11(c). Now, initially, the 11(c) discrimination complaints were investigated by OSHA Safety Inspectors, who are known as the Compliance Health and Safety Officers (or CSHOs) in OSHA Departments. Over the first four years of the Act's existence, OSHA learned a lot of lessons about Whistleblower cases. One of the things that OSHA learned was that Whistleblower investigations require a different skill set then health and safety inspections, for example. There are additional skills needed to do Whistleblower investigations, such as having the ability to interpret laws. You know, very, very fast- moving Whistleblower case laws it develops, also drawing inferences from a set of circumstances.

Am I talking slow enough, Beth? Should I slow down a little bit more?

MS. SLAVET: You're doing great.

MR. MABEE: So in 1974, due to large spread criticism about the quality and timeliness of OSHA 11(c) investigations, OSHA created the 11(c) Investigation Program, and gave it its own personnel and management team, in order to conduct this work. The Program, by 1976, had 25 full-time Investigators; and then by 1981, there were 61 full-time Investigators. By all accounts, this was highly successful and the OSHA 11(c) Program was able to reduce the backlog, or the number of days to complete cases, from 1,023 days, in 1975, down to 133 days, in 1981.

Also, in 1981, the Program actually was decentralized and went out to the 10 different OSHA Regions. Now, in 1983, we got our second Statute, which was the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and that was delegated to the Secretary of Labor, who delegated it to OSHA. Now the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, which provides Whistleblower Protections for truck drivers, mechanics and other employees in the trucking industry, was very, very different from 11(c), in several respects. One of them was, under the Surface Transportation and Assistance Act, an employee had 180 days to file a complaint. Whereas, under Section 11(c), they only have 30 days.

A second important difference was, under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, once OSHA issued findings, either side could file an objection to those filings and have de novo hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. Whereas, with 11(c), if OSHA found merit to a case, that case could only be enforced through the filing of a lawsuit in Federal District Courts, through the Solicitor of Labor and the Regional Solicitors. That was another important difference.

And another really, really interesting thing about STAA was it had this provision known as Preliminary Reinstatement. Preliminary Reinstatement means that if OSHA finds merit in a case, we can order the employer to put the employee back to work; and that is not stayed by an appeal, if the other side appeals to an Administrative Law Judge. That was a very, very powerful provision in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

With only a few exceptions, most of the modern Whistleblower Statues that followed had some of these same provisions, that we saw initially in STAA. The two exceptions to that are the International Safe Container Act and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, which both follow pretty much the same structure as 11(c), where they would have to be filed as lawsuits in Federal Court, in order to enforce them. But our other Whistleblower Statutes followed the model of STAA and go through an Administrative Law Judge process.

By 1990, OSHA had four Whistleblower Statues, which was 11(c), STAA, ISCA and AHERA.   Isn't that just amazing, how I can rattle that off the top of my head? We had approximately 51 OSHA Whistleblower Investigators at the time. Now, in 1997, we received seven more Statutes. These Statutes were six Environmental Whistleblower Statutes, and then also the Energy Reorganization Act. I'm talking slower, Beth, I swear, shorter sentences. The Energy Reorganization Act, which covers employees of NRC licensees, employees in nuclear plants, some hospitals that are NRC licensees, etcetera. So that brought us up to 11 Statutes, by 1997. But interestingly enough, even with 11 Statutes, in 1997, OSHA was still able to conduct our investigations in an average of 100 days or less, at that time.

Now, since 2000, Congress has opened up the sky and it has been raining Whistleblower Statutes down upon us, and we have received numerous Whistleblower Statues, since 2000, which you've heard a couple spoken about today. The Federal Railroad Safety Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, AIR21, Pipeline, Consumer Product. I used to do this trick, where I would rattle off all 17 Statutes and really, really impress a room full of people. Once we got to 18, I couldn't do it anymore. So I'm not going to embarrass myself today, by doing this. You have in your handouts, you have a list of all 22 of our Statutes and some of the pertinent information on those Statutes. I would really encourage you to take a look at that, at your leisure. Because all of these Statues do have some differences, but they all do have similarities also.

You've heard from a couple of people in the railroad industry. FRSA is one of the new Statutes. We got that in 2007. It was subsequently amended to add further protections. Now both Dr. Michaels and Ms. Slavet have referred to some of the problems and criticisms of OSHA's Whistleblower Program, along with OSHA's attempts to address these, both on a case-by-case basis, and also systemically. Among the improvements, that Dr. Michaels has implemented, since he's been here, has been the addition of resources to the Whistleblower Program.

In the 2011 budget, we added 25 new Investigators; and then in 2012 budget, an additional 10 Investigators. We presently have a total of 96 OSHA Whistleblower Investigators, excluding Supervisors. Now, to give you a little bit of a perspective on the caseload, in 1997, when OSHA had 11 Statutes, the average caseload was about seven cases per Investigator, and we were able to do the cases in a approximately 101 days. Now, fast-forward to 2012, the end of fiscal year 2012, we had an average caseload of 25.8 cases per Investigator, and our average days to close cases was up to 286 days.

But OSHA is also beginning to see the effect of these new Investigators that have been added over the last couple of years. As you've seen, from the BNA Article that is in your handout materials, we had a 42 percent increase in the number of closed cases in FY2012, compared to the year before. I believe largely due to the fact that we've had additional resources to do this.

Now, after over 40 years with OSHA's Whistleblower Program. Not me, personally, but OSHA's Whistleblower Program's been around for over 40 years. 11(c) still constitutes about 61 percent of the cases that we receive. So it's still the majority of cases we receive. It is now followed, in second place, by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, which has the second- most cases. That recently overtook the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, which had been the long- running second place to 11(c), in terms of the number of cases.

As Beth had pointed out, earlier this morning, some of our new Statues that come up -- for example, the Food Safety Modernization Act can have a tremendous potential in the future, to generate quite a few cases. That could change.

What I'd like to do next -- That was kind of a brief whirlwind history of the Whistleblower Program and how we got to the point, where here we are, with 22 Statutes. I'd like to talk, really quickly, about what we do in OSHA, and then have Dave talk a little bit about what he does in the Solicitor's Office. Then we'll talk about some of the challenges of 11(c) and some of our lessons learned, and we'll be happy to answer any questions after that.

In the Regions, our main guidance is publically available on our website: whistleblowers.gov, which is the Whistleblowers Investigations Manual. I saw that there's a couple of copies over on the back table. At the Regions, we do the intake of complaints, for the most part. Now, complaints can come in from a variety of sources. A lot of complaints come in, for example, an employee may call an OSHA Inspector, that he met on an inspection, and say, "Hey, I believe I was terminated because I spoke with you, or they think I filed the OSHA complaint."

Complaints can also come in via our National Office. Sometimes people will go the OSHA website and call the main number. Complaints can also come in, just via fax to an area office, and a whole variety of different manners.

As soon as we get these complaints, we do an intake interview with the complainant. We always interview every complainant, to the extent that we can get a hold of them. There are occasions where we'll get a complaint and we will not be able to ever get a hold of that complainant again. We'll try calling and sending letters. We have procedures, in our Manual, for what we do when we can't get a hold of a complainant. As a Supervisor, I consider that one of the most critical things, is interviewing the complainant, very thoroughly, and understanding their allegation.

Complaints under 11(c) have always been accepted verbally, not just in writing. Now, our policy in the new Manual, in 2011, changed. We now accept all complaints, under all Statutes, verbally, in whatever language that the complainant speaks. We will get a translator, if we need one. We will accept the complaints in any form and in any language, the complainant needs in order file their complaint.

We conduct the initial interview with the complainants, to determine whether their complaint falls under one of our Statutes. We will attempt to refer the complainants to the proper agency, if we aren't it. We do get a lot of complaints, where the government can be a big and confusing assortment of agencies and some people just don't know who to call.

We do have a great website: www.whistleblowers.gov, which is a phenomenal resource, I believe, for both the public and people involved in Whistleblower work. Sometimes, we'll get complaints that don't necessarily fall under our Statute. We'll attempt to get the people to the proper agency, where that is. Where the complaint does fall under our Statute, we will do a process known as docketing the complaint, which is described in the Manual, which means we enter it into our database and we notify the parties that we're going to be investigating the complaint.

We'll assign the complaint to an Investigator, who conducts an investigation. Although we have 22 different Statutes, and you may look at that list and say, "Oh, my God!" All of the complaints have a couple of things in common. What we're investigating is whether the complainant engaged in protected activity; whether management had knowledge of the protected activity; whether there was an adverse action visited upon the complainant; and finally, whether there's a nexus or a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity.

Inthat respect, all of our investigations are the same. In other respects, they're all different, because as you can see, there's different time limits; different protected activities, etcetera, involved in these complaints. OSHA writes detailed findings and reports on all the investigations that we do. These findings can be anywhere between two to 30 pages, depending on the complaint. We issue findings in 19 of our Statutes, and the exceptions being 11(c) ISCA, AHERA and some STAA cases, where we find merit and refer them to the Solicitor's Office, which I will talk about in a second. Right now, as a matter of fact.

Where OSHA finds merit to certain case types, we would refer them to the Regional Solicitor's Office, and Dave will discuss that, in a second. We'll also refer cases to the Solicitor's Office involving preliminary reinstatement, where we may have to enforce that in Federal Court. Also, in other cases, where OSHA needs legal advice or Solicitor involvement. I talk to Mr. Baskin, on almost a daily basis.  I would say that's a fairly fair assessment. I probably talk to him more than almost anybody else within the Department of Labor. So we work very closely with the Solicitors on those cases.

Asyou can see from the statistics you have, OSHA settles a good number of cases, also. Last year, we settled 21 percent of all of our cases, and actually 22 percent of the 11(c) cases. Those will either arise from a settlement between the parties, that OSHA approves, in accordance with our Manual. Sometimes OSHA, we will actually facilitate the settlementbetween the parties, especially if some of the partiesare not represented. We'll settle those cases.

Now, we intersect with the National Office, with Ms. Slavet's Directorate of the Whistleblower Protection Programs, in a couple of ways. One of them is the appeals of OSHA, ISCA, and AHERA cases would be appealed to the National Office. 11(c) did not have an appeals process actually built into the Statue, but in the early '70's, OSHA created an appeals process. So that when we do dismiss an 11(c) complaint, the complainant would have an avenue to get a review of the file. So the Appeals Committee in the National Office would facilitate that. Also, the Directorate of the Whistleblower Protection Programs gives us technical advice and support to the field on technical questions, and also handles significant case reviews of some of our cases. Now, I think I'll turn it over to Dave and have him talk a little bit about the perspective, from the Regional Solicitor's Office.

DAVID BASKIN
REGIONAL SOLICITOR'S OFFICE

Thanks, Mike. Thank you. I want to echo what Mike said. I want to thank all of you. It's a pleasure to be here, and I am hoping to tell you a little bit about the nuts and bolts of an 11(c) case, if I could, please.

I'll tell you about myself, just every briefly. I've been involved in the Whistleblower Program at the Department, since about 1982. I've tried four 11(c) cases in Federal Court, and I'll probably be trying a fifth, later this year. Of course, I've been involved in the settlement of any number of 11(c) cases and other Whistleblower cases.

This is, as we've all been saying, an exciting time for the Whistleblower Program, thanks to its new prominence. I can say, since it's been about 30 years, this is great. This is really great. One of my fellow counsels in the region, referred to the 11(c) cases and the Whistleblower Program, itself, but I think she was talking about the 11(c), is the creme de la creme of the cases we do. These are so interesting, and unfortunately, they're so heartbreaking. Obviously, it's horrible to be the victim of violent crime. It's horrible to be the victim of a horrible disease. But it's pretty horrible also to suffer the tremendous financial harm that comes from being the victim of a retaliatory discharge. Not being able to pay the mortgage; going on food stamps; losing your health insurance. It makes you sad for some of these folks. It really is quite sad.

Let me tell you how we handle 11(c) in our region. Mike's given you a little bit of a background. When cases are under investigation, we, in the Regional Solicitor's Office, learn of them, if they look like they're going to go somewhere, or simply if they pose interesting difficult issues, from Mike. And as he said, we do talk maybe daily, in certain weeks. Quite a bit. Let's just put it that way. Probably 19 days out of 20 workdays, something like that. We function under a regime, that I will call early involvement. That really is a function of Solicitor, Tricia Smith and her push to make sure that there is real hand-in-glove work between the agencies and the Solicitor's Office. I will use the term, "Grow up with a case." We will know about it, if it's going anywhere, virtually from its inception.

We'll consult. I will consult, or I and one of the other attorneys, who works on the Whistleblower cases, in our office, will consult with Mike or his co-Regional Supervisory Investigator, Carole Horowitz, and the actual Investigators, about the case, at various stages. We act as a sounding board. We come from a different perspective. We make suggestions. We look at the facts and the applicable law and try to help. You heard Mike talk about, obviously, the need to interview the employee; to interview other fact witnesses. I'm going to ask you -- this is a test -- who is one of the most important people you can interview? The clerical worker, the person who processed the pink slip. I can think of at least two cases that have turned on the testimony of the clerical worker, or former clerical worker, who processed the pink slip. You find out what really happens. That's the sort of thing we do when we make suggestions. We can come at it from different angles.

Now, we evaluate the facts. We evaluate the timeline. We talk about credibility; the employer's position; the applicable law. We're very interested in other legal proceedings. State Unemployment proceedings; or Workers' Comp. proceedings; or simply other State litigation, involving the employee and the employer, can give us valuable, valuable insights into the facts. They come in very, very handy, as you try to litigate the cases, and you try to settle the cases.

Inaddition, another aspect of the nuts and bolts is we consult with the National Office about the cases that we're dealing with. Because a lot of these issues are very interesting and complex issues. So if we're talking about an 11(c) case or a STAA case, I would find myself talking to Rob and his folks, Ed Baird, Mark Lerner. I cannot really overstate the value of these folks. Talking to our National Office has been, through the years, very, very, very helpful.

Likewise, if we're talking about the other types of Whistleblower cases, I find myself talking to Megan Guenther and some of her folks. Quite frankly, the same praise applies. We are very well-served in the regions, by the National Offices we deal with.

Another thing I'd like to tell you about, as I try to help you understand how it works in the regions, is the fact that we have quarterly meetings with the Regional Office. Once every quarter, Mike and I, Carole Horowitz, my boss (Mike Felsen, the Regional Solicitor), and Marthe Kent, the Regional Administrator, and her Deputy, Bob Hooper, will sit down for two, two-and-a-half hours, and talk about where we are; what's going on; statistics; what's happened; and where we're going. It's an exceedingly useful process, in trying to step back and getting an idea of where we really are. In our region, the Investigators have a very, very heavy caseload, but I think we're blessed with some pretty good Investigators. From a lawyer's perspective, that's very, very helpful.

Now, subsequent to early involvement, and the evaluation that's inherent there, we'll actually write up a legal analysis of the case. That analysis will go through me, to the Regional Solicitor. We'll also show it to Mike and his subordinates, to make sure we got the facts right. Then, we may make the decision to file the case in Federal Court, in the U.S. District Court, in the appropriate State. Prior to doing that, we have to get clearance from the Justice Department. The Office of Federal Programs and the Justice Department has to be consulted. They've been pretty good. It's another hurdle, but I can't say that they've really thrown us any curveballs or been a problem. It's just something else you have to do.

Then you file in District Court, and you go through the regular legal procedures: a status conference, discovery and so forth. As I'm sure you can appreciate, Section 11(c) cases, like most Whistleblower cases, are very fact-bound.  They're very fact-intensive. It's like peeling an onion, because there are nuances within nuances and there are different versions of the truth. There are seven different versions of what happened. We really have an obligation to try and get it right.

Now, given the caseload that the Investigators carry, and given the -- just how hard it is to investigate any one case, I would like to tell you that, if OSHA doesn't hit its statutory deadline of concluding its investigation within 90 days, that will not kill the case. The investigation can go on. That 90-day deadline is not for the benefit of the employers.

Now, I also want to talk about the relief that's available, under Section 11(c). The Statute says, "All appropriate relief," and "All appropriate relief," can mean exemplary damages, compensatory punitive damages. There was a case in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, called Cambridgeport Air Systems, which held that all appropriate relief means more than just back wages. That's what we often think about when we think about what we can get for a Whistleblower.

Now, in our region, if we file the case, if we actually go into Federal Court and have to file the Complaint, we are looking for a consent judgment, as a way of resolving the case. Of course, if we try the case, there's going to be a judgment. I would like to say one other thing. Most of the employers -- at least the ones I've seen in 11(c) cases -- are standalone employers. Frankly, they are -- at least in my experience -- comparatively small employers and they're standalone employees. We are not talking about union members. We are not talking big sophisticated companies, like the railroads, or the companies that are covered by Sarbanes-Oxley. Consequently, as you know, there's no private right of action and we are the only recourse for these unfortunate 11(c) complainants, who have lost their jobs.

Under Section 11(c), a retaliatory discharge is -- at least as one court has said -- it's an intentional tort. It's an intentional civil wrong. That's one of the reasons why it is a good thing that we can get all appropriate relief, and aren't just limited to the back wages.

Recently, we've encountered a new issue, one the EEOC is more familiar with than us, because I think they just do more cases that involve this. I've actually learned a lot from talking to a fellow over at the EEOC. This is social media discovery. If you are bringing a case -- if we ever bring in a case on behalf of an 11(c) victim, the employer, which has a right to litigate its case as zealously as it can, may well go after FaceBook postings, tweets and other such things. It raises huge issues. They certainly have their rights, but you can infer the (inaudible). That's a problem for us. What we try to do is, to the extent that we can -- keep in mind what I'm saying here. I should back up a little. What we're talking about is they tried to subpoena information directly from the complainant, who has no private right of action and is unrepresented. We maintain, we have asserted that we have a common interest with the victim. We say, "the Common Interest Privilege applies," and we can stand up for them. We have a standing to try to protect these folks. There's never been -- as far as I know -- a real affirmative decision about the Common Interest Privilege in Section 11(c). We've got at least one decision that assumes it, without saying it. But this can be a problem in 11(c).

For instance, down in Atlanta, the employer went after the complainant's medical records, from pharmacies and medical providers. Obviously, it scared the daylights out of the complainant and the Atlanta Office stepped in, asserted the Common Interest Privilege, and did its best to try to keep this discovery to a rational limit. But this is an emerging problem. Certainly, social media discovery is an emerging problem, as it is across the discrimination spectrum, and not just in the cases that the Labor Department has. I think that's about it. I want to thank you, all, very much.

MR. MABEE: Okay. I want to talk about the portion on the agenda, that says, "What challenges 11(c) poses." The way I'm going to do this is I want to talk about what 11(c) does, next to what some of the recently-enacted Whistleblower Statutes do. If you want to draw a line down the middle of your paper, the left side is going to be 11(c), and the right side is going to be the recently-enacted Whistleblower Statutes. So 11(c) has a 30-day statute of limitations for filing. The recently-enacted Whistleblower Statutes have 180 days' statute of limitations for filing, for the most part.

11(c), no private right of action. In the recently-enacted statutes, the complainant does have a private right of action. With 11(c), we have to file a lawsuit in Federal District Court for merit cases. With the recently-enacted Statutes, OSHA would issue findings. What is the difference? The next bullet.

Filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court, for those of you, who have been involved in doing that before, it's very, very resource-intensive. Whereas, issuing findings for a merit case under some of the recently-enacted Statutes is a lot less resource- intensive. 11(c) is under the motivating factor burden of proof. Whereas, the recently-enacted Statutes are under the contributing factor burden of proof.

11(c) has no preliminary reinstatement; whereas, the recently-enacted Statutes, many of them do contain a provision for preliminary reinstatement.

MS. SPIELER: Mike, I'm not sure everyone here understands the implications of preliminary reinstatement. Could you just explain that, for a minute?

MR. MABEE: Yes, absolutely. Preliminary reinstatement means that when OSHA conducts an investigation and issues findings, we can order reinstatement in all of the Statutes, as an appropriate remedy. But in the Statues that have preliminary reinstatement, if we order reinstatement as a remedy, it is not stayed by an appeal. So the respondent could still appeal OSHA's findings, but they would have to immediately still reinstate that whistleblower back to their job, pending the appeal. The other remedies may have to wait, pending appeal. For example, back pay or compensatory damages. But the reinstatement would be immediate. If the respondent refuses to do that, the Solicitor of Labor could enforce that in Federal Court. So that's what preliminary reinstatement is versus us ordering reinstatement, for example, in the environmental statutes, in the EPA statutes. That does not have preliminary reinstatement. So if a respondent files an appeal, the reinstatement is held in abeyance, along with everything else, until the outcome of the appeal. Does that answer your question?

MS. SPIELER: Yes. Thank you.

MR. MABEE: Finally, kind of on the differences of 11(c) and the recently-enacted Statutes. Under 11(c), the complainant has no further appeal, once they've gone through OSHA, and the Solicitor of OSHA, and the Solicitor believes there's no merit to the case. There is no further appeal. Whereas, in the recently-enacted Whistleblower Statutes, any decision of either OSHA, the ALJ or ARB, all of these decisions are appealable, at every level, by either side, all the way to Circuit Courts, and possibly the Supreme Court. So that's kind of the difference there.

Now, OSHA has another -- kind of the difference between the Statutes. The best way to describe our 22 Statutes is sort of a patchwork. Obviously, Congress is smarter then me, so I guess they knew what they were doing when they made them all different. But we have subpoena authority under some and not under others. So we have subpoena authority under 11(c), ISCA, AHERA and ACA, which is the Affordable Care Act; and we do not have subpoena authority under the other statutes.

Punitive damages are available under some statutes, and not under others. The ones that they are available under -- and I believe this is on your desk aid -- but 11(c), ISCA, AHERA, STAA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act, the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the National Transit System Security Act and the Seaman's Protection Act all provide for punitive damages. The other statutes do not.

Then finally, I wanted to talk, just a little bit, about some of the lessons we've learned from other statutes. Different industries present us with different problems. You've heard a lot about this today. You've heard about it from Dr. Michaels. You've heard about it from Ms. Slavet. You heard about it from a couple of people from the railroad industry. A great example of this. Six percent of the 11(c) cases we get are on the allegation of retaliation for reporting an injury, 6 percent. Under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 60 percent.

MS. SPIELER: Wow.

MR. MABEE: So when we see different industries, sometimes we will see really, really remarkably different problems. That's a great example. Preliminary reinstatement is a powerful provision, and we've learned this from the statutes in which we have it. We settle many, many cases. When OSHA believes there's merit to a case, we're obligated to issue what we call a Due Process Letter, which mean prior to ordering preliminary reinstatement, we have to notify the respondent of the evidence, that has brought us to the preliminary conclusion that there's merit to the case; give them the opportunity to provide a rebuttal or any additional evidence they want us to consider. When we send those letters out, a lot of these cases settle, in our experience. Preliminary reinstatement is a credible threat to a respondent. We settle a lot of these cases.

Some statutes require a great deal of additional training. We've learned this, for example, with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It requires a great deal of additional training for Investigators. Being advised that OSHA may draw an adverse inference is helpful in statutes where OSHA does not have subpoena authority. So if we request documents from a respondent and they're not cooperative, being informed that we may draw an adverse inference and issue findings against them, usually they'll have a second thought about possibly cooperating in the investigation.

We have noticed, over the years, that very few complainants, 11(c) complainants, are represented by attorneys. Whereas, in our other statute types that apply for attorneys' fees, many more complainants are represented by attorneys. Ultimately, many 11(c) cases are dismissed as untimely. At least, at least 310 cases, in fiscal year 2012 -- or complaints, I should say -- were untimely, when they called.  As you know, 11(c) has a 30-day statute of limitations. Also, the last thing we've learned --

MS. SPIELER: Can I ask another question?

MR. MABEE: Sure. Yes.

MS. SPIELER: Do you consider the statute of limitations jurisdictional, in nature? In other words, if somebody files on the 31st day, is it just a nonissue that --

MR. MABEE: Yeah. That is an excellent question. The question was, does the 30-day statute of limitations, for example, jurisdictional? Is that it? We provide the principles of equitable tolling, so there may be some circumstances where, for example, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st day, there was a major snowstorm, power outage. For some reason, the complainant was unable to file the complaint. It could be a circumstance to justify equitable tolling. We will look at those. Those are outlined in our Whistleblower Manual. Our Investigators will look at circumstances where tolling may apply, in those cases.

Finally, on the work refusal protections of many of the newer recently-enacted statutes, actually protect workers, who report a violation of the law. That's a much higher level of work refusal protection then, for example, 11(c), which the workers are protected in some situations, where they refuse to do something and they have a reasonable belief of a hazard to life and limb if they perform this.   But in some of our statutes, for example, on the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, a truck driver can refuse to drive a truck that violates DOT regulations.

Under the Food Safety Modernization Act, an employee can refuse to do something that violates food safety regulations, and they're protected by those Acts. The work refusal protections, in some of the new statutes, are much more robust than they were under 11(c).

That concludes what Dave and I had, in terms of a presentation, but we're happy to answer any questions of the Committee.

MS. SPIELER: Okay. So we'll open it up for questions, specifically on what Mike and David have been talking to us about. When we get done with that portion of the meeting, we'll likely -- depending on what time it is -- we'll take a break and then we'll move into a more general discussion. Questions for Mike and David? Greg?

MR. KEATING: I have a specific question, and I realize the folks --

MS. SPIELER: We should remember, also, to keep --

MR. KEATING: I'm sorry. It's Greg Keating.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you.

MR. KEATING: I realize the focus is on 11(c), and I'm struck by the differences between 11(c) and the panoply of other statutes that have come into existence recently. With regard to those though, and I'm talking, in particular, about Sarbanes-Oxley. If you get a complaint that is specific in nature and that goes into detail about SEC violations being committed and retaliation as a result of that, will you, as a matter of course, reach out to the SEC and share that complaint?

MR. MABEE: Yeah. That's an excellent question. In our Whistleblower Manual, all of our statutes, where the primary jurisdiction falls with another agency, OSHA notifies the other agency, when we receive a complaint. So in the matter of a Sarbanes-Oxley complaint, in Greg's example, OSHA would send a copy of that complaint to the Securities Exchange Commission. And OSHA also sends a copy of the final letter, Secretary's findings. You know, withdrawal approval, settlement approval -- whatever closes the case -- to the primary agency. That applies under all of our statutes, except for 11(c).

MR. KEATING: Just to be clear -- This is Greg Keating, again. So when you say primary jurisdiction, you would have primary jurisdiction over the retaliation component, but the SEC would have primary jurisdiction over investigating the underlying issues?

MR. MABEE: Correct. Yes, correct.

MR. KEATING: Thanks.

MS. SPIELER: Richard?

MR. MOBERLY: So my understanding is that historically, those faxes to the SEC just stay there and nothing ever happened to them? Do you have any understanding of when you send that information to those primary agencies, what happens to those complaints?

MR. MABEE: Yeah. I can't speak for other agencies, but I would certainty encourage the Committee to look at the MOU's that we have, to the extent that the Committee's able to. You could probably speak to the other agencies to ask them, but I don't feel comfortable answering for other agencies, with what they would do with the information we send them.

MR. MOBERLY: As a follow-up for the OSHA ones, the substantive violation, that was complained about. What happens to those substantive reports? So you would still handle the retaliation part of it, but what happens to the underlying issue, that there was some violation of a regulation?

MR. MABEE: On the 11(c) complaints?

MR. MOBERLY: Yes.

MR. MABEE: Okay. If we receive a Whistleblower complaint that also has a health and safety allegation, we would refer that to the appropriate area office of OSHA, to process in accordance with their normal procedures. By the same token, when the OSHA Area Offices are working on one of their enforcement cases, and an instance of alleged Whistleblower retaliation comes to their attention, they would refer that to us. So we work very closely. Most of our Investigators work out of Area Offices, so we have a close relationship with the enforcement component of OSHA.

MR. MOBERLY: Thanks.

MS. SPIELER: Eric?

MR. FRUMIN: So let's pursue this very --

MS. SPIELER: I'm sorry. The last comment was Richard Moberly and this is Eric Frumin.

MR. FRUMIN: I'm sorry. My bad. Eric Frumin. Let's pursue a scenario, where the person who's filing the 11(c) complaint, the person is complaining about retaliation is covered by 11(c). So it's a OSHA- related matter, not another agency. Not another statute, and where there are some workplace safety issues involved. A two-part question. One is, from your standpoint, on the anti-retaliation goals, are there any specific marching orders you have to treat it differently, depending on whether the complainant was also a complainant to the Area Office, at the same time, or prior to that? In other words, does it make any difference to you, in the way you process it, whether or not they were also active, filing a complaint about hazards or violations under Section 8 of the Act?

MR. MABEE: We don't have any specific marching orders, in the scenario you described. I don't think it makes any difference whether the person's alleging they were fired because they called OSHA, or because the person was fired because they alleged a safety hazard to their employer's attention. We're going to investigate all these cases in the exact same manner, looking for those four elements, that I described earlier. Does that answer your --

MR. FRUMIN: No, no. That's a very good, specific answer. Then conversely, if you find out about a retaliation case, once a complaint inspection is underway, involving the complainant, do you know whether the Area Offices, having found out about it from you, whether they would behave any differently in conducting their inspection under Section 8?

MR. MABEE: I think the answer is probably the same. The Area Offices have specific procedures that they follow, when they receive complaints, and when they do inspections. I'm not aware of any difference. We do get information, for example, in a whistleblower case, that also involved an OSHA health and safety inspection. Obviously, we want to interview the Compliance Officer that did the inspection, because they may be a good source of information. We would want to cooperate, in terms of what information we may have that might be useful to them, or vice-versa. I don't believe there's any procedural difference.

MR. FRUMIN: Right. So I just want to then raise a core question for the Committee, which is, for the purposes of enhancing the enforcement of Section 5 of the Act, that is employers have to comply with the standards, in Section 8, which says that OSHA has to conduct inspections. Shouldn't it make a difference to the agency, when an employer retaliates against a worker, who's a complainant, about the underlying violations? By his account, it doesn't, procedurally. I'm not saying they do a weaker investigation, but I'm simply raising this as a point. We can come to it.

MS. SPIELER: Why don't we come back to that? Because I think that's an interesting --

MR. FRUMIN: Yeah. I don't want to go with it, but I just wanted to raise that.

MS. SPIELER: Beth, do you want to?

MS. SLAVET: Yeah. Hopefully, you've made the final point. I wanted to speak to that, because actually a recent case I was involved in -- Basically, what does happen is there was actually coordination between the two Officers. There was advice sought from the National Office; and there was a thorough discussion about what was the most effective way to deal with the investigation, since it involved both reporting issues. And we had the greatest ability and power, and authority to do a thorough investigation and get as much information as we possibly could, and as quickly as we could. Do you know what case I'm talking about? So I wanted to just make clear, that they weren't like acting on these separate tracks. There was coordination, and they keep in touch with other, and in fact, have elevated to the National Office.

MR. FRUMIN: Okay.

MS. SPIELER: Nancy?

MS. LESSIN: Nancy Lessin, Steelworkers. I have a lot of questions. I'm just going to go to one place though, and that's the punitive damages situation. What we see with OSHA, is that there's this graded level of importance assigned to -- if you have a serious violation of OSHA, it's a maximum, $7,000 fine. Willful, you can bump it up to $70,000. I think you have -- is it called egregious policy, where if it's an egregious situation, willful, and a 100 people are exposed, you can do $70,000 times 100 people. It becomes a $7 million fine.

When we look at Whistleblower, it seems like any retaliatory action is egregious. So I'm wondering what happens in reality with punitive damages. I tracked, in Massachusetts, from around 1997 to 2009, the 11(c) complaints where punitive damages were sought. There were two in 1999; and one in 2003. The rest of the years, there was no punitive damages sought. Now, is that because there were so few cases that actually got to a place? It seems like that issue of punitive damages might make a difference. If an employer is just faced with -- if they lose the case, they have to reinstate and do back pay. That's what they were going to pay somebody anyway, if they were working. That punitive damages could be significant. So if you can talk a little bit about why there are so few punitive damages cases pursued.

MR. MABEE: Dave and I decided, at the beginning of the presentation, I would handle the easy questions and he would handle the hard questions. The important thing also -- and you're talking about 11(c) cases?

MS. LESSIN: Yeah, 11(c).

MR. MABEE: In 11(c) cases, punitive damages are assessed by the court, not my OSHA. Whereas, like in a Federal Railroad Safety Act case, when OSHA issues findings, we actually can put punitive damages, as a remedy in the findings, up to the statutory cap of $250,000. With the 11(c) cases, punitive damages may be sought in a lawsuit that gets filed, but ultimately the court makes that decision. Am I correct in that, Dave?

MR. BASKIN: That's a very good answer.

MS. SPIELER: I'd actually like to ask a slightest broader question, that might help in this conversation. I assume everyone on the Committee understands that punitive damages are not fines. They go to the complainant. Data, I've seen over time, showed a significantly lower average amount in settlements of 11(c), then in other statute settlements, prior to subsequent litigation of whatever type. I actually think it would be very helpful to understand the settlement process in 11(c) cases versus in other cases. Because there's nothing that says that you could not, put on the table, punitive damages on top of back pay and other compensatory damages during the settlement discussion process. But as I understand it, many of the settlements, particularly in 11(c) cases -- and again, I may be wrong about this. Many of the settlements in 11(c) cases are reached between the employer and the employee, with some oversight, but not actually negotiated by OSHA. It's understanding that settlement process and how it works for 11(c) cases and how it works for other cases; and why the outcome appears to be quite different, which could be, of course, that, "Well, people don't have anywhere to go and there aren't very many cases that are going to get actually get litigated by the Solicitor, and so the back pressure on settlement isn't as great."

It would be really helpful, I think, given how few cases reach the full merit decision that goes into SOL, and then into litigation. I think it would be very helpful to get a picture of what happens to the cases, many of which are settled, and not just dismissed. Right now, that seems like a black box, I think. That makes Nancy's question pertinent. It would be helpful, if you could address that.

MR. MABEE: Yeah. We'll talk about both from the OSHA, and then the Solicitor's perspective. One thing, just to be aware of also, is, for example, it's probably not fair to compare, like an 11(c) settlement, where you've got an hourly employee, who didn't make a whole lot of money per hour, with a SOX settlement, where you might have had a CFO of a company, whose salary was significantly higher. I think that it's important that -- some of our statutes may not be the best to compare with each other.

But in terms of the settlement process, OSHA's settlement policy is outlined in our Investigator's Manual. Part of your question was about the parties negotiating among themselves, with little facilitation by OSHA. I generally will not, on cases that I'm supervising -- I'm generally not going to let an unrepresented complainant just speak with an unrepresented respondent and try to resolve their differences, when somebody's been terminated.

If both sides have attorneys, I will absolutely try to get the attorneys together, to see if they can work it out. With 11(c), we, a lot of times, have unrepresented complainants. I think that it's not a good idea to have an unrepresented complainant try to negotiate their own settlement. That being said, we try very hard to settle cases, where both sides have expressed a desire to settle the case. We can't always do it, and we're at everybody's service to do a full investigation on the merits, you know where a settlement is not something that's possible.

But our investigators will, early on, talk to both sides about the possibility of a settlement in the case. If there's some interest expressed, we'll try to facilitate that. It would probably be better served to refer you to the Investigations Manual, in terms of our policy on settlements and how we approve settlements that we receive, for us to approve. The criteria for approving those are all in the Manual. We follow the Manual very closely, when we're approving settlements, that were negotiated by the parties and then submitted to OSHA.

The settlement agreements that OSHA does, come on standard language, which is also in the Manual. So many of our Investigators are able to settle cases with a very minimum or supervision, by either myself or Dave. We'll just look at the final settlement before it's executed. They'll use the language of the agreement in the Manual.

MS. SPIELER: I did read the Manual. I can't say I memorized it. I don't remember anything in it that specifically addressed whether the Investigator should put, kind of on the table, punitive damages versus compensatory damages, and how that would play off against reinstatement. It does set out what the possible areas are and what the unacceptable provisions might be, but it does --

As I recollect, the average award, and I can't remember whether it's with or without reinstatement, was in the $6,000 range settlement,which even if it's some number of months in, even for an hourly worker, unless they're a part-time minimum wage worker, sounds pretty low. So, again, I'm still trying to understand it. Because I think, ultimately, as the Committee considers, "What do we think about 11(c)?" The question of whether there's inadequate back pressure, and therefore low settlement, and therefore --

This is not a criticism of what Investigators do. It's just trying to understand how that happens on the ground. It's been many years, but I was involved in these kinds of settlements. I know the eagerness sometimes, with which, given a large caseload, if the two parties are willing to consider a settlement, that will be done without thinking about the larger policy implications of repeated small settlements. I think it would interesting to know, at some point, how Investigators function within the range of damages that are available under the Statute. I think Jason wants to get a word in.

JASON ZUCKERMAN
SENIOR LEGAL ADVISOR TO SPECIAL COUNSEL

Hi. This is Jason Zuckerman. Just on the issue on what is at stake for an employer here? I think, in order to really look into that issue, it's worth it for the Department of Labor to speak with other agencies, who may be able to do more than OSHA. I think a good example is the NRC. I was involved, when I was in private practice, in a few ERA claims. Where if the Department of Labor were to conclude that there was a violation of the ERA, the NRC would also take action against that employer for the violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the ERA.

The anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is arguably a Securities Law.  So if there has been a violation, then the SEC would be able to take action against that employer. I think it would be worth it for OSHA to speak with those other agencies and look at what they might be able to do, which would really give employers a much bigger stake in the outcome, and might have more of an impact long-term.

MR. BASKIN: If I could address what Ms. Lessin was talking about? Hopefully, I would say something helpful. You are correct. Comparatively, few 11(c) cases have been filed, at least in our region; I suppose nationwide, in the recent past. We have filed -- let me think now -- I would say four, in the last 15 months; and two have already been resolved by consent judgments. If my recollection is accurate, at least one of them had punitive damages and emotional distress damages.

I want to talk about emotional distress damages, for just a moment, if I could.  Some of you might remember the Supreme Court's decision in the Burlington Northern White case. The court said, "You can give someone back wages. It doesn't necessarily make them really whole." Because there's this whole shock value of being fired. We're not talking about somebody getting post traumatic stress or becoming clinically depressed. We're just talking about the effect of not being able to pay your bills. Just not having a job, and emotional distress damages cover that. So we've been getting that, at least recently, for victims, in addition to their back wages.

Now, of course, a victim does have the obligation to mitigate their losses by trying to get another job. So frequently, the back wages due will seem comparatively low, but it's really a function of the fact of the mitigation. That's just the way it works out. It is important to keep in mind that the statute, of course, calls for all appropriate relief. So you can get the compensatory damages -- emotional distress damages being a subset there -- and the punitive damages.

With respect to the EEOC and the NRC? Some of our statutes actually cover those sorts of industries, if you will. There is the Energy Reorganization Act. There is Sarbanes-Oxley. 11(c) really doesn't have -- at least, if I can pull it off the top of my head -- a counterpart agency, other thanOSHA. You know, we're talking here about small medical offices, small welding companies. At least in my experience, comparatively small companies.   There are about five different economies in this country. There's the Fortune 100. There's the middle. There's the slightly below the middle. Then there are these comparatively small companies, and that, at least, is where I've seen the 11(c) cases come from. Comparatively small employers and nonunionized employees.

MR. MABEE: If I can see if I can address your question, a little bit more fully. 11(c) is 61 percent of the cases we get, at least as of last FY. A lot of the settlements we do is before OSHA has really made a determination on the merits. I think that's an important consideration for the Committee, in that, if the parties express a desire to settle the case and the complainant wants $6,000 and we get the complainant $6,000, and we haven't made a determination on the merits yet, I think that there's a certain risk, if we don't allow the parties to settle that case, with their desired settlement. Then perhaps we complete the investigation and conclude that there's no merit to the case. I'm not sure that that would be a better outcome.

Now, what I can tell you, in the cases where OSHA believes there's merit, either in the newer statutes; we've issued a due process letter. Or in 11(c), for example, we're at the point where we've referred it to the Solicitor's Office for litigation. Those cases, we are looking for a make whole remedy. Settlement negotiations are settlement negotiations, so you might not always end up with that exact amount.When we believe there's merit to a case, we are trying to settle the case for a make whole remedy, plus any other appropriate damages. As David mentioned, emotional distress is a real damage. Punitive damages are real damages; and we have gotten those in settlements, in the past. I don't know if that's helpful or not.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. That is very helpful. Thank you. Go ahead.

MS. SLAVET: I don't know if this helpful to you, Nancy, at all. But it does hit me, from my experience, at least, that when there is a statutory provision, that spells out compensatory or punitive damages with a cap, you tend to have individuals, regardless of the merit, one way or the other. At least realize that there is a cap and go there. I don't know the validity. I'm just offering this. That the 11(c), of course, doesn't specify the money at all. It uses legalese.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. Richard?

MR. MOBERLY: Richard Moberly, again. I'd like to just switch gears and talk to you, Mike, about your role, as a Supervisor of Investigators?

MR. MABEE: Sure.

MR. MOBERLY: How many Investigators report to you, and how do you evaluate them?

MR. MABEE: Okay. I presently have five Investigators that report to me. We just recently added a second Supervisory Investigator in my region. We have 10 Investigators. They're now split between two Supervisors. I've, in the past, supervised up to, I believe it was 12 or 13 Investigators, in my previous region. In terms of how we evaluate Investigators, this is all available information through the OASAM, which is the Personnel Department for the Department of Labor. But Investigators have standards, that they're supposed to meet during the course of the year, and they're evaluated against those standards. The standards for an Investigator contain some of the duties that Investigators are supposed to do, such as performing investigations, settlement negotiations, report-writing, those types of things. So the Investigators are evaluated on those standards. Is that what you're asking?

MR. MOBERLY: Is it a qualitative measure? You look at the reports they write, and evaluate them? Or they're supposed to conduct so many investigations? It's more quantitative measurements, I guess.

MR. MABEE: I try to look at both. I look at quality. To me, it's much more important to have a quality investigation than to have a lot of not-quality investigations. As a Supervisor, somebody is going to fare better by turning in quality work with me, then by turning in a high volume of not-so-quality work. I'd say that I probably look at both. I want my Investigators to be productive, but I want them to be turning in high-quality work. In a perfect world, if I could do it, I would have them turn in a lot of high-quality work in great volume. That's what I certainly would like. For the most part, we have a very great group of Investigators, who work very hard; some faster then others. I would say, if you're asking me quality versus quantity, both. But quality, before quantity.

MR. MOBERLY: Sure.

MS. SPIELER: Marcia?

MS. NARINE: Marcia Narine. I also have a question about measurements, but it goes to training. Maybe this is not an issue in your region anymore. Maybe this is an issue that has been resolved, since some of the GAO Reports. But there was a question as to the quality and the quantity of the training. It looks like it was in a few areas. There was either the question of Supervisors not thinking that people needed certain training; training that was mandatory, and people weren't getting it.

I remember, when I was in the private sector, we would, I guess, ding people on their reviews, if they didn't get training. And in fact, Supervisors weren't able to get certain bonuses, if their people didn't go to mandatory training. So in terms of that issue, especially as there are now 22 Statutes, some have a motivating factor; some have a contributory factor. They have a number of different kinds of areas. I'm particularly concerned if there are not the proper incentives, or the proper detriments, when the training isn't done. That may have improved already, since the GAO Report, in your region. I'd like you to comment on that, if you could.

MR. MABEE: Sure. The GAO Report, I believe you're referring to, is the 2009 Report.

MS. NARINE: I think there was also a 2010. I read a few.

MR. MABEE: Well, what I could tell you, I am actually one of the trainers. So if you ask me, "How's the training?" It is great. The trainers are phenomenal.

MS. NARINE: Just if the people would go. If they would just go. Right?

MR. MABEE: Yeah.

MS. NARINE: If they'd go.

MR. MABEE: There have been significant improvements, in recent years. We've revamped. We have two mandatory training courses. That's important. They're mandatory. Every Investigator has to go through these courses now. It wasn't necessarily that way in the past, and I think before the GAO Report. Perhaps there were Investigators that hadn't been through the training. Now, the training courses that we have are mandatory.

MS. NARINE: What I'm talking about is -- at least what I saw the GAO Report was saying it was mandatory training. That people were not going to.

MR. MABEE: Right. Yeah. That is no longer the case. All of our Investigators have been through the basic training course, and I believe the vast majority have been through the Federal Statutes course. We have a course that deals primarily with just, in general, discrimination investigations and 11(c). And then we have a course that deals with many of the other statutes. They've all been through the basic Investigator training. I believe the vast majority, if not all of them, have now been through -- also the Federal Statutes, with the exception of some of the new Investigators, who are going to the next courses. Wehave been on it, as far as getting our Investigators trained, after the GAO.

MS. NARINE: And just one follow-up question, if I could?

MR. MABEE: Sure.

MS. NARINE: So when a new statute comes online, what's the time period, from the time that you're told, "You now have Statute Number 23," from the time that your people, that all of your people have all gone through training?

MR. MABEE: That varies greatly, depending on a number of factors. Number one, the statute, and what would be needed, in terms of training. We've done some training on new statutes via webinar, because it is a more resource-friendly way to attempt to do training. In the past, we had done training conferences. I think you had heard from somebody today. That was the way of training our investigative force up on new statutes.

With some of the statutes -- I'll give you an example. The Consumer Financial Protection Act. I know we have somebody from there. That statute was actually enacted in 2010, but didn't become effective for OSHA until July of 2011. So it gave us a little bit more lead-time, to try and put together a training program. Actually, I was involved in that training program, for the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Boy, it was great training. I'm telling you. We were able to get a little more -- and then some statutes take us a little more by surprise, and we have to, just as quickly as we can, try to get the best webinar together to try to train our people, until the next time we have a conference or a training event, where we can bring them up to speed. Does that help?

MS. NARINE: Yes. Thank you.

MS. SPIELER: Greg?

MR. KEATING: It's Greg Keating. Mike, I thought I wrote down, in 2012, the average Investigator has 25.8 cases, and has 286 days to complete the case? Is that right?

MR. MABEE: Yes. That is correct.

MR. KEATING: Is there a desired goal, that you'd like to get to, to push down -- I have a two-part question -- that number, 286 days? Relatedly, in the cases that are not on the 11(c) track, the cases that can go through numerous different stages, from investigation to ALJ trial, to ARB, to Circuit Court of Appeals. Is this suggesting that it's 286 days to get through the investigation? The first stage?

MR. MABEE: Right. Okay. I'll answer your second question, first. That number would be based on the OSHA investigation, and not the ALJ, ARB, Circuit Court. Those would all be kind of separate processes. What we track is what happens with the OSHA investigation.

As to the first part of your question, your question was is there a desired number of cases? That would actually require me to express an opinion, which I'm not comfortable doing. However, there was an OIG Report that discussed this issue. So if you were looking for some information on the issue of desired caseload, in September 30, 2010, the Department of Labor OIG did one Report, and then they followed up, January 20, 2012. In the 2012 Report, they did discuss the issue of caseload. They did in both of those Reports. Those are publicly-available Reports, on the OIG's website. I would encourage you to look at those Reports, in terms desirable caseloads.

MS. SLAVET: Do you recollect? Can you share that with the Committee? The numbers?

MR. MABEE: Oh, yes. I can.

MS. SLAVET: Okay. Can you do that, please?

MR. MABEE: The OIG said that, based on information from OSHA, the desired caseload is six to eight cases per Investigator. Then, they subsequently did a follow-up Report, January 30th of this year, in which they answered Congress' question of, "How many Investigators would be necessary to do that?" Based on 2011 data, they said, "You would need 146 Investigators to be able to have a caseload of six cases per Investigator." That was assuming that the caseload did not go up from 2011, which of course, we know it did. But I would encourage you to look at those OIG Reports, for some very good and detailed analysis and information on caseload.

MS. SPIELER: Eric?

MR. FRUMIN: I wanted to ask about a question that tends to get very little attention. In the reviews of 11(c), the 11(c) Program, which is the question of, at the end of the process, in cases where there's any merit at all. So there was a merit finding. There was a settlement. It wasn't dismissed or withdrawn. What measures have actually been taken to inform the workers, in that worksite, about the fact that there was an outcome favorable to a worker; and maybe even a finding, an official finding, that the employer had violated the law? And God forbid, an omission, by the employer, that they had violated the law, and will not do so, again, in the future?

That's a common outcome under other statutes, that you enforce. My impression is, and we've talked about this. You sent me some of the examples that the PAPA's case and the exclusive Decorator's case in New Jersey. A few of them, where you actually went to court, and got a consent judgment.  There were a few cases where there were actual postings, and sometimes it's the OSHA poster. But my impression is that that is much more the exception, then the rule, even in the universal cases I'm talking about, where there was a merit finding, or a settlement, or something like that.

I just wanted to get your impression, as someone familiar with the agencies. You've worked on this for a long time. Is my impression correct, that is it very uncommon? And secondly, that that differs so markedly, from the process and the outcome in the other statutes, where, again, my impression is that it's routine to have postings, in which the employer essentially admits, "I violated the law. I'm not going to do it again. Hey, everybody. This worker got some protection."

MR. MABEE: Right. I've been doing this for 14 years, and supervising since 2003. In every OSHA settlement, that I can ever recall doing, we always do have the language in there, that the employer agrees that they will not violate the Act. These are in the OSHA settlements. Third party settlements may be different. But in the OSHA settlements, we do have standard language, that's in the Whistleblower Manual, that are Investigators use, when they put these settlements together, that do say that.

Now, in terms of what we use for a posting, in most of the cases we settle, through an OSHA- negotiated settlement, there will be a posting requirement. A lot of times, as Eric had pointed out, it may just be the OSHA poster. Particularly, in cases, where OSHA has not made a determination on the merits yet, some of the things that we might do is we may require the employer to put up a poster about Whistleblower rights. We may require the employer to distribute the OSHA Whistleblower Fact Sheet. We've done that, ever since we've gotten the Fact Sheet. We've done that more and more.

In cases where OSHA has come to the conclusion of their investigation and we believe there's merit to the case, we're generally going to require the employer to do a more case-specific Notice to Employees posting. Those are also described in the Manual. So we've got a whole range of different postings that we'll do, for different cases. I don't have any numbers to give you, in terms of how often we do just a kind of generic employee rights posting versus a specific case posting. In my experience, we do, do the generic OSHA rights postings a lot more often, because most settlements, we haven't made a determination on the merits yet. Does that answer your question, Eric?

MR. FRUMIN: Yeah. Unfortunately, it does. Yeah.

MS. SPIELER: Rina?

MS. TUCKER HARRIS: Is it fair to say that when say that when you enter into -- I'm sorry. Rina Tucker Harris, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Is it fair to say, when you enter into a settlement, no one is admitting. The company is not admitting any guilt, that they committed any retaliatory action against an employee.

MR. MABEE: Right. Sometimes we will allow the company to have a non-admission clause in a settlement, especially if we have not made a determination on the merits. Later on, if we have made a determination on the merits, we may not be as willing to do that. Perhaps Dave can provide some insight from the Solicitor's end, on the cases he's settled.

MR. BASKIN: Well, when we settle cases -- and I'm focusing here on 11(c) cases, of course -- what we're really looking for -- as I've said before -- is the appropriate back wages for compensatory damages, and if we can get them, some punitive damages.

MS. SPIELER: David, I'm having trouble hearing you. Can you get closer to mic?

MR. BASKIN: I'm sorry. I apologize. In the 11(c) cases, that we've settled, at least recently, what we've been looking for is the appropriate back wages, the compensatory damages, and punitive damages. We've been requiring posting of OSHA Notices, in a place where they can be seen. We don't want people posting them behind the toilet tank. We want them out there, where they can actually be seen, and can be read by the employees. I'm trying to think of what else --

MR. MABEE: The issuance of Fact Sheets on employers we've done in the past.

MR. BASKIN: Yeah.

MR. MABEE: I'd like that one.

MR. BASKIN: Mike has this whole laundry list with him, that he can --

MR. MABEE: Yeah. One of things we have done in the past, especially when we believe there's merit to a case, is require the employer, in the settlement agreement -- they're agreeing to it. It's something we're agreeing to. They're going to issue the OSHA Whistleblower Fact Sheet to all their present employees and all future employees for a specific period. Perhaps a year, or whatever it is that we negotiate.

We do have a range of options. The goal of which is we want the workers to get the message that we're out there and that they do have a voice in the workplace, and that somebody does have their back.

MR. BASKIN: I'd emphasize that the usual 11(c) case was a standalone employer. If we were to see an employer that's a national employer, one thing that's worth considering is some sort of an enterprise-wide deal, where they would agree to do training on 11(c) for the employees and for the managers, so they understand what rights employees have. Many a time, what you'll see is a violation, that's a function of -- well, it might be a function of a retaliation, it's also a function of ignorance. If you've got an employer, as I said, a national one, you want them to ensure that they will train their employees, so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. That's a good idea, if you can get it accomplished.

MS. SPIELER: Ava, did you have?

MS. BARBOUR: Yeah. Ava Barbour, National Union UAW. A slightly different topic here. Can you talk a little bit about how Investigators handle deferral to other remedies that a complainant might be pursuing, like charges with the International Labor Relations Board; or in a Union, where's they're going to place a grievance under the Grievance and Arbitration Procedure. What the standards are, and how Investigators deal with that?

MR. MABEE: Sure. Actually, in our regulation for 11(c), 29 C.F.R. 1977, it talks about a postponement of investigations and deferral to arbitration. That's kind of our official policy. As a practical matter, we don't generally tend to postpone investigations. But we may defer to findings of another agency, such as the International Labor Relations Board. We may defer to the findings of an arbitrator, if they've covered the issues brought under the 11(c) case. And the regulation talks about, exactly how we look at that, and I believe the Manual does also. We can defer to cases.

So, for example, if a complainant filed an 11(c) complaint with OSHA and an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, and if their charge to the National Labor Relations Board resulted in them getting their job back and getting their back pay, there may be nothing further for OSHA to do, at that point, and we can defer to the NLRB. Or if the case settles in another forum, we can defer to the settlement, also. The same with the (inaudible) arbitration procedures. That's in our regulation.

MS. BARBOUR: Just a follow-up. Is there any thought to remedy? Because the remedies aren't necessarily -- even if the substantive issues are the same, the remedies aren't necessarily the same, under the NRLA or a grievance.

MS. MABEE: Right. And that's a great question. Especially with some of the newer statutes, also, which may provide for other remedies. To give you another example, OSHA will not defer, let's say for example, to an arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, where there would have been remedies available under the FRSA, that were not available to the complainant in the forum that they were in. So we will look at remedies, to find out whether that forum could provide the same remedies, that we could provide under our particular statute, before we made a decision whether to defer. Does that answer your question?

MS. BARBOUR: Yes. Thank you.

MS. SPIELER: Let me just add one thing here. I know that there's an MOU with the NLRB and that it's being thought about right now, within OSHA. I think it might be helpful if it would be possible to get the Committee, at the point at which you've collected them. If you haven't, to get any MOU's that you have with other agencies, it may be that there would be worthwhile advice that we could give. I'm not suggesting that we do that today. But I do know that they exist with other agencies, and it's come up a couple of times today. It might be useful for us to see them.

MS. SLAVET: Let me just address that and Ava's question. I'm not sure that the MOU's are going to be that helpful to you, to the extent that I think they need to be revisited, and revised, and made more active. So that's one thing.

The second thing is, Ava, you're raised a question, that I've certainly found of concern, in terms of both remedies and also adequacy of the forum, which has been a case that has been noted in the Railroad cases. That is, that the forum in which these cases were pulled out, were not adequate, in terms of due process.

With regard to arbitration, certainly one concern, that I have had, and have asked people to look at, is the issue that, frequently, you will find in arbitration determinations, that an arbitrator will put an employee back to work, as of the date the arbitrator makes the decision. There are some case law, that I am familiar with, that indicates that that is not an appropriate way to determine a remedy, because it can be that is the timing of the arbitrator's decision. Basing a remedy on that can be arbitrary and capricious. That's one thing that I've certainly been concerned about, and taking a look at.

MS. SPIELER: Nancy?

MS. LESSIN: I just wanted to pick up a couple threads. One is, for the record, the Steelworkers Union represents very small shops, very large shops and everything in between. We have 11(c) cases, that have come out of our multinational steel companies, our multinational tire companies, and I absolutely believe what you say about Region 1 and what you've seen, or Massachusetts, but we have cases, from all size employers.

Secondly, you talked about 60 percent of the FRSA cases being related to injury retaliation, for people who report injuries; and 6 percent of 11(c). I just want to say, from our experience and the research that we've done, over 90 percent of employers, our numbers, have some kind of, at least one, policy, program or practice, that is discouraging workers from reporting injuries and illnesses. I think one of the things that we have seen, as a result of that is that workers aren't reporting their injuries. They're not being retaliated against, because they're not doing the reporting, to begin with. That is a very serious problem.

The other thread I wanted to pick up. Mike, I would love to take a course from you. I think you'd be the great trainer. But I'm just thinking about CSHOs. Actually, when they take training, as far as I know, they usually go to OTI, and they have instructors, who are instructing the courses and not somebody who's trying to do double-duty, as a trainer, as a Supervisor.

Is there anything within this Whistleblower that's looking at more regular routine training? Maybe that's a job that you would want, but I not -- I don't want to go there. Again, I want to come back to that training issue and understand. Is it all that it can be right now? Can we see some improvement? I know you don't want to opine on anything, but I think some of our real understanding of this is going to come from where the rubber meets the road, which is you guys.

MS. SPIELER: Eric?

MS. MABEE: I guess there was a question in there somewhere. No. I certainly am not going to opine, but I will state the obvious. We have 22 Statutes. We could use some more training. absolutely, no doubt about that. I don't think I'm speaking out of school, by saying that. I think that we've done the best we can with the present resources we have, in terms of doing training. I think training is a great issue for the Committee to talk about, and I will leave it at that.

MS. SLAVET: Nancy, could you provide those? Your collection of information, with regard to the 90 percent, that you were talking to? And we can leave the record open, with Ed's permission, to receive that?

MS. LESSIN: The surveys that we have done.

MS. SLAVET: Do you have an aggregation that you would like to provide for the record?

MS. LESSIN: We do this regularly, but it's also in the classes that we give. One of the first questions that we ask is, "Are any of these practices here?" It's generally over 90 percent, that are telling us. We have some surveying that we've done. We've also just routinely do this, and we find that there are many, many, many workers, again, in all size employers, who are not reporting injuries and illnesses due to either -- the kinds of things that Dr. Michaels was talking about. The prize programs, or the retaliation, with punishment. We see everything from, just, again, for the record. Somebody has the beginning symptoms of carpal tunnel or a repetitive strain and they report that, and the first thing they have to do is go pee in a cup. There's automatic drug-testing for anybody who reports an injury. It's really all over the map, the kinds of things that we're seeing. But many of them are covered in the Fairfax Memo. We're very excited about that. I think one of the things that we'd like to talk about, is how really can that move forward? How do we get that out there? Because I think some of the cases that we're not seeing, we perhaps, would begin to see.

MS. SPIELER: I think I had recognized Eric before. Go ahead, Eric.

MR. FRUMIN: I want to say more about this issue after the break, but I just wanted to run by you, what appears to be a kind of conundrum, you have. In the last two years, 2011 and 2012, you had roughly 400 cases a year under 11(c), which were not withdrawn or dismissed. Out of that, roughly 20 of them had merit findings. All the rest, the other 95 percent were settled, one way or another, on your chart. It sounded like, during your previous description -- in response to my question about informing workers, employer admissions, employer postings, employer statements -- that in the cases with merit findings, there's a pretty clear definitive path, by the agency, and direction to the employer. There's going to be this information, that you're going to tell workers, specifically, about what's happened, and what you've done.

But where there's no merit finding, there's a wide range of practices. If you could just confirm that that's the case, then we can talk later about what the effect of that is, in terms of deterrents. There's very little money involved here, in deterrents under 11(c). Let's admit that. If the deterrents are going to come from other things, and yet we have this huge wide range of practices in non-merit cases that still are "meritorious," because there's a settlement going on, then there's a disconnect. I'm just trying to check with you, whether I'm picking up on the reality here or not.

MS. MABEE: Yeah. As I said before, there is a wide range of different tools that we would use in settlements to try to get the word out to workers, which can run from just the standard OSHA Rights poster, up to a specific posting on that particular case, or issuance of Fact Sheets to workers.

The majority of cases that we settle, that you're looking at on this chart, were settled before we made a determination on the merits of the case. I think it's safe to say that the majority of those would have had probably OSHA postings, such as the OSHA posters and Fact Sheets, as opposed to the more specific, "We violated the Act and we won't do it again," type of posting, that you were just talking about.

MR. FRUMIN: I was just trying to make sure that I understood that correctly.

MR. MABEE: Right. Well, I want to make sure that I answered your question.

MR. FRUMIN: That's fine.

MS. SPIELER: Richard, did you have your hand up?

MR. MOBERLY: Yeah. Richard Moberly. I think I need to apologize to the rest of the Committee, if I'm the only one that needs this. But I need OSHA Organizational Structure 101.

MR. MABEE: I apologize.

MR. MOBERLY: No, no. Because I know in the top to bottom report, the conclusion was that OSHA was going to keep the regional structure. Now I know that Beth's Office has been removed and is now reporting directly to the Assistant Secretary. I just wondered, who do you report to, and who do the Regional Investigators report to? Because we've heard complaints about different regions enforcing in different ways. If you could help me figure that out, I'd appreciate it.

MR. MABEE: Or, if you figure it out, let me know. No. I report to the Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 1. Beth might be able to talk more, in terms of the National structure and elsewhere. The Regional Investigators report to the Regional Administrator or their designee, in the individual regions.

MR. MOBERLY: So Beth's National Office actually doesn't -- it doesn't have authority over the Regional Investigators? Where's the authority behind there?

MR. MABEE: Hard questions go the Beth.

MS. SLAVET: To make it short, the answer is yes.

MS. SPIELER: Yes, they do not.

MS. SLAVET: Beth's Office does not have authority. Correct.

MS. SPIELER: I was the President Obama person on the Transition Team for the Department of Labor, that got assigned to OSHA. I thought I knew Health and Safety Law, and I got into this morass of organizational structure. Both in terms of how the Solicitor's Office functions separately from the agency functioning, and has different reporting; and how the Regional Office -- the Regions function versus Central. It is pretty complex. I think it can be said that policy issues may be determined centrally, therefore, through the Directorate. But Supervisory functions run through the Region. Okay. That's a very different kind of way of thinking about it. That Supervisory functions actually run up separately, for the Solicitor's Office and for the agency. Although I think, in the current, starting with Patricia Smith's administration, as Solicitor of Labor, as David has talked about, there's been a much closer -- there has attempted to be a much closer relationship, in both enforcement actions and at the policy level between what is generally referred to as SOL and the agencies. And that's true, not only for OSHA, but in all the other agencies. But it is a very complex question.

I actually do, before we break, I would like to know how much you have a sense that Region 1 is typical of what's going on, or atypical, and how much there's a range of what's going on in the Regions. I say this, knowing that Region 1 is actually a terrific region, in my opinion. Of course, that's it's region I live in. Right. I think you have an aggressive Administrator. You have a terrific Regional Solicitor. You both are onboard, on this issue of really getting together early on issues. Is that going on in the other regions? Or do you not want to talk about it?

MR. MABEE: It's not that I don't want to talk about it. It would be much more appropriate for the Committee to look at the top to bottom report, which discusses the structure in detail and some of the challenges in the various regions, in much more detail.

I will say that I believe Region 1 functions exceptionally well, since I got there. Actually, I mean the critical things for me -- and this isn't an opinion. This is fact. We actually have a Regional Solicitor, very interested in Whistleblower cases. We have a Regional Administrator, very interested in Whistleblower cases; and a couple of decent Supervisors and good Investigators. That's why Region 1 is functioning very well.

In terms of the other regions, I really can't speak to that. I think the top to bottom review had quite a bit to say, about the different regional structures.

MS. SPIELER: Nancy? We are running out of time for this section. I bet there are people who need a break.

MS. LESSIN: A quick question. I seem to remember that there was one of the pilots. And I can't remember Region 2 or Region 3, where there was a direct reporting from the sort of Whistleblower Office nationally. There was a pilot like that. In the list of things that we would get, at some point, I would love to see how that worked; didn't work; what folks said about it.

MS. SLAVET: I can answer that. It was the direct reporting pilot. It was in Region 1, and it was basically determined that it was indeterminate, and didn't have a fair opportunity, and should be attempted again with either another region, or with the region, again, whatever. But it didn't have anything to do -- it was no fault of the regions, in any way.

MS. SPIELER: Okay. We had a 15-minute break on our agenda. We'll take it now, and we'll reconvene. Dr. Michaels will be rejoining us, at that point.

(15-minute break)

MS. SPIELER: We're going to reconvene now. David Raskin is -- Baskin, I'm sorry -- has to leave at ten to four. I've asked him and Mike to stick with us for a few more minutes, in case there are any final questions for him. The Committee has until five, although at least one member may need to leave a few minutes early. I understand there's a chance the Solicitor may come by. We may run out of time because we would like. I have a suggestion about how to at least think about how we might go forward. I'm certainly open to alternative suggestions.

Itseems to me there are two very different strands of conversation that we've had today. One of them deals, almost exclusively, with complaints that come to OSHA and how they are managed by OSHA. And arguably, those come in two different types: the 11(c) complaints, which relate directly to OSHA's primary or core business; and, if you will, all the others, which relate to, obviously, the same kind of on-the-ground retaliation perhaps, but have alternative remedies and other agencies involved. I would see that as 1(A) and 1(B).

The second strain that I've heard has much more to do with external activities by employers. How do we change employer behavior? I understand that the deterrents that can be obtained from aggressive and efficient processing and adjudication of complaints affects external behavior, but there are many other things that may affect it and OSHA may have a role in, including what happens, for example, to the Fairfax Memo. Therefore, I see that second strain as, "How do you change how the environment, in which people are functioning outside, separately from the processing of the complaints that come in, that may or may not be representative of all the problems out there.

Specifically, with regard to Track A, the first track that I've just enumerated, it seemed to me that it might be useful to have Mike and David still at the table, while we have a conversation about next steps for the Committee. In that regard, those next steps might be requests for additional information; the creation of a working group; whether or not we're far enough along, to shape a working group; or whether we want to put certain questions on the agenda for the next full Committee Meeting.

So first, let me ask the Committee, do you feel that the way I've just articulated the issues, is an appropriate way to proceed? Or does anyone not? That would probably be -- I should say that I see training as a component of how complaints, themselves, are handled. I'd like to observe that this whole issue of what becomes complaint-driven, and how you step back and develop a strategic idea of how you protect Whistleblowers is a similar issue, that the Wage and Hour Division has been struggling with, over in a situation, where many, many complaints come in, and turning to strategic enforcement, may mean the complaints are inadequately dealt with.

I think that same tension may exist in the conversations that we have going forward. I don't think there are easy answers to that, but it is something that we should acknowledge and keep in our minds, as we have the conversation about how to handle complaints versus how to have effective programs going forward.

So why don't we focus for the next -- well, ten minutes, if there are any questions for David. But the next half-hour, on this question of, the managing of complaints and where we want to take it. I'm not going to direct this conversation very much. I'd like people to feel that they can just put their ideas out and we'll try to synthesize them, as best we can, in order to go forward. Go ahead.

DISCUSSION RE MANAGING OF COMPLAINTS

MS. NARINE: I have another question, if no one else does. Not to beat the training horse to death, but I have a couple of just very tactical questions. Have you been able to measure the effectiveness of the training? I ask this, as a person who's had to implement training, both live and webinars, and knowing that webinars are a lot easier to push out. But, a lot of times, they're not nearly as effective. Are these webinars, where they are live and people can actually ask questions, by typing them in? Or are they just kind of computerized?

Then the second question is, do Supervisors in the Office supposed to have additional training, so that they are considered experts? Or they are experts in your offices?

MR. MABEE: Okay. I believe a three-part question here. I can give you an anecdote on what the first part of your question, about the effectiveness of the training. That would have to do with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. When that Act first came out -- what the Sarbanes-Oxley Act says is, "No company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or a company required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, will retaliate against Whistleblowers for these things."

So the first challenge OSHA had was, what in the world is a company, with a class of securities registered under Section 12, required to file under 15(d)? What does that mean? You know? What we did was we figured it out and then we realized that going through the SEC's EDGAR database, we could determine whether a company had a class of securities registered under Section 12, would be required to file reports under 15(d). We put together a webinar on that. As one of the people who actually is very involved in the SOX training, and SOX in OSHA, my phone used to ring off the hook constantly, really, really with basic questions about basic companies and whether they were covered under SOX, so that we could then proceed forward and do the investigation.

So we put together a webinar for all the Investigators in the country, and then we did subsequent iterations also, for the Solicitor's Office. After that, my phone stopped ringing. When I would get calls, would be on really, really tough cases, where we had to really kind of dig into the weeds to figure out whether it was a covered company or not. But, for the most part, the vast majority of our Investigators, in the country, now, if you give them the name of a company, can independently tell you if it's a company with a class of securities registered under Section 12, required to file reports under 15(d). So, yes. That was extremely effective, that particular webinar.

In answer to the second -- or maybe it was the third part of your question. I'm not sure. On the webinars, that we do, we do them live, and people can and do ask questions. Questions can come via email, or via voice. We do that. And then we also archive the webinars, so that Investigators, who aren't able to attend that day, for any particular reason, would be able to use that as a resource, down the road.

Another issue with having 22 different Statutes is you don't necessarily get an AIR21 case every single day. So maybe you haven't had training in AIR21 in a particular period of time. We try to have resources available, where Investigators who can get a case type, that they haven't had in a while, can refresh themselves.

In most of our statutes, we have various internal experts, around the country, that know about the statutes. People will, for example, call me on SOX complaints. If I happen to be looking into a STAA complaint, that is not my field of expertise, but I know the people I can call, who know about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations. We do, within our group of Investigators and Supervisors, have people we can call on particular statutes, which is helpful. I think there was a third part of your question.

MS. NARINE: No. I think that covers it.

MR. MABEE: Did I?

MS. NARINE: Yeah. Well, I guess I asked -- the question was how do you measure the effectiveness of the training? I don't know if you have any metrics or anything like that, that you use? Other the survey results, which you saw, might be old, about how the actual users thought the effectiveness was.

MR. MABEE: Yeah. Perhaps Beth may have more on that, but I believe, at this point, it's fairly anecdotal, on the effectiveness of the training.

DR. MICHAELS: The weeklong trainings we do, that's the standard. We impose things like that. I don't know if we've actually really gone out to see how things --

MR. MABEE: Yeah.

MS. SPIELER: I can't hear.

DR. MICHAELS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. David Michaels. In our weeklong trainings, our standard sort of evaluations, they don't necessary due the in-depth evaluation of what happens, a few months down the line, in terms of the individual. If you have thoughts on these, we welcome.

MS. SPIELER: Dave?

MR. EHERTS: With respect to Emily's part 1 and part 2, kind of argument, if we communicate and encourage employees to use the Whistleblower Protections that they have, that's going to increase the number of claims coming in.

MS. MABEE: Well, actually, if you encourage the employees to report safety violations, regulatory violations to the company and then take care of them, we'll never even know this happened. That's a perfect world for me. I do not want to even be involved, if the system is working. I prefer the employees to raise it to their employer. The issue gets addressed and we never get a complaint. The only time that we get involved is if there is an allegation of retaliation.

MR. EHERTS: Right.

MR. MABEE: You know, for engaging the Protective Act.

MR. EHERTS: But to change the behavior, which is what Emily would call Part 2, we're assuming that, when these claims come in, you're going to have to have the resources and the staffing to respond in a timely way with high quality. If you don't, then there's going to be no effect on Part 2.

MS. SPIELER: Actually, I confess, and I talked to David about this, right before. I thought there were actually three strains here.  The first one was managing complaints. The second was encouraging complaints. And the third one was changing employer behaviors in ways that would not result in complaints.

I actually didn't say number 2, because I didn't see how it could be conscionable to encourage Whistleblower complaints, unless we have an answer, to how they're going to managed effectively.

MR. EHERTS: That's my point.

MS. SPIELER: Right. But I do think that there are things that OSHA might be able to do, which we haven't gotten to, in terms of learning employers to what appropriate practices are, with regard to managing how you deal with employees, who come forward, that might be protective within workplaces, of these employees and have better results. It may be that the Labor Representatives here will argue with me on that. It's entirely possible.

When I was saying -- I was not thinking of the second strain, as more Whistleblower complaints. I was actually thinking of it as training, or in some way, encouraging employers to not retaliate.

MR. EHERTS: I like that approach better.

MS. SPIELER: I figured you would. In any event, go ahead, Eric.

MR. FRUMIN: So on the question of -- the last point, Point 2. This Eric Frumin, here. By the way, for the stenographer, that was David Eherts, who made the comment before. Just go (inaudible).

MR. FRUMIN: On the point about changing company behavior, or what David has referred to as culture, two thoughts. This is not so much a question for Mike. It's just a comment. One is, that in looking at the performance of management systems -- if

I could call it that -- where does the response to work complaints about -- then you could pick which thing you want to talk about: violations of law; health and safety hazards; violations of company policy; having to do with health and safety hazards, etcetera. Where does the response to that sit within the management system? Within that company, on things not having to do with health and safety? Is there a protection for people who complain about other employment problems, broadly read? Because something tells me, that when you scratch a company, who's going to beat up on people for reporting injuries; or beat up on people for reporting out, what they think are hazards or violations, they would probably do the same for people who are complaining about being shorted on vacation pay, or overtime pay, or whatever. Especially where you're looking at the vast swath of the economy, where workers are not in unions, low wages, completely not trained or knowledgeable about their rights under the law; very distant from any legal process, which is galloping -- you know, the proportion of that population, in that situation, is getting bigger by the minute.

To cut to the chase, we can't look at the health and safety issues in a vacuum, when it comes to management systems. I think that's not only an important issue for the Committee, as a whole, but I would encourage the Management Reps, on the Committee, to share with us, what kinds of solutions they've observed, when a company uncovers that kind of systematic problem. How it comes to the attention of the front office, we don't know. Some OSHA Inspector shows up and the Head Regional Office gets a call, "We got a problem on our hands. We got a situation here." Or all of a sudden, they've got a class action.   But, whatever. They're going to have deal with a broader array of problems.

How do you deal with that? Because if the Labor Department were better informed about the systemic approaches to fixing those broken systems, it could better inform the work that they do, both on stopping retaliation, as well as other management system breakdowns.

MS. SPIELER: Go ahead.

MR. KEATING: This is Greg Keating. I think Eric makes some very good points. I want to just harken back to something I said earlier, which is that I do work with companies of all sizes, being at the largest management side firm in the country. These companies are aware that we have a completely changed landscape right now, as a result of at least three major things going on. We have a massive increase in legislative activity, providing more protection to people who feel they've been retaliated against. We already heard, today, that in the last -- I don't know-- 10 years, there have been 10 or 12 new Statutes dumped on OSHA. There are also statutes that are being created at the State level, and at the Federal level, every day.

Dodd-Frank, we haven't even touched on, which is their (inaudible), which creates a bounty for the whistleblower. Employers are not immune or ignorant to the fact that there's a raft of new legislative rights and remedies. Similarly, there's been a significant change in judicial rights and remedies, from the Supreme Court down to the ARB. There have been a significant tilting of the landscape, for writing broader protections, for (inaudible).

And third, there has been, as we've heard today, both at the Department of Labor, and at the SEC, and other government agencies, they've stepped up government enforcement. They're more funded. They're more mobilized. They're more aware of this. This is not going on deaf ears with the employers. That's all a prelude to, "So what are they doing about it?" Well, I can tell you, and I think it's salutatory. It would be wonderful, if part of this Commission, our goal is to try to further these efforts.

Maybe a working group. A working group would be a great idea. I know of a number of cutting edge vendors, who are out there now, just stressing all kinds of new ways in which employers can adopt new integrated complaint procedures, that are completely different from before, vesting much more power and discretion in a Compliance Officer, and really having a much better response mechanism in place. So that when an issue is percolated -- and Eric, to your point, it may not be a safety issue. It might be a wage an hour issue. It might be a discrimination issue. It might be a financial fraud issue. When that is raised, they're in a much better position to track it, to track the Whistleblower and make sure that adverse action isn't taken against him or her, etcetera, etcetera.

My point is there's a much higher consciousness among the employer community then I think people at this table may realize. But this is a very serious issue, and they need to start thinking about -- in addition to training. Training is taking off. Online training, live training, manager training, Board training. It's all happening. Companies that are aware of the importance of this issue are doing it more, and others may need to do it more.

MR. EHERTS. Good. I'm sorry. This is Dave Eherts. Back to both of those points, Eric's and Greg's. I think the strategy is working, because what good companies put in place is kind of raise our hand policies, where employees have one place to go, to make any kind of a complaint, whether it's safety, quality, financial. Then, to make that work, the companies want the employee to come to the company first, before they go to the agencies. They put in place such things as non-retaliation policies and handbooks. So the employees are very well aware that they're very safe in bringing these things forward. If the strategy of the regulators was to put these things in place, to have this happen, it does. It succumbs.

MS. SPIELER: Richard.

MR. MOBERLY: This is Richard Moberly. I just have a question on that policy. Is that promise enforceable, do you think, in there? Or is there like at at-will disclaimer, in that handbook?

MR. EHERTS: I don't think anything is. I don't think the company sees this as discretionary. The company feels that this is the policy, and this is how they're going to enforce it. I expect that a supervisor who retaliates is in a lot more trouble than the employee who raised their hand.

MR. MOBERLY: I think that would be great, because the experience of the people who've done surveys of employees, is that as much as the companies have high levels, these whistleblower hotlines, is that employees just don't use them. We may be able to educate employees to use those better. But they go their supervisors. So part of all of this has to be some -- there may be all the great intentions in the world, of the people in the C Suite and the managers, but if that doesn't get brought down to the supervisor level, I worry that retaliation is just going to still happen. Right? Because that's who the people are reporting to. So I hope you can do some of that training and have some of those policies, that would be great.

MR. MABEE: Fair enough.

MS. NARINE: I think it's kind of a circular problem you have here. First of all, I keep going back to the -- this is Marcia Narine -- going back to the comments that were just made. I don't think, and maybe it's anecdotal. Maybe your experience is different. Maybe there are a lot of employers that don't know that you can't retaliate against employees. I think most employers, large and small, know you can't retaliate against employees. I don't think there's a huge amount of ignorance out there. They might not know it's an 11(c) issue or something like that, but they know it's not right.

The problem, that I think you may have, and it may be a little counterintuitive, but if people know that employees are almost always going to lose, some employers are going to do a cost benefit analysis and say, "What's the harm?" So if you really want this -- I'm a Management Representative -- okay? -- but I'm also a person that ran a hotline in 15 countries, and have spoken to Whistleblowers all over the world, and I've spoken to them for hours, and days at a time; and I've spoken to managers as well. So I feel like I have some perspective. If a manager knows, at some point, "What's the risk that something's going to happen?" And if the Whistleblower knows, "I don't care what this policy says. Somewhere down the line, somebody might come and get me." Everybody's doing a cost benefit analysis.

Part of the reason I was hemming and hawing so much about the training, is that I'm trying to figure out, "Can all these Whistleblowers have non- meritorious cases? Or is it that the -- with all due respect to the Investigators -- is it that maybe the training isn't getting at the right issues? Or there may be skills issues?" I remember training our HR people on how to -- they might have known the law, but in terms of how to interview certain people and how to get certain kinds of information, it was a whole different skill set. When we did the training, we got a lot more complaints, but I was fine with that.We did more training, we got more complaints. Eventually, it leveled off.

Part of what I'm wondering -- and this is kind of a -- it's a comment -- is, when were looking at changing how management and culture, management knows what's wrong. But at some point, management has to know what the real consequence is. So if I know that 2 percent of SOX Whistleblowers are ever going to be reinstated or something like that, I know what the law is. I just don't know if there's that big of a penalty. I'm talking for the good companies, that are represented here. I'm talking about the bad companies, that are going to sit there and think about it. Because at some point, I think all companies operate on some level of incentive. What is the incentive for the company to do better? And what's the incentive for the good company to get better, but more importantly, what's the incentive for the other companies to focus not on tone of the talk, because everybody does that. But tone at the middle, and tone at the bottom. You're exactly right. Everybody's focuses on what the supervisor does. What is the line manager doing? Not what is the CEO doing, or what's in the Code of Conduct. So that's where we have to, in terms of changing corporate behavior, I'd like this Committee to kind of focus on that. You have to have some kind of penalties. People need to see something happening for companies, the bad companies to take it seriously.

MS. SPIELER: Oh, I'm sorry, Ashley. I know you've been waiting go get in for a while. Why don't you go ahead.

MS. TUCKER HARRIS: In terms of that, when you're looking, I know that most of your manners are probably subtle. In terms of when you're looking at sort of trying to alter management's culture, in some cases, you may want to consider that there are certain terms of your settlement, you're not going to negotiate. So that means that when they're dealing with OSHA, in resolving these issues, they set a certain term, that, "This is our standard settlement agreement. We're willing to negotiate this. These standards are in all of our agreements, and we're not taking them off the table." That's something maybe OSHA should consider, as it further develops its program.

MR. MABEE: Right. Just in answer to that, in our Manual, we do have a standard settlement agreement, with standard language. So I think the question would be, "Is there better language, we should be using?" Our Investigators cannot deviate from this language without going through their approval process, of going to the Supervisor and to the Solicitor in the National Office. So we do have those standards in place, but certainly, the Committee should take a look at our Manual, at the adequacy of those.

If I could just respond, briefly, to what you were talking about with training. I'm an army guy, so you never have enough training. I think we have done the best we can with the resources we have, at this point, on training. If additional resources come for training -- we could always use more training. But in terms of whether Investigators are adequately trained, and if that's a reason for a particular merit rate -- you know, there is a population. These are largely circumstantial cases. Very rarely, in my 14 years, in investigating and supervising these cases, have I had a smoking gun piece of evidence that retaliation occurred. Honestly, probably less than five times in 14 years; probably substantially less. I can think of two, off the top of my head, where I actually had a smoking gun or an admission.

There are a large population of cases, where in our gut, we may think there's something to it, but we can't prove it. You know, it's a circumstantial case. There were two people in the office having this conversation. We have two totally different versions of this conversation. We have no corroborating witnesses. We have no email. And these can be extremely tough cases to do. There's probably not much in terms of training, that would change that dynamic, in some of those cases.

I think training can do a lot of things for us. It can make us more efficient. We can be better at understanding the statutes; have to do less research on every particular case we have, to figure out the protected activity. There's no downside to training.

MS. TUCKER HARRIS: And that's not a cure-all for anything. I'm just trying to kind of figure out -- you know?

MR. MABEE: Right. Yeah. But there's a lot

22 of dynamics to these Whistleblower cases. But being largely circumstantial cases, and looking at the difference in the burdens of proof and some of the statute types. There clearly are some challenges to Whistleblower cases.

MS. TUCKER HARRIS: Right.

MS. SPIELER: It is true, across the board, in the agencies, that the degree of believing that there's even a prime facie case, or reasonable cause, or whatever is actually surprisingly low. I mean, we could have a separate conversation about that. If you count the settlements, as part of the positive, which we could also debate, I'm sure. It actually pretty -- it's not atypical for agencies, in terms of their processing of complaints, in terms of viewing cases as meritorious. It's actually a little hard to figure that piece out. Eric?

MR. FRUMIN: Two things. One, just to respond to some -- Eric Frumin -- comments from Keating and Eherts. So if, indeed, in the twenty-first century, and in the 2000-teens, there is a broader and increasing understanding by employers, that any retaliation policies and practices, and management systems, must be part of their standard practice, you wouldn't know it from the way the government behaves in its dealings with them. We don't see this as a standard feature in the vast majority of retaliation case settlements, where, at most, you see a poster, which is unique to that one individual, but doesn't piggyback on top of what has just been described as the twenty-first century management system for dealing with retaliation. It's unique to that individual. We have a couple of enterprise-wide agreements, with postings out there, but not many.

You would never know it, in looking at the resolution of the compliance cases, where there is next to never, any effort made, either with individual citation cases and all the settlements that come from those, or broader settlements, to inform workers that, "I, the employer, violated this law -- at least I'm signing this agreement, saying there was a citation -- and workers have a right to complain. And here's our internal complaint process, and here's the person you could call, if you know about any violations of these standards, going forward. Never mind. Here's the number for the local OSHA Office -- never mind the 800- number -- right here, in River City, who you could call."<

So we have this huge disconnect between patterns of agency practice, developed over a long period of time, for whatever reason -- we're here to change that -- and this new evolving management practice. I think one of our challenges here, as a multi-stakeholder group, is to try to kind of resolve - - not resolve, but link some of these practices, in a way that's accessible to the agency, given its limited resources; its invariable silo thinking; its disconnect from the real -- any problems all of us having, getting out of own organizational practices. But at least try to make it easier for them to look ahead and say, "Okay." In the way, that they are doing in other areas, with enterprise-wide enforcement; communications; social apps; or whatever they're doing.

"Here's how to connect with what we're doing. We, the agency, with the real world." We're here to try to give them advice. I think we can really help move them along, in those directions, by increasing their own expectations for how they interact with employers, who supposedly have these systems in place, or are rushing to adopt them.

MS. SPIELER: I'm going to sort of move the focal point away from Mike and toward sort of a resolution of how the Committee wants to move ahead. It seems, in part, underlying this conversation, is this sense that the employers, who are the subjects of these complaints don't look like the employers that Greg may be describing. I'm sure all of us, who have been in this world for a long time, know that there's often a disconnect between the people who come forward and complain, or the people that some of the unions may be dealing with, and the employers that Littler or ORC deals with, in terms of their sort of desire to develop best practices and adhere to them.

It has always seemed to me, and it's always seemed to me, in relation to this Committee, that one of the challenges has always been, for any regulatory agency, to link the truth of both of those narratives together in a way that changes the behavior of the employers living with the problem. There are some things that have been done, but in large part, these still remain hugely problematic. I think one of the great things, frankly, about this Committee, is that I'm assuming that we will believe each others' narratives. I've been in a lot of meetings, where people simply don't believe each other, so the possibility of coming up with some creative solutions to this approach is zero.

I do think though, that it's about five after four now. I would like us come out of today with some idea of our next steps. What information we would like, if possible, from the agency; when it can be compiled; what working groups, we think we could put together at this point, that might address some of the questions that I think there's a lot of interest and energy around the table; any advice for the Assistant Secretary, as to if he's willing to appoint those working groups; how they might function. So I'd like to move to that sort of next steps conversation. There's going to be an endless amount that we're still going to want to learn, I'm quite sure, and we will continue to do that, as we go forward. Nancy?

MS. LESSIN: Nancy Lessin, Steelworkers. I think, in terms of information, I still would love to see the final evaluation of the pilots. Did we learn anything there? In the terms of the regional structures; and what's working and what isn't? What could be best practices? What have we learned from that? It seems like that would be useful. In terms of working groups --

MS. SPIELER: Maybe we should start with requests for information. Go around the room and then move to working groups. Is that all right with you, Nancy?

MS. LESSIN: Yeah.

DR. MICHAELS: Without overwhelming us with data requests.

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. No. You're absolutely right. Richard?

MR. MOBERLY: Richard Moberly --

MS. SPIELER: How about we'll take them under advisors to do what they can?

MR. MOBERLY: I'm interested, in large part, because I think employees report, or don't report, in part, because of a fear of retaliation. But in large part, the studies show because they fear that nothing will be done with what they report, on the substantive side. I think one of the difficult things here is that OSHA is tasked with only one aspect of that Report, which is the retaliation side, as opposed to the substantive violation side, or everything outside of the OSHA, the safety and health.

I understand, from previous discussion, that there are some Memos of Understanding, with various agencies, on how they might deal with those underlying substantive violations. So I'd be interested in those and what they entail.

MS. SPIELER: With the understanding, I think, that Beth as already indicated that the Directorate is going to be undertaking a review of those MOU's, anyway. So it would be a, very much, "take it for what it's worth." It's a historical view, not a future view. Of course, if members of the Committee had specific sort of suggestions, I'm sure that Beth would consider them, but it's a negotiation, obviously. Marcia, were you about to say something?

MS. NARINE: No. I was just thinking of an example. So, for example, if SOX is the third-highest number of the complaints you get, and there is criminal penalties for a SOX retaliation, for example, I wonder if there was any kind of a connection, in terms of any agencies that ever worked together in dealing with those kinds of cases. There might be none. But it would just be interesting know, in terms of on the civil side, and on the criminal side, how the agencies worked together, as it relates to information, that you may learn in a SOX retaliation complaint. Does that make sense?

MR. MOBERLY: Yes.

MS. SPIELER: Eric.

MR. FRUMIN: I think it would be helpful to get more information about the patterns and the settlements, at least within the range of variation, that go on. Neither the 11(c) process -- under the OSHA Act, I'm talking about -- neither the 11(c) process, nor for that matter, the Review Commission, for the enforcement side, are participating in Pacer (ph). It's hard to get your hands on these documents; and, in fact, sometimes you get a, "Sorry." You can't even get it FOIA. I've had to work my way through that mistake, sometimes, as well, even with the 11(c) cases, which is understandable.

I'm just saying that you default it with 11(c), which is why we can't give you settlements. We really could use -- because the settlement cases are such a vast number of those, that have any merit to them at all, but we're really in the dark about it. It would probably be helpful to the agency as well, to have a better handle on what those patterns are, given what the range of variation within them, whatever they are. They all are going to have something in them, but what's the range of variation?

MS. SPIELER: I know you're developing performance metrics. I want to make sure that the Committee doesn't somehow work across purposes. I don't know the extent to which the performance metrics, and how you're working with them would be available to us. I'll leave that to you. But I do want to make sure that you aren't developing performance metrics that the Committee is going to were are the wrong ones. You know? To the extent, that that's possible to have in a dialogue, it would probably be useful. Nancy?

MS. LESSIN: Along those lines, I would love to see, maybe the thinking about performance metrics, but I'd also like to see data. I think that was Eric's first thing. However, we heard the story about Eric saying something about data. That, again, I think identifying where things are working and why; and where things may not be working; and what's going wrong. That means looking at different data metrics, but broken out by region, in a way that maybe some best practices could be seen. Again, I would put the caution of, you can do this right or you can hide it under the rug. I want to see real kinds of meaningful data. But I think that would be useful.

MS. SPIELER: In the agency's defense, I think they would too. As I understand it, there's a lot of work being done on that. The rate at which it will be accomplished is, unfortunately, neither in Beth's, nor David's hands, but involves a lot of other people. I have also expressed an interest in having more extensive data, region-based. I think that if it doesn't come forward quickly, it's not because it's not being shared with the Committee.

DR. MICHAELS: This is David Michaels. Let me add. There are some real challenges. We've really been thinking about improving, first, the data that we do collect. Now, we clearly have to do a better job. But the underlying questions are very difficult to answer. There is no correct merit rate. We have to think about innovative ways to measure the quality of our work. So we're thinking about that. That, in the long run, would be something that would be very useful, to have some discussion about.

MS. SPIELER: Terrific. Okay. Why don't we make a note, that we may want to put that kind of discussion on the future agenda? Okay. Moving on. Working groups. Nancy, I'm going to turn back to you, since I cut you off.

WORKING GROUPS DISCUSSION

MS. LESSIN: So I had a couple of thoughts. I can think of about 100 working groups, I'd like to see. I think, definitely, the issue of Rail. A working group, that since there's nobody on the Committee from Rail, and Rail is such an important price of the puzzle here. A working group, that maybe is focusing on the issues that are happening in Rail. What's working and what isn't; and best practices; and what else needs to be done? So that was one group.

Iwould love to see, personally, in addition to that, a group that's looking at proceeding on the larger issue of workers being retaliated against when they report injuries, either by not getting prizes or being punished, and beyond the Fairfax Memo. How to really that issue forward. Because it is so prevalent in every workplace, where I talk to workers. Inside and outside the Steelworkers Union, it is a huge issue. I think that there are some real challenges beyond the Memo, of how to really move forward with that. That could be a group.

MS. SLAVET: This is Beth. Nancy, if you were going to give that group, working group, a name, how would you characterize it?

MS. LESSIN: Employer Incentive and Disincentive Programs, that are discouraging. They're reporting systems, injuries, illnesses. Yeah. I'll come up with it.

MS. NARINE: I would think managers would call it a Safety Bonus Group. Do you know what I mean? Because I think the management side people would think of it as a safety bonus.

MS. LESSIN: Except there's also --

MS. NARINE: I know. But it's a punishment.

MS. LESSIN: Yes. Yes.

MS. NARINE: I'm just saying, from the way they look, they would call it a Safety Bonus, in the workplace, because that would be --

MS. SPIELER: What?

MS. NARINE: A Safety Incentive, or a Safety Bonus. So if you want it shorthand.

MS. SPIELER: Actually, just because I suspect the three of us will end up in some conversations about these working groups, to what extent, Nancy, are you focusing these thoughts on how do we change employer behaviors outside of -- I'm still stuck in my paradigm. Outside of the complaint, how do we reach employers on these issues, and if not that, exactly what are you thinking about?

MS. LESSIN: I think there are many levels to this. One is how can OSHA best pursue cases, in this arena? We heard about one in Michigan, that has just moved forward. In our experience, we're seeing some very problematic things happening. Again, the law of unintended consequences. We have long talked about the issue of when somebody reports an injury, they get disciplined for inattentiveness, or not paying attention, or whatever. We know it's really because they reported the injury, and that is something in the Fairfax Memo, that is laid out. This use of violation of safety rule, when it's a pretext.

So now, since the Memo, some of the practices that we're seeing is, when somebody reports an injury, a whole group of workers in the area are getting disciplined for not doing that rule. Are you following me here? So that then, the employer says, "Well, obviously, it's not a pretext. We are just enforcing this rule, that nobody knew about." Now it's a whole group of people. Then OSHA will, perhaps, look at this and say, "Well, since the whole group got disciplined here, this doesn't fall within it. We know that if the person didn't report the injury, nobody would have gotten disciplined."

There's a lot that's going on out there. This is a huge issue. In my experience, and I've been tracking this for 34 years, it is not getting better. We're actually seeing some less prize programs. You know, the lottery for the truck. We're seeing a lot more discipline kinds of things. I think the issue is thinking through how OSHA can best implement this Memo. Is there anything else? But also talking about how to stop employers from doing this.

Are the sanctions that OSHA comes up with enough to get employers, who are doing this, to not do this? If that isn't the case, what else maybe needs to happen? Should there be an absolute prohibition on these kinds of programs, rather than just waiting for a Whistleblower case?

MS. SPIELER: Richard?

MR. MOBERLY: Richard Moberly. I'd like to see a working group on something roughly called outreach. It has two aspects to it. The first is what we've talked about, with providing, to employers, who are interested, in good faith, and having a state-of- the-art best practices systems. What can we, as an expert group, provide? Or what can OSHA provide, as an expert group? Things that the great companies are doing, to encourage and protect Whistleblowers.

Then the second part of that outreach would be to employers, themselves. What could OSHA do to inform employees of their rights, that they aren't doing already? Maybe they're doing everything, now already, that they can do. I think some employees may benefit from knowing a little bit more about what their rights may be, and perhaps what the dangers are, given the statistics. Just some more education and outreach to that group as well.

MS. SPIELER: Dave, you were just, a thumbs up, there? Eric?

MR. FRUMIN: I agree with the recommendation fir the Rail working group, and I would ask whether it's possible to extend that to Transit Rail. Because, even though, if I understand correctly, they're not covered by the FRSA, State Plans will cover them. So we have major transit rail systems: New York, City Metro -- You know, the MTA, which they don't have the benefit of FRSA coverage, but New York State PESH, has the obligation to protect them.

MS. SPIELER: Actually, it turns out OSHA may have some coverage.

MR. FRUMIN: Okay.

MS. SPIELER: I'm going to let Mike say --

MR. FRUMIN: Then we don't need any of it. Well, let's add Transit Rail.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. Let's say Transit.

MR. FRUMIN: Transit Rail. So that's one. Then on Moberly's suggestion about outreach, to employers, which, if I understood you correctly, said something about identifying best practices. Or identifying ways that employers can do right. Do the right thing. I think it's important to identify models for good management systems, to prevent retaliation.

OSHA is very familiar with boilerplate descriptions of safety and health management systems, whether it's its own guidelines, the NZT 10 Standard, and so forth. But there's very little discussion, in them, about managing a complaint process, a reporting process; and more important, preventing retaliation. I was just looking at the NZT 10, you know, 2010. Nothing in there about it, and yet there's all this discussion about incident investigation. All the ways the workers can run afoul, you know, of the powers that be, and trigger latent inclinations to retaliate. So I think we need to expand -- we need to help, we. We need to help OSHA expand it's view of management systems, to focus specifically on managing the threat of retaliation within a corporate management system.

MS. SPIELER: That sounds like a -- it's very similar to some of the ideas that have been put out, with regard to figuring out what's going on out there? How are these systems being managed? Are they working? There may be some very concrete recommendations this Committee could make to OSHA, with regard to both the management system questions, and also other guidance that could be put out.

Certainly, of a very long time, under sexual harassment policies, there have been alternative mechanisms for dealing with complaints. They don't always work. Nothing always works. It seems to me we ought to be able to bring it together, a working group,that really takes a look at some of that; brings it back to the Committee, and then we can talk about recommendations.

By the way, as I understand it, there was a little bit of a side conversation here, and I think I mentioned, this morning, that it is possible for the Assistant Secretary to put on working groups, non-members of the Federal Advisory Committee. Certainly, for a Rail group, we would extend that and bring some people in from the industry, to be part of the working group. That would be up to this Assistant Secretary, when he puts together the working groups. It is not a barrier. It will also, I think, if we go ahead with that working group, correct. I think a missing piece on this Committee. It might make a lot of sense.

MR. KEATING: It's Greg Keating. And just to that point, I think also, on the...

MR. FRUMIN: What did you call your working group, again?

MR. KEATING: Outreach.

MS. SPIELER: It's not really outreach.

MR. KEATING: I just made it up.

MS. SPIELER: It doesn't matter what we call it.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. On that group, I think that there are a number of very cutting edge sort of vendors, in different spaces. Whether it be an industry group, that are nonprofit, focused on corporate ethics of compliance; or some of these actual providers, that are really becoming more robust, these days. I think hearing their input on what our best practices, and ways of stopping the problem before it happens, would be a help.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. And that could be done either through the working group, or we could ask them to come speak to the Committee, if that makes the most sense, in the working groups' view. That's very helpful. Are there other sort of 11(c)-focused, or process-focused, complaint processing-focused issues? Actually, I'm fascinated, that after this extensive discussion, really, none of the recommendations with regard to working groups have zoned in on those questions. We've asked for data, but we haven't thought that -- maybe it is premature for us to think about a working group that looks at the processing of complaints. But none of the suggestions, that have been made so far, kind of focused in on that. Yes, Christine.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Christine Dougherty, the State of Minnesota. One of the things that we didn't even really touch on, in terms of complaint numbers, is the online complaint system and what that's generated and where that's going, in terms of the whole process. Is Federal OSHA going to be ready, when that system's in place, to do the evaluation and assignment of those that come in from -- are you going to have a central hub? Are you going to have individual regions taking them? Just looking at that form, that raised a whole bunch of flags for me, in terms of just the sheer numbers. Because if you can put down anything on those forms, somebody, at least, has to work to look at it and decide, "Is this appropriate for a (inaudible)?" And then, what do we do with it?

MS. SLAVET: I would just point out that, to the extent that we have that problem, in getting oral complaints -- in some ways, having an electronic complaint may actually be of an aid. Because, obviously, taking an oral compliant is incredibly labor-intensive.

MS. DOUGHERTY: But you still have to evaluate it?

MS. SLAVET: Yes.

MS. DOUGHERTY: The oral complaints, at least, in the State of Minnesota, when it comes in, it's one of two Investigators, that look at it and make the decision. If it's an iffy one, you know, there's questions, we talk about as a group. We talk with our supervisor. But we get an answer back to because really quickly, as to whether or not we're going to take the complaint, or it needs a referral, or what the problem might be, if there is one. But when stuff comes in over the internet in a complaint, you have to have that same ability to respond, and respond quickly, and send people to the right places. Because you don't want it sitting and find out that really where they needed to be was Human Rights, and now maybe their time lapsed on that. A different agency that covers it, or even a State agency versus a Federal agency, because everything will come in. You know?

That are a lot of agencies that do take complaints via the internet. I don't know what their experience has been, in terms of complaints that are actually focused to the agency that they need to be? Because sometimes when people are surfing on the web and find somebody that actually has a Complaint Form, they'll hope that it gets to the right place. They'll fill it out and send it. Or they might send 15 complaints, all on different days, different times. Something happened to them.

Because we didn't talk about that at all today, and I don't exactly know where it would fit in our process here. Just some discussion about what's going to happen with all of those? What kind of timeline are you on? Like you said, you submitted it. I was looking at the form, and I don't know if anybody else looked at the form, but there were some things that I thought -- when something comes in, when I'm personally asking questions, I have a whole lot more than you have on that form, to the person, when they're filing a complaint.

MS. SLAVET: I think, to some extent though, in some ways what you're saying in implicating, is really, it involves our screen-out process, as opposed to a complaint, which is a whole question we haven't talked about at all. We've talked about how we process complaints, and we've been only really counting complaints, as opposed to counting screen-outs. I think, in my mind, what I'm addressing, in some ways, that by actually having an electronic form, that asks some of those questions, we, in some ways, are providing ourselves a better mechanism to ensure that our screen-out may, in fact, be -- is working, or not working. Because now, we actually take in complaints, not only on the telephone, but things that just come in, in a letter or a correspondence.

MS. DOUGHERTY: I know. I see those.

MS. SPIELER: Yes. I think I'm going to have to cut this conversation off, because I think it's probably something that's going to come up at a subsequent meeting. Certainly, given where we are in the process, it's unlikely it's going to be something we'll look at in the interim, between the meetings. With apologizes.

DR. MICHAELS: Although anybody can send us comments. It's out for public comment. If you have suggestions, we'd love to see them. Just send them to us directly, not through the Committee.

MS. SPIELER: Yeah. Jason?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Jason Zuckerman. It might be helpful, actually, to have a working group, that would look very closely at how all of the complaints are processed at OSHA, that would look at every step of that process. I might be able to offer some practical ideas for how the agency could deal with this, this huge new influx of claims. One of the things it could look at is whether the agency has had any success yet with the ADR. Where I work, at the OSC, we also have a huge, huge influx in new claims of reprisal. We've 19 been able to use ADR very, very well. So far, we've had an ADR success rate of over, I think, 60 percent. Probably higher, actually now. So it might be helpful to have a working group, that would look at those issues and offer, hopefully, some very practical ideas for OSHA, on how to deal with this huge increase in new claims.

MS. SPIELER: Eric?

MR. FRUMIN: Well, this is not a suggestion for a working group, but an issue that I just want to comment on. It looks like we're done taking suggestions. When you asked about 11(c), so I'd like to suggest something about 11(c), that I alluded to earlier, a couple of times.

MS. SPIELER: Why don't you go ahead. What I'm going to suggest, actually, because there have been a number of ideas thrown out, some of which intersect with each other. Is that I'll be in communication with Beth and David about what the Assistant Secretary and the Office here, feels might be useful at this juncture. Then we'll get back in touch with this Committee and ask for volunteers of the working groups, and ask for suggestions about outside members, for those groups, as well. Then it'll go back to Beth and David's office, to sort out and appoint those groups. If the Committee is comfortable with that, as a process, then the floor is open for any and all comments, including additional ideas about working groups. With no commitment being made that they will all be functioning in this next period.

ADDITIONAL IDEAS

MR. FRUMIN: On the 11(c) question, so I referred, in regard to this posting issue, about the linkage between 11(c) investigation and compliance investigations. I think that's really an underrated area of work for the agency. But it is, I think, increasingly the reality for an OSHA complainant, for workers who file complaints with OSHA, about the underlying hazards.

Putting aside the Mendelson clients, it's a pretty bad jungle out there. It's gotten to the point now where employers, who, as Marcia has pointed out, don't worry about the consequences, are pretty brazen and ruthless, in going after people who file complaints with OSHA or State OSHA about violations of the Act, violations of standards or hazards.

I think maybe there was a time, when you could look at these separately. But I think right now, they're just organically -- they're just joined. It's impossible, I think, now, for workers, who file complaints about underlying hazards, to realistically be protected, given the brazenness of the retaliation that's happening. I say this from bitter, personal experience, just in the last year, with some pretty big companies, who knew they were under the gun, and who have tested the patience of this case. California Labor Officials, but it could well be the case with Federal as well. The brazenness of the retaliation against complaints, filing complaints under Section 8, is getting pretty bad, and it's not limited to OSHA. Other State and Federal Statutes as well.

I'm not sure how we approach this as a Committee, or for that matter what to recommend to the agency, or to the Office of Whistleblower Protection, how to approach it. But you've got regional offices. You've got area offices, as Mike described, who are looking at these things together. My hunch is there's a better way to integrate those investigations, of looking for remedies, which can figure out how to single-out that kind of brazenness and deal with it.

MS. SPIELER: It sounds like -- this has come up, not only in regard to 11(c), but also in regard to the coordination with the external agencies that have the substantive laws in their jurisdiction. It might be an issue that we really want to spend some time on, at the next Committee meeting, I think. Because it's fairly complex, but out of it, we might be able to have some ideas about how to take it forward, with recommendations. Part of that might be the MOU's, but that might be a secondary issue within in.

I'm going to pause for a minute, because I was not watching, but we've been joined by Solicitor, Patricia Smith. I wanted to welcome you and know whether you'd like to say anything to the Committee?

PATRICIA SMITH
SOLICITOR'S OFFICE

First, I want to say thank you to Michael, for inviting me. I do want to say that this is an incredibly important Committee. I want to echo how important these issues are to the Department. I just came from a meeting with the EEOC. I don't know if you know this, but retaliation is the number one complaint, which is filed at the EEOC. They have more retaliation complaints then they have discrimination complaints. We find this issue across our agencies.

In MSHA, we just filed more retaliation reinstatement complaints, last year, then they filed, ever. I'm about to run out to a meeting, about Retaliation Remedies Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In OFCCP, we had a discussion, about last week, about what do we do about retaliation. It really is a huge issue, so it's very important work. I thank, all of you, for devoting your time and your energy to thinking about it. It's very important to workers and it's very important to Labor Management relations in this country. Anyway, thank you, and hopefully, we'll be at a future meeting.

DR. MICHAELS: Thank you so much.

MS. SPIELER: Thank you. So there were hands up and I'm trying -- Yes, Marcia?

MS. NARINE: I have a couple of more data questions, if we can open the floor back up for that. I don't know if you will have this information. I've seen lots of studies that show how many people in the workforce believe they've suffered retaliation or that kind of a thing. Does OSHA have that information, in terms of what percentage of the national workforce has filed OSHA complaints, or something like that? I don't know if that would even exist someplace.

DR. MICHAELS: I don't believe we have any data of this sort. There are some plans to include some questions about worker voice in some national surveys.

MS. NARINE: Right.

DR. MICHAELS: We don't have that yet. We certainly don't have numbers. You raised an interesting question. We'll certainly look around to that. But if other people know sources of this data, we'd be very interested in seeing it.

MS. NARINE: And the second question is, since you mentioned the EEOC -- I apologize, if this is in some of the materials. I didn't see it. I know the EEOC regionally and nationally nominates companies for awards, for good works that they've done, whether it's training programs or other kinds of things. Has OSHA done that in the past? Because I think we've talked about kind of brazen, terrible things that some companies have done, but I think there's also a lot of really great companies out there, that should also be recognized, if they've done things.

Because, by the way, the Fairfax Memo, I think would be surprising to a lot of managers. Because they think it's probably a good thing. They're obviously the managers that will say, "Now, you've messed up the bonus for everybody, and you're ostracized." On the other hand, those that think that they're raising their safety metrics, probably think it's a great thing. To show the employer community, "This is what we think is great, and here's an example of Kraft -- or whatever it is -- a great program." Is that something that OSHA has done in the past?

DR. MICHAELS: Well, certainly Kraft and Schakowsky would be the first ones.

MS. NARINE: Since he hasn't said anything, I thought I'd just (inaudible).

DR. MICHAELS: In the Whistleblower Program, we haven't done anything like that. But part of this discussion is what should we do new for the Whistleblower Program? We have recognition programs in the safety and health world.

MS. NARINE: Right. Right. Those I know about. Right.

DR. MICHAELS: But we have not done anything like this. We interested in thinking about everything. That's the point of getting this group together.

MS. SPIELER: Nancy.

MS. LESSIN: This is Nancy Lessin. There are a couple things. One is, I just want to point out what I'm seeing as a disconnect. Maybe there's a reason for this. I think, on the one hand, we're hearing about how employers are taking this more seriously now, and for certain reasons. Then we're hearing that there's more reutilization complaints than ever. Maybe it's because people don't file complaints, if they don't think anyone's going to do anything about it. Then this administration, they see this being done. Still, if things are going so well, I wouldn't expect to see this rise in complaints. I just wanted to put that out there.

I think, in terms of working groups, that at some point, it might be worth having a group looking at the regional structure and how it happens and what are some best practices? I don't think we can even think about doing that till we get the evaluation of the pilots and some more information. But at some point, looking at the regions, and where the rubber meets the road, and what's working, and what isn't, would be worth doing.

Then my pushing the envelope issue would be --I think we have heard, and those of us who have been involved in this, understand that some of the problems, with 11(c), in particular, are that 11(c) has not been brought into the twenty-first century. There are legislative fixes, for example: increasing the number of days, private right of action. One question I have, is could this Committee, if we wanted to, make a formal recommendation to the Assistant Secretary, to go forth with whatever can be done to support to legislative changes?

MS. SPIELER: I think the Committee can make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary. As to how he then deals with them, that is obviously an administrative matter. At some point, the frustrations in our discussions about 11(c), that also back to Marcia's points, may very well lead us, I think, to feeling that some kind of report, or recommendation, that enumerates the inadequacies of 11(c), as we have come to understand them, and makes recommendations or simply enumerates them, might be useful, I think. At some point, we could certainly have a working group to puzzle over that.

I was joking with someone in Region 1 about this, because they are, and justifiably so, very proud to have brought four 11(c) complaints in the last 15 months. But I told that to someone else, who said, "That's all?" And I said, "Well, it all depends on where you started." Right? They are phenomenally Labor-intensive, those cases. So having litigated discrimination cases myself, in Federal Court, it's like the last place you want to be, to do an individual case.

I think we are caught in a system here, in terms of some of the work that the Committee could do, that could easily lead us to feel that the only solutions are those that are really outside the capacity of the Committee to address, and we can say that.

Ithink we're running out of energy here. Unless there's objection, I would -- or final thoughts that people want to share, I would suggest that we turn this information and thinking over to the Assistant Secretary and the Director and that they, in consultation with me, come up with some proposal about working groups, that we will share with you, and that will, obviously, also be public, and that we'll go from there.

Based on how that evolves, a decision will be made, probably by them, not me, as to whether we will try to meet again, in say June, versus say September. If there's no objection to any of that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Wait. Whoops.

DR. MICHAELS: I just want to take the last moment to thank Emily, who I think has really been an extraordinary Chair. We expected as much of her, and that was why she was chosen as Chair. She has guided this meeting very well. I think we're all very fortunate that she volunteered for this position. I want to thank all of you, for taking this on.

MS. SPIELER: As I told David, I spent my last 10 years chairing faculty meetings. Motion to adjourn.

MR. EHERTS: So moved.

MS. NARINE: Second.

MS. SLAVET: Second.

MS. SPIELER: Any objection? Thank you, all, very much for coming, and I look forward to working with you in the coming months.

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:49 p.m.)

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

I, ANDREW KNOUS, the Court Reporter before whom the foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby certify that the proceeding was recorded by me; that the proceeding was thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceeding; that I am neither related to nor employed by any of the parties to this proceeding; and, further, that I have no financial interest in this proceeding.

___________________

ANDREW KNOUS
Digital Court Reporter

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION

I, MARCY ALDRIDGE, hereby certify that I am not the Court Reporter who reported the proceeding and that I have typed the transcript of the proceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and recordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a true, correct and complete transcription of the proceedings.

___________________

    

________________________

Date

    

MARCY ALDRIDGE
Transcriptionist

Capital Reporting Company
Meeting of Whistleblower Protection Program Advisory Committee 01-29-2013
(866) 448 - DEPOM
www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2013

 

 

$
$1.2 33:5
$101 33:4
$250,000 154:17
$6,000 159:4
163:14,15
$7 153:11
$7,000 153:6
$70,000 153:7,10

 

0
0020 66:12
02110 3:13
06615 3:6

 

1
1 3:12 11:3 21:14
56:1 66:13 90:6
112:10,12,17
184:5 190:17
192:12,15
193:5,12 194:8
202:20 252:10
1(A 195:16
1(B 195:17
1,023 117:1
1,700 36:9,10
1.3 91:19
1:00 86:9
10 76:19 100:7
117:5 121:3
165:15 208:2
234:21 235:3
254:4
10:30 1:9
100 77:2 119:16
153:9,10 163:1
228:21

 

10038 4:20
101 121:9 190:3
103 2:14
106 14:4
11 119:13,15 121:6
11(c 11:1 14:5 34:5
36:8,12,13 39:12
43:20 45:8
49:9,12,15 51:13
53:11 54:7
55:7,21 57:20
67:18 68:3 69:22
82:5 83:5,18
85:6 86:3
88:5,8,13
89:3,14,17,20
90:2 94:18,21
97:3 98:17,22
99:4,7 110:1,3
115:2,3,19,20
116:16,22
117:13,16,21
118:19 119:3
122:2,8,21 124:9
126:11
127:9,19,22
128:15,20
129:1,6,8,19
132:1 133:22
134:16
135:9,17,19
136:9
137:3,5,20,21
138:2,4,8,10,19,
22 140:8,9
141:3,9,22
143:13,16,20
144:22 145:12
146:8 147:6
148:13
149:12,13
153:16
154:9,11,12,17

 

155:6,9,14,16,19
156:15 157:11
159:10 161:5
162:16 163:4,8
164:3 165:3
169:15 171:21
173:21 177:19
178:4 179:9,13
180:11,19 181:1
184:2,10 187:20
188:15 195:11
212:12
225:19,20
226:4,7 243:8,9
244:6,8 246:2
251:12
252:2,5,12
11(c)-focused
237:18
11:59 86:12
110 4:19
112 14:6
12 67:6 165:17
199:3,10,15
200:11 208:2
120 64:7
1201 4:19
128 14:7
13 165:17
133 117:2
14 113:8 175:10
216:18,22
146 173:11
15 13:3 80:3 161:8
212:20 240:11
252:12
15(d 199:5,11,16
200:12
150 54:13

 

15222 5:8
15-minute
194:14,17
164 45:12
165,000 100:9
17 120:3
1700 6:6
1730 6:13
18 13:4 76:4 120:4
180 117:15 138:6
1845 84:5,10,16
19 126:11 130:4
1934 199:4,6
1970 34:6 51:14
115:8
1974 116:14
1975 117:2
1976 116:19
1977 180:11
1978 84:16
198 14:8
1981 116:20
117:3,4
1982 128:19
1983 117:6
1990 119:2
1997 119:6,14,15
121:6 153:15
1999 113:14,21
153:17

2
2 66:14 90:7 91:20
92:18 194:1
202:21
203:16,20 204:5

 

 

205:5 214:4
2,800 45:4
2.3 91:19
20 31:16 66:15
67:4 130:5
172:18 187:21
20,000 33:3
200 1:14
2000 33:4
119:18,21
2000-teens 218:20
2001 33:5
2002 52:3
2003 113:22
153:17 175:10
20036-4505 6:14
2005 45:5 47:2
67:3
2007 61:7 120:14
2009 46:13 66:20
153:15 168:9
2010 31:16 67:4
168:10 170:21
172:16 235:3
20109 100:11
107:1,9
2011 48:3 54:10
66:15 73:20
121:1 124:11
170:22
173:11,14
187:19
2012 45:4,12 56:8
61:9,17
67:3,6,14 72:10
121:2,9,10
143:18 171:14
172:18 187:19

 

2013 1:8 62:9
67:12
202 6:8,15
7:2,3,13,14,21
8:6,7,16,17
9:4,5,12,13,20,2
1
20210 1:15
203 3:7
20552 6:7
21 13:5 49:12
115:4 127:8
212 4:21
22 13:6 39:10 45:3
120:7 122:17
125:16 127:9
140:20 167:22
185:19 200:22
223 14:9
228 14:10
23 170:7
235-1005 3:22
24 67:12
244 14:11
246 14:12
25 116:19 121:1
25.8 121:11 171:15
254-3606 6:15
26 13:8
2700 3:12
284-5051 5:18
286 121:12
171:15,20 172:2
29 1:8 13:10
180:11
29th 144:11

 


3
3 66:15 90:9 194:1
3,000 114:6
30 36:14,16 117:16
126:9 129:5
172:16
30-day 138:4
143:20 144:7
30th 61:9 144:11
173:8
310 143:17
313 4:15
31st 144:4,11
34 232:6
341-7065 4:21
35 56:4
350 45:9
353 39:13
36 40:12
378-6000 3:14
386-8666 3:7

 

4
4 66:18 90:10
4:49 254:13
40 121:21 122:1
400 2:6 187:19
402 2:17
412 5:9
42 121:16
435-9196 6:8
44 45:5
443 5:16
472-1256 2:17

 

48214 4:14
49 107:1

 

5
5 5:7 24:17 67:1
151:13
500 3:20
51 13:11 119:5
52nd 3:20
55155 5:17
562-2581 5:9

 

6
6 67:3 142:2
184:10
60 39:15 61:9
142:3 184:8
242:20
60093 4:5
61 116:20 122:2
163:8
617 3:14
64110 3:21
646-0859 4:6
651 5:18
66 13:13
68 13:15
68583-0902 2:16
6900 3:5
693-1634 9:13,21
693-1999 9:12,20
693-2191 9:4
693-2230 7:13
693-2403 7:3,14
8:17 9:5
693-2519 8:16

 

693-2531 7:2
693-5445 8:6
693-5466 8:7
693-5528 7:21

 

7
7 67:6
70's 127:21
72 13:16
75 13:17
78 13:18

 

8
8 67:10 150:3,20
151:15 245:11
800 220:1
8000 4:13
816 3:22
82 13:19
83 13:20
830902 2:15
847 4:6
87 14:1

 

9
9 67:11
90 134:11 184:12
186:6,15
902 5:5
90-day 134:13
926-5216 4:15
93 14:2
94 40:1
95 187:22
96 121:3

99 14:3
99.9 101:16

 

A
a.m 1:9 86:12
abarbour@uaw.net 4:15
abatement 41:13
44:2 78:9 103:20
abeyance 140:3
ability 35:11 57:7
85:20 98:3 103:4
116:8 152:13
239:19
able 28:19,21 31:5
50:17 51:17 54:1
64:22 68:2,17
73:16 76:9 81:12
99:12 102:22
114:13 116:22
119:15 121:8
124:1 129:15
148:3 158:11
160:9,18,21
161:21 167:20
171:5 173:12
190:17 198:7
200:19,21
204:11 211:12
236:2 242:13,19
246:7
abled 102:11
aboard 59:10
Abrams 24:3
absence 38:3
absent 20:14
absolute 232:16
absolutely 139:7
157:10 184:5
185:21 223:17

ACA 59:17 141:3
accept 71:13
124:12,14
accepted 124:10
access 60:2 111:20
accessible 64:21
220:11
accidents 100:22
105:3
accolades 115:8
accompanies
27:22
accomplished
113:12 179:21
227:20
accomplishing
91:11
accomplishment
91:5
accomplishments
54:1,5
accord 62:2,5,18
85:11
accordance 107:9
127:11 148:19
According 53:14
account 151:19
accountability
66:19 92:13
accountable 92:9
Accounting 33:11
46:12
accounts 116:21
accreditation 59:6
accurate 161:9
255:7
achieve 17:15

acknowledge 76:3
113:3 197:13
across 36:19 50:10
56:14 71:22
76:18 96:20,22
103:13,21
137:14 218:6
226:18 247:3
act 27:20
34:6,11,14,22
35:3 36:13 37:8
39:11,16 40:6
44:12,13 46:4
51:13,14
58:10,15 59:17
60:8,16 66:6
88:16 94:18,20
98:9,21 99:7
100:10 101:7,8
107:1,10 108:20
115:8,17
117:7,10,15,18
118:12,17,18
119:9,11,22
120:1 122:5,7,12
130:18
141:4,10,11,12
142:3 143:2
145:5,7 150:4
151:14 154:14
160:17 162:16
170:19 171:3
175:13 181:19
189:12
199:1,2,4,6
203:14 225:20
244:19 247:8
acting 152:18
action 36:15 90:14
108:13 125:21
126:2 135:16
136:18 138:8,10
153:13
160:13,19 177:9

 

 

207:3 209:16
251:15
actions 107:8
108:19 192:7
active 150:2
182:22
activities 31:2 71:1
107:12 126:6
195:19
activity 41:17
125:20,21 126:2
207:21 217:17
Acts 82:6,10 83:5
145:10
Act's 116:2
actual 79:17
130:17 174:16
202:3 237:9
actually 17:16
38:11 42:2,7
54:1 61:1,4 62:7
64:6,14 71:13
72:21 79:16
82:14 88:14
117:4
127:8,12,20
133:6 135:4
136:6 144:19
152:7,8 153:20
154:15,22
155:8,18 156:2
162:14 168:13
170:21 171:2
172:12 174:3,14
178:10 180:10
185:2 191:1
192:1,11,15
193:6,8 198:13
199:17 202:9
203:3,21
204:1,5,21 217:1
218:9,12,15

 

230:16 232:7
234:5 237:20
239:3 240:7,9
241:11,15
242:10,21
243:12
add 78:20 120:14
182:6 228:5
234:10
added 56:4,5
57:19 103:12
121:1,14 165:14
addition 30:16
47:1 54:16 61:5
62:4 97:12
120:21 131:19
162:2 209:22
229:7
additional 14:11
27:9 47:3 57:19
60:17 61:5 116:6
121:2,19 142:17
143:1,3 196:14
198:16 216:13
244:2,5
address 44:1 64:16
71:19 86:22 87:2
90:7 95:13 99:7
106:20 120:18
156:11 161:2
163:7 182:18
222:14 253:2
addressed 32:1
35:22 68:1 75:17
158:18 203:9
addresses 62:18
addressing 59:5
62:20 94:8
241:10
Adele 24:3
adequacy 89:20

 

183:3 216:8
adequate 36:22
89:12,14,17
183:6
adequately 46:20
216:15
adhere 221:16
adjourn 253:17
254:5
adjourned 254:12
adjudicated 88:14
adjudication
195:22
administers 66:17
administration
1:11 20:19 47:11
58:18 192:4
201:13 250:18
administrative
88:21 92:2
117:21
118:10,22 252:1
Administrator
132:17
190:17,20
192:18 193:10
Administrators
67:7
admires 52:8
admission 217:2
admissions 188:4
admit 188:15
admits 175:6
admitting 177:8
adopt 50:14 62:5
209:6 221:3
adopted 62:17

 

adopting 80:2
ADR 242:17,19,20
adulterated 45:1
advantage 69:11
adverse 36:14
90:13 125:21
126:2 143:4,8
209:16
advice 10:5 21:20
56:13 83:9 98:20
109:19 126:22
128:5 152:9
182:13 220:21
222:16
advise 27:6
advised 143:4
Advisor 6:12
160:4
advisors 223:21
Advisory 1:6 15:4
27:2,20 29:16
40:19 51:10,11
57:10 66:5 67:5
94:5 95:17 96:5
97:20 98:12
236:10
advocating 96:16
Affairs 10:20
22:14 106:6,10
affect 40:9 196:2
affected 95:21
affects 196:1
affiliated 19:6
affiliation 17:20
18:6
affirmative 60:22
61:1 137:2
Affordable 46:4

 

 

59:17 141:4
afforded 34:14
AFL-CIO 10:13
93:18 94:1 95:5
99:11 115:14
afoul 235:6
afraid 36:1 80:19
85:4
afternoon 31:11
50:1 55:22 68:3
106:9
afterwards 31:18
against 33:22
34:8,17,18 35:8
39:17 40:1,2
49:2 50:18 52:17
60:6 61:11
62:12,14 95:9
100:21 102:14
103:11 104:9
143:9 151:17
158:21
160:14,19 166:1
177:10 184:18
199:6 207:22
209:17 212:8,10
229:9 245:11
age 77:17
agencies 18:1
48:20,21 52:10
53:5 69:7 125:1
130:9 147:20
148:1,4,5
160:8,20 174:22
182:12,15
192:8,10 195:16
208:17 210:13
218:7,13 224:12
225:7,10 240:4
246:3 247:3
agency 6:1
17:15,22 19:13

 

20:18 28:12 30:3
34:2 45:14 60:10
69:9 72:7 83:16
94:3,9,16 95:12
96:12,15 97:15
98:18 124:20
125:7 146:20
147:5 149:14
151:17 162:18
180:16 188:6
191:15 192:2
220:5,11,20
221:20 222:12
226:11 240:1,2,7
242:14,16
244:10 245:16
agency's 227:17
agenda 66:13 74:7
109:17 137:19
194:15 196:17
228:16
aggregation
186:10
aggressive 192:17
195:21
ago 77:8 93:9
agreed 29:22
62:1,2
agreeing
178:21,22
agreement 62:5
103:7,8,10,16
105:13 158:15
178:21 215:16
216:1 219:18
agreements 158:9
215:17 219:10
agricultural 58:22
ahead 83:21
164:16 187:15
198:2 205:3

 

207:12 215:6
220:15 221:6
236:15 243:11
AHERA 119:3
126:12 127:18
141:3,9
aid 141:9 239:3
aide 61:3 108:3
Air 44:12 134:20
AIR21 120:1
201:1,3
Aircraft 3:4 19:21
78:19,20
airline 44:19
airlines 79:8
ALDRIDGE
256:2,10
ALJ 140:14
172:1,6
allegation 39:17
61:11 124:8
142:1 148:17
203:11
allegations 96:9
alleged 49:1,2
148:21 150:10
alleging 150:8
allow 32:9 70:17
163:17 177:11
allowable 42:19
alluded 243:9
alone 39:14
already 17:12 28:8
30:6 69:2 161:8
168:5 208:1
224:16
233:10,11
alter 215:10

 

alternative 63:16
195:6,15 235:21
am 19:1,16 20:7
24:13 60:8 75:6
116:11 128:14
154:19 168:12
183:13 185:18
255:7 256:2
amazing 119:4
amended 120:14
amendments 59:1
American 23:6
31:20 88:16
America's 32:22
among 50:10
76:18,22 77:9
84:10,16 94:9
104:16 120:19
157:3 209:19
amount 155:5
164:7 212:10
222:20
analysis 73:10
103:19 133:7
173:16 212:17
213:7
Analyst 8:11 25:2
Andrew 1:21
255:2,14
anecdotal 202:6
212:6
anecdote 198:20
angles 131:9
animal 59:6
animals 59:2
Anna 12:11 25:11
announced 33:6
announcement

 

 

33:10 86:19
annual 33:3 62:10
73:20
anonymous 71:14
77:20 81:2
answer 65:5
84:14,15 123:1
140:5 145:14
150:13,15,21
154:21 172:4
176:21 182:4
191:5 194:7
200:14 204:7
215:21 228:9
239:14
answered 173:9
189:18
answering 148:5
answers 197:12
anti 44:8,11
160:14
anticipate 65:3
anticipating 54:3
antiquated 88:6
anti-retaliation
34:4 44:16 60:21
61:6 63:13
149:18 160:16
antitrust 101:9
anybody 64:22
114:10 127:3
187:5 240:19
242:4
anymore 79:11
120:4 167:9
anyone 16:17
64:21 81:21
86:13 109:19
196:21

 

anyone's 250:17
anything 69:7
83:20 110:17
158:17 185:7,13
194:12 202:1
211:2 217:19
223:4 232:11
238:18 246:14
249:18,21
250:5,17
anyway 106:19
154:2 224:18
247:14
anywhere 126:9
130:11 155:22
apologize 93:19
178:3 190:1,4
248:17
apologizes 242:3
appeal 54:8 85:15
118:9
139:13,14,16,17
140:3,5,9,12
appealable 140:15
appealed 127:19
appeals 54:8 75:18
118:9
127:18,20,21
128:2 134:20
172:2
appears 155:21
187:18
applauds 109:5
applicable 130:20
131:12
application 96:22
97:5 104:16
applies 132:9
136:21 147:5
apply 143:15

 

144:17
appoint 222:17
243:21
appointed 27:14
appointment
100:13
appreciate 31:4
51:8 102:3
133:22 190:14
appreciation
53:17
approach 39:19
61:21 205:1
222:8 245:14,17
approached 33:9
approaches 71:19
207:8
appropriate 55:2
74:6 133:12
134:17,21 136:1
139:10 148:18
162:9 164:10
177:21 178:5
183:15 193:1
196:21 204:13
238:20
approval 67:11
147:4 216:4
approve 158:3,4
approves 127:11
approving 158:5,6
approximately
45:9 54:13 119:5
121:9 254:13
apps 220:18
April 31:15
ARB 140:14
172:1,6 208:12

 

arbitrary 183:17
arbitration 99:2
180:8,13
181:9,19
183:8,11
arbitrator 180:18
183:11,12
arbitrator's
183:16
archive 200:18
area 48:10 76:20
77:11 81:15
89:4,18 102:4,9
112:19 123:17
148:18,20
149:2,21
150:18,22
231:16 244:10
245:18
areas 58:22
71:16,17 82:9
158:22 167:13
168:3 220:17
arena 94:11
113:13 231:4
aren't 37:10 42:11
51:18 124:21
136:1 156:1
181:11,13
184:17 200:19
226:22 233:9
arguably 160:17
195:11
argue 204:17
argument 202:21
arise 127:9
army 216:10
array 207:5
Article 67:12

 

 

121:16
articles 41:21
articulated 196:20
Asbestos 118:17
Ashley 215:4
aside 244:14
aspect 69:16
131:19 224:6
aspects 232:22
assembled 47:17
asserted 136:19
137:10
assertive 94:6
95:18
assess 91:1
assessed 154:13
assessing 97:12
assessment 127:2
assign 125:14
assigned 61:7
153:5 191:12
assignment 238:13
assignments 47:1
assist 17:6 104:20
105:7 107:12
109:8
assistance 28:21
43:22 62:20 71:8
105:11
117:7,10,14,18
118:12 122:7
145:5
Assistant 10:2
17:7 20:20 21:6
25:7 27:6,15
29:6,13 30:12
56:17 68:1 190:9
222:16 236:9,13

 

243:15
251:17,21 253:7
Associate 2:11
4:11
Association 23:6
assortment 124:22
assume 155:2
assumes 137:4
assuming 173:13
203:16 222:4
assure 59:8
AT&T 83:16
Atlanta 137:6,9
attempt 124:19
125:7 170:14
attempted 192:6
194:10
attempting 107:16
attempts 120:18
attend 20:17
200:20
attendees 54:13
attention 53:10
78:22 99:4,5
110:12 113:1
115:5 148:22
150:10 173:20
206:21 231:10
attitude 52:1
attitudes 51:20
attorney 6:3 10:11
21:8 22:9 23:10
24:10 25:13,20
87:21,22 88:22
attorneys 89:2
112:20 114:12
130:14
143:14,15,16

 

157:9,10
attorney's 89:1
at-will 211:1
atypical 192:13
218:13
audible 16:4
audience 13:6
20:22 22:2,4
39:7 65:8,22
audit 46:15 64:12
auditors 59:7
authority
141:1,2,5 143:6
152:14 191:1,2,9
authorize 107:20
authorized 27:13
authors 35:3
auto 52:13
automatic 187:4
Ava 4:10 20:9
179:22 180:1
183:1
available 57:15
65:6 66:11 74:21
83:14 90:21
123:3 134:16
141:6,8 160:1
165:19
181:20,21 201:4
226:20
Ava's 182:19
avenue 1:14 2:6
4:13 128:1
average 119:16
121:7,10,11
155:5 159:2
171:14
averted 32:14

 

aviation 78:22
79:10
avoiding 50:13
award 38:15 159:2
awards 248:20
aware 77:19 87:12
151:2 156:14
207:18 208:19
210:3,15
away 90:15 221:5

 

B
BA 22:6
background
129:20
backing 85:8,19
backlog 54:9
72:20 73:1
116:22
backs 85:8 96:13
bad 149:10 214:9
215:3 244:15
245:12
Baird 8:1 13:13
21:7,8 30:21
66:4 68:4 110:16
132:3
baird.edmund@dol.gov 8:8
balance 72:2
bankrupt 33:7
Barab 30:11 56:16
Barbour 4:10 20:9
180:1 181:10
182:5
bargaining 103:3
barrier 236:15
bars 38:8

 

 

based 19:17 41:2
72:13 79:18
172:5 173:5,10
253:13
basic 15:12 55:7
169:12,17
199:19,20
basically 63:18
75:14 111:22
152:7 194:9
Basing 183:17
basis 37:10 82:10
113:11 120:19
127:1
Baskin 11:5 14:7
21:15 112:13
127:1 128:10
154:21 161:2
177:18
178:3,14,16
179:8 194:19
bear 15:7
beat 76:2 198:5
206:2
became 84:5
113:13,22
become 45:7 46:3
77:5 111:15
170:21
becomes 74:21
81:11 108:9
153:11 197:3
becoming 77:20
107:1 161:19
237:10
begin 29:14 50:3
62:8 81:12 85:14
184:19 187:13
beginning 63:21
64:10 121:13

 

154:7 187:2
behalf 34:13
106:19 136:8
behave 69:5
150:19
behaves 219:2
behavior 34:1
41:8,11,16
195:20 196:1
203:15 205:9
214:22 221:21
behaviors 204:4
230:20
behind 15:14 16:1
73:3 96:15 178:9
191:2
belief 90:14 145:2
believe 27:19,20
39:11 40:5 41:7
43:14 46:10
49:17 65:21 98:1
102:16 106:18
108:22
114:2,10,11,12,1
3 121:18 123:11
125:4 141:8
151:10 164:8
165:17 168:8
169:12,18
176:10 178:19
180:20 184:5
193:5 198:19
202:5 222:4,6
248:1,6
believes 89:17
108:1 140:11
142:10 164:1
believing 218:7
benefit 40:22
134:13 212:17
213:6 233:12

 

234:3
benefited 107:7
benefits 109:5
Benjamin 12:6
24:16
Bennett 12:11
25:11
Berkowitz 11:19
23:13 30:10
best 47:16 48:22
49:3 137:11
140:19 156:21
171:7 186:1
198:1 216:12
221:16 223:6
227:12 229:5
231:3 232:10
233:3 234:15
237:11 251:3
bet 193:19
Beth 6:19 13:11
15:8 21:2 24:18
28:15 30:12
51:1,4 65:17
69:2 74:5,22
79:14 105:20
110:4,14,18
111:14 113:7,14
116:11 119:9
122:10 152:4
190:17 191:4
202:4 224:16,22
229:18
243:15,20
Beth's 190:8,22
191:8 227:21
better 33:18 38:1,2
64:12 66:21
70:11 79:12
91:22 92:3 158:1
163:20 166:16
204:16 205:1

 

207:7,9
209:10,15
211:13
214:13,14 216:2
217:14 226:12
228:7 232:6
241:13 245:20
beyond 38:18
77:19 229:11,15
bigger 160:22
206:12
biggest 46:1 98:17
bill 10:13 14:2
44:16 87:19
93:15,17,22
Billie 20:14
billion 33:4,5
billons 31:21
bills 161:21
biological 59:1
bipartisan 48:2,13
bit 81:14 115:6
116:12 121:5
122:19 128:8,14
129:20 130:4
141:16 154:4
163:8 171:1
180:3 193:16
233:12 236:7
bitter 245:5
black 156:9
Blancato 8:20
24:13
Blancato.philippe2@dol.gov 9:6
BLE 100:7 108:7
blessed 133:2
BLET 106:19

 

 

109:3,5,7
Bloomberg's 22:6
blow 19:14
BMWE 100:7,16
102:6,22
103:7,12,15,17
104:18
BNA 67:11 121:15
BNSF 39:22
40:1,4,12,14
62:1 85:12
board 23:21 75:8
103:13 130:18
180:6,17 181:2,3
210:1 218:6
Bob 132:17
boilerplate 234:19
bolts 128:15
131:20
bonus 43:1,6
230:4,6,11,15
249:9
bonuses 38:20
167:20
boss 132:15
bosses 53:16,18
Boston 2:7 3:13
18:13 21:17
bottom 38:3 81:10
190:6 193:2,15
214:17
bounty 208:7
box 2:15 156:9
boy 56:22 57:1
171:4
BP 80:16,21
brain 64:14

 

Branch 80:17,22
brazen 244:17
249:1
brazenness
245:4,10,22
breadth 26:14
break 86:1,12
145:20 187:17
192:11 193:20
194:14,17
breakdowns
207:11
breaks 15:15
Brian 12:7 24:20
bribery 94:13
bridges 100:2
106:15
brief 122:16
briefed 66:6
briefly 70:4
114:15,17 115:1
128:18 216:9
bring 27:16 28:6
32:8 50:9 73:4
88:11 110:11
136:8 171:10
236:2,11
bringing 17:13
53:10 83:7 136:8
210:16
brings 236:3
broader 110:21
155:1 207:4
208:14 218:20
219:16
broadly 205:22
Brock 20:15
broken 91:8 207:8

 

227:11
Broker 12:7 24:20
Brotherhood
10:16,21
22:11,15 23:21
99:18,21 100:5
106:7,10
brought 59:13
119:13 142:14
251:13 252:12
Bruce 11:11 22:5
budget 56:12
121:1,2
build 100:1
building 1:13
16:1,7
buildings 59:3
built 127:20
bullet 138:13
bump 153:7
bunch 238:17
burden 47:3
138:19,21
burdens 218:2
Bureau 6:4 20:8
177:6
bureaucracy 57:6
Burlington
62:1,13 161:15
burning 79:7
business 50:20
103:10 104:2
195:13
busy 113:4


C

 

C.F.R 180:11
c/o 5:4
cafeteria 15:16,20
California 245:8
Cambridgeport
134:20
cap 154:16 164:21
165:1
capabilities 53:4
capacities 114:7
capacity 253:2
Capital 1:21
capricious 183:18
cards 85:5
care 15:7 46:4
59:17 141:4
203:5 213:4
career 68:19
careers 68:20
careful 101:18
carefully 68:12
Carla 12:8
Carole 130:16
132:15
carpal 187:2
carrier 20:19
104:10 107:4
201:13
carriers 85:13
carrots 69:10
77:9,12 85:18
carry 81:14 134:8
case 16:3 46:22
75:11 81:2 83:16
93:21 110:13
116:9 117:22
118:7 120:19

 

 

126:16 128:6,15
130:10,17 132:1
133:7,11
134:9,12,19
135:3,6,7
136:8,10 138:17
140:12
142:11,16 147:5
150:16 151:4
152:7,16 153:22
154:14
157:16,22
161:15
163:13,17,20
164:8,9 169:11
171:15 174:13
176:11,18
178:20 179:9
180:19 181:7
183:4,13 188:12
189:5,8 194:21
201:1,5 217:6,16
218:8 219:5
232:15,18
245:8,9 252:19
case-by 120:18
caseload 104:1
121:6,7,10 133:1
134:7 159:17
172:16,19
173:6,12,13,17
caseloads 172:22
cases 26:16 35:21
36:15 40:6,8,13
45:22 46:5 50:15
55:21 67:13
72:22 94:9 98:22
103:11,18
112:19 114:10
116:3 117:1
121:7,8,11,12,17
122:2,3,6,9,14
126:12,19,21
127:5,7,8,9,14,1

 

8 128:7,20
129:1,7,9,21
130:15
131:5,18,21
132:7 133:22
134:1 135:9
136:5 137:15
138:11 141:22
142:10,18,21
143:16,18
144:17 148:21
150:11 153:19
154:5,10,12,17
155:9,10,15,16,1
9,20 156:1,5,8
157:4,15 158:11
161:5 163:4,9,22
164:5 171:15,21
172:11
173:7,12,22
174:16,19
175:20
176:2,9,15
177:17,18,19
178:4 180:21
183:5,6
184:3,6,9
187:12,20
188:5,17 189:6
193:9,11 200:5
213:11 215:11
216:18,19
217:3,10,12,22
218:1,4,14
219:13,15 225:8
226:4,8 231:3
252:16,17
case-specific
176:12
Cass 22:19
Cassandra 11:13 catastrophe 32:14 catastrophic 31:19

 

105:3
caught 252:20
causal 126:1
causation 41:11
cause 103:19
218:8
caused 34:10
caution 72:18 87:6
227:13
cautionary 84:4
center 5:7 85:22
central 191:17
238:14
centrally 191:19
century 218:20
219:8 251:13
CEO 214:20
certain 38:7,8,9
42:19 97:6
107:11,20,22
126:16 130:3
163:16
167:15,20
196:17
213:16,17
215:11,15
250:14
certainly 28:4
70:22 71:1 73:19
75:20 100:12,17
104:1 105:18
110:17 114:12
136:12 137:13
166:22
183:2,8,18
185:18 195:6
216:7 235:20
236:10 241:22
248:12,13
249:16 252:8

 

certainty 101:22
148:1
CERTIFICATE
255:1 256:1
Certification
62:11
certify 255:3 256:2
CFO 156:18
chair 13:3,8 15:3
18:12 26:9 30:6
51:7 253:20,21
Chaired 1:7
chairing 254:4
Chairman 23:21
48:8 112:21
Chairperson 2:3
challenge 46:3
199:8
challenges 28:17
51:11,12 74:14
115:1 122:21
137:19 193:4
218:3 220:8
221:19 228:5
229:15
Chamber 115:11
chance 57:16 58:3
195:2
change 4:18 18:16
40:10,14 41:16
50:9,19 51:20
52:1 57:8 62:2
63:2,3,4 68:8,9
71:21 76:17,22
77:11 80:7 88:15
102:3 103:5
122:14 195:20
196:5 203:15
208:11 217:11
220:7 230:20

 

 

changed 84:17
102:20 124:11
207:18
changes 58:19
73:5 79:9,21,22
99:6 102:13
221:21 251:19
changing 41:8
69:17 79:20
85:13,16 204:3
205:8 214:2,22
characterize
229:20
charge 30:3,4
51:11 101:19
181:2,3
charged 102:1
charges 101:18
180:5
Charitable 5:2
19:5
Charles 48:6
Charlie 12:5 24:10
chart 188:1 189:7
charter 26:22
27:1,7 49:15
Chartier 12:3 24:6
chase 206:14
Chatmon 9:16
26:1
Chatmon.veneta@dol.gov 9:22
check 188:20
check-off 79:18
Chicago 19:18
24:18 55:9
Chief 3:3 7:8
19:21 23:13 25:4

 

30:10
chosen 253:21
Chris 22:17
christened 56:11
Christian 84:15
Christine 5:13
13:19 18:21
49:11 70:6 81:22
82:1,4 83:11
238:6,7
Christopher 11:12
chunk 90:22
Circuit 134:20
140:16 172:1,6
circular 212:2
circumstance
144:14
circumstances
107:22 116:10
144:10,17
circumstantial
216:18 217:5
218:1
citation 219:15,18
cite 89:18
cities 106:17
City 3:18,21 18:19
20:3 220:2 234:1
civil 135:21 225:10
claim 88:9,11,19
89:11
claims 90:9 160:11
203:2,17
242:15,18 243:3
Clara 25:1
class 199:2,9,14
200:11 207:3

 

classes 186:13
clause 177:12
Clean 44:12,13
clear 33:17 35:10
42:18 44:16
63:19 88:4 147:7
152:17 188:6
clearance 133:13
clearly 48:11 95:8
115:3 218:3
228:7
clerical 131:3,5,6
clients 244:14
clinically 161:20
close 56:1 121:12
149:3
closed 111:2,5
121:17
closely 31:6 40:3
54:20 64:17
127:4 149:1
158:6 242:11
closer 54:21 178:2
192:5,6
closes 147:4
co 130:15
Code 214:20
Codes 80:1
coffee 15:20,21
coherence 97:9
Cole 11:12 22:17
Coleen 52:4
collaboration
31:3,5
collect 228:7
collected 182:10

 

collecting 95:6,10 collection 186:6 collectively 100:8
College 2:13 19:10
comes 79:7 129:14
148:22 170:5
206:15,21
232:13
239:10,18
240:21
comfortable 148:5
172:13 243:22
coming 37:5
93:10,11 203:2
222:7 254:10,11
commencement
106:21
commend 108:15
comment 92:5
109:17,18 149:8
168:7 205:7,11
214:1 242:5
243:7
comments 10:10
13:7,14,22 26:8
67:17,20 70:21
78:3 86:10,17,20
87:5 88:2 90:3,4
110:9 111:1,19
212:5 218:18
242:5 244:2
Commerce 115:12
commercial 101:4
Commission 32:3
147:2 209:1
225:21
commitment
17:11 28:4,7
30:2 71:5 244:3

 

 

commitments 71:4
committed 53:9
102:11 146:13
177:9
committee 1:6 8:2
13:4,14 15:4
17:18 18:2,9
20:13 21:10
23:16 26:21
27:2,13,16,17,20
28:19 29:9,16
30:7,8,16 40:19
43:22 48:7,18
49:16,19,22 50:9
51:10,11 57:10
66:4,5,6,8
67:5,19
74:6,11,18 75:18
81:15 86:4,7,22
87:2,7 94:6
95:17 96:1,5,15
97:17,20,21,22
98:3,5,10,14
99:5 100:13
103:1,19 104:21
105:7,13,17
106:20
109:6,8,11,20
110:11
111:8,12,14
112:7 113:1,11
115:5 128:2
145:15 148:1
151:12 155:2
159:9 163:12
173:2 182:10
186:3 190:1
193:2 194:22
196:13,18,19
206:17,18
214:22 216:7
221:6,18 222:3
224:21 226:18
227:1 228:3

 

229:1 235:17
236:4,10,17
237:16 242:7
243:18,22
245:15
246:6,14,19
251:16,20
252:21 253:2
committee's
110:12
Committees 71:12
98:12
Committee's
27:22 109:14
111:15,17 148:3
common 125:18
136:20,21
137:2,10 174:10
commonly 38:19
43:13
communicate
202:21
communication
243:14
communications
9:10,18 24:7
26:2 220:18
communities
105:2
community 55:6
209:19 249:12
Comp 131:14
companies 39:21
77:3 80:2 135:14
162:20,21 163:3
184:4 199:20
207:16,18
210:2,8,11
211:10
214:8,9,11,15
215:3 233:5

 

245:7 248:19
249:2,3
company 1:21
32:20,22 33:6,9
40:12 92:20
156:18 177:8,12
199:2,4,9,14
200:7,10 203:5
205:9,16,19
206:1,20 210:12
211:3,4
214:13,14
comparatively
135:11 161:4
162:6,21 163:3,5
compare
156:15,21
compared 121:18
comparison 91:16
Compensation
42:10 101:10
compensatory
134:18 139:18
155:12 158:20
162:10 164:20
177:21 178:6
compilation
66:16,17 67:1
compiled 222:13
complain 35:20
70:9 205:21
219:19 221:13
complainant
114:11
123:20,21
124:2,5,7,13,16
125:19,22 128:1
136:18 137:9
138:9 140:9
144:13
149:20,21

 

150:17 151:18
155:4 157:6,13
163:14 180:4,22
181:21 244:11
complainants
36:13 124:18,20
135:17
143:13,15
157:12
complainant's
137:7
complained 148:8
complaining
149:12 206:5
complaint 34:9,18
36:14 63:7 67:10
77:20 88:9
117:15 123:13
124:1,16,18
125:8,10,13,14
126:10 127:22
135:5 144:13
146:12,16,21,22
147:1 148:16
149:12 150:3,16
181:1 201:11
203:10 209:7
210:10 219:20
225:12 230:21
235:1 237:19
238:9,10
239:3,16,18
240:9 241:2,6
246:22
complaint-driven
197:3
complaints 14:8
17:8
36:9,10,12,17
39:13,14,15,20,2
2 40:1
45:4,8,10,11,12
57:21 58:6,8,15

 

 

59:13,16 60:6
61:8,10 62:12
63:5,9,10,11,14
64:20 67:22 79:6
81:3,5 82:14
87:9 88:13 92:6
97:3 115:20
123:7,8,9,14,16,
19
124:9,12,15,21
125:5,17 126:7
143:18 147:21
148:13 151:1
153:16 190:12
195:9,12,22
196:7
197:1,7,9,15,20
198:3 201:10
204:2,3,4,7,20
205:14
213:19,20
218:14 221:9
225:4 235:22
238:4 239:2,9
240:5,6,12
241:8,9,15
242:11
244:12,18
245:3,11 247:2,5
248:4
250:15,16,20
252:12
complete 29:7
117:1 163:18
171:15 256:7
completed 55:7
completely 206:8
207:18 209:7
complex 78:10
131:22 191:18
192:10 246:7
compliance 20:3
24:14 69:14

 

71:12 77:19
115:22 151:6
209:9 219:13
237:9 244:8
compliant 77:5,13
239:4
comply 151:14
component 35:2
41:12,13 70:2
147:10 149:4
197:1
comprehensive
64:12,20
computerized
198:14
concern 35:9
83:13 84:1 85:2
87:15 88:4 89:8
92:19 183:2,9
concerned 39:3
75:19 82:6,12
83:5 168:3
183:19
concerns 17:10
29:4 32:8,12
33:12,20,22
35:17,19,21,22
36:1,4 44:20
50:4,15,17 51:18
60:4 71:14 87:17
Conciliation 64:2
conclude 160:12
163:19
concluded 46:20
concludes 109:16
145:13
concluding 134:11
conclusion 89:13
142:15 176:10
190:6

 

conclusions 64:5
conclusive 64:9
concrete 76:3
77:4,16 235:16
condition 108:2,11
conditions 60:1
84:9 100:22
107:8,19,20
108:15,19
conduct 116:18
119:15 124:17
151:16 166:10
214:21
conducting 33:21
150:20
conducts 125:15
139:8
conference 10:18
22:12 24:1
54:11,12,19 55:4
73:20
100:1,4,7,17
104:18 106:12
133:21 171:9
conferences
170:15
confess 203:21
confidential 32:5
confirm 188:11
confronting 99:1
confusing 124:22
congratulate
100:12
congratulates
109:5
Congress 29:1
30:4 44:4,8 46:6
60:19 88:15 99:6
119:18 140:21

 

173:9
Congressional
33:7,13
connect 220:19
Connecticut 84:13
connection 126:1
225:6
conscionable
204:6
conscious 75:6,19
consciousness
209:19
consecutive 33:1
consent 135:5
161:9 174:15
consequence 214:4
consequences 42:8
72:19 231:7
244:17
Consequently
135:15
consider 64:15
87:8 95:13 124:5
142:17 144:2
159:18
215:11,19
224:22
consideration
69:17 77:14
163:12
considered 111:18
198:17
considering
179:11
considers 159:9
consistency 46:17
56:14 66:22
constantly 199:19

 

 

constitute 52:9
constitutes 122:2
Constitution 1:14
construction 38:7
consult 130:13,15
131:20
consultation 42:21
253:9
consulted 133:15
consumer 6:4 20:7
60:7,8 120:1
170:19 171:3
177:6
Consumers 59:21
contact 82:8 111:6
CONTACTS 6:18
contain 139:2
166:2
contained 115:18
Container 118:17
contests 38:13
context 31:15 35:6
continue 57:11
62:14 86:2
222:22
continued 102:21
107:4
continues 44:4
continuing 55:16
73:21
continuous 111:19
continuously
17:12
contracted 64:3
contractor 43:2
64:19

 

contractors 38:7
contracts 38:9
contributed 55:3
contributing
138:21
contribution
68:21
contributory
168:1
control 102:18
141:10
controls 46:22
59:5
conundrum
187:18
conversation
17:14 67:18
74:8,20 81:6,8
86:2 155:2 195:8
196:12
197:14,21
217:7,8 218:10
221:7 222:19
236:7 241:20
conversations
28:17 197:11
230:18
conversely 150:15
conveying 65:1
Cooper 52:5 cooperate 151:8 cooperated 33:12
cooperating
143:10
cooperation 55:19
103:13
cooperative 65:12
143:7

 

coordinated 96:19
coordinating
61:20
coordination
152:8,19 246:3
Coordinator 5:1
copies 65:21 123:6
copy 105:13
147:1,2
core 151:12
195:13
Cori 8:10 12:15
25:21
corporate 51:20
62:21 69:3,18
79:20 80:10 81:9
235:11 237:9
corporate-wide
39:19 61:21
62:16
corporation 3:4
32:20 62:22
78:19
corporations
33:19 69:6 71:13
80:2
correct 147:13
154:19 161:4
171:17 175:1
191:9 228:9
236:16 256:7
correctly 189:16
233:21 234:14
correspondence
241:17
corroborating
217:8
corruptive 33:14

 

cost 212:17 213:6
costs 32:2
cotton 84:6,17,18
counsel 4:11 6:12
7:18 8:2 10:5
19:13 20:3
21:9,16,19 23:3
25:17 66:4 83:9
109:20 112:15
160:4
counsels 129:6
count 218:11
counterintuitive
212:15
counterpart
162:18
counting 241:8,9
countries 212:20
country 38:17,20
47:16 50:10
71:22 76:14,18
162:22 200:2,9
201:8 207:17
247:14
couple 24:19 28:13
31:10 72:13 90:5
94:2 119:21
120:12 121:15
123:6 125:18
127:17 141:21
182:16 183:22
193:11 198:6
219:10 228:20
243:10 247:19
250:10
courage 108:20
course 27:4 35:13
37:15 38:21
40:18 42:6 57:9
61:4 89:6 92:21

 

 

109:14 128:22
135:6 146:15
155:22 162:3,9
165:3,22
169:12,13,14,16
173:14 177:19
184:22 192:16
224:20
courses 168:22
169:2,5,21 185:4
court 55:22 68:6
85:15 88:11,14
118:20 126:21
128:20
133:11,12,19
134:20 135:4,20
138:11,14
139:20 140:16
154:13,19
161:15 172:1,7
174:15 208:12
252:17
255:1,2,14
256:3,5
Courts 89:9,19
118:2 140:16
Court's 161:14
cover 24:8 52:3
82:10 161:22
162:14 233:22
coverage 60:1
234:3,6
covered 17:10
98:8,21 100:9
101:7,11 107:10
135:15 149:13
180:18 187:7
199:21 200:7
233:22
covering 22:7
58:21
covers 45:18 82:7

 

119:11 201:18
240:1
coworkers 35:12
43:11
create 108:16
created 115:18
116:16 127:21
208:4
creates 208:7
creating 63:6
69:20 80:10
creation 28:15
94:5,7 97:19
196:15
creative 28:9
222:7
credibility 131:11
credible 64:20
69:11 142:20
credits 60:3
creme 129:8,9
crew 31:16
crews 52:12
crime 129:12
criminal 225:4,10
criteria 158:4
critical 81:11 96:7
97:5,10 99:11
105:7 124:6
193:7
critically 28:22
criticism 109:20
116:15 159:13
criticisms 120:17
crying 56:21
CSHOs 115:22
185:2

 

CSO 78:18
CT 3:6
culture 32:10,12
33:19 50:9,19
51:20 62:21
63:1,3,4 69:3,18
76:18 79:20 80:7
81:9 83:22 85:16
90:7 102:20
107:3 108:8
205:10 214:2
215:10
cultures 80:11
cup 187:4
cure-all 217:18
current 192:3
currently 20:7
24:18 40:1 54:2
curveballs 133:17
cut 206:14 228:18
241:20
cutting 209:4
237:6
Cynthia 52:5

 

D
D.C 1:15
daily 107:5 127:1
130:3
damage 31:21,22
164:11
damages
134:18,19
139:18 141:6,13
153:3,14,16,18,2
1
154:3,5,12,15,17
155:3,11,12
158:19,20
159:22

 

161:10,11,13,22
162:10,11,12
164:10,11,12,21
177:21,22 178:6
dangers 51:15
52:17 233:13
dark 226:10
data 42:17 46:15
66:21 73:3
74:13,14,16 79:9
155:4 173:11
223:15
227:6,8,11,15
228:1,6 238:1
247:19 248:7,14
database 125:11
199:13
date 183:12
256:10
dated 66:15,20
67:4,12
Dave 19:19
114:16,18,21
122:19 126:18
128:7 145:13
154:6,20 158:13
177:16 202:19
210:5 233:16
David 3:2 10:2
11:5 13:10,18
14:7 21:5,15
29:12 54:5
65:9,17 66:15
69:2 70:21
78:17,18,20
112:13 128:10
145:17,22
164:10 178:1
192:4 194:19
196:11 197:18
202:13 203:22
205:6,9 228:4

 

 

243:15 254:3
David's 70:4
227:21 243:21
day 65:6 76:15
77:17 81:6 93:3
144:4,11 200:20
201:2 208:5
daylights 137:9
days 36:14,16 64:8
117:1,2,15,16
119:16
121:9,11,12
130:4 134:11
138:6 171:15,20
172:2 212:22
237:11 240:12
251:15
day-to-day 28:11
113:10
DC 6:7,14 22:20
23:9
de 117:20 129:8
dead 56:21
deadline
134:10,13
deaf 208:20
deal 85:16 132:10
142:22 143:2
152:12 179:12
180:9 204:14
207:4,6 224:12
242:14 243:2
245:22
dealing 69:12,21
78:11 131:21
215:13 219:8
221:14 225:7
235:22
dealings 219:3
deals 61:18

 

169:14,16 195:9
221:15 251:22
dealt 197:9
Dean 2:11
dear 64:13
death 198:6
deaths 59:9
debate 218:12
Debbie 11:19
23:13 30:9
decades 94:14
December 67:4
decent 97:2 193:11
decentralized
117:5
decide 238:20
decided 88:19
154:6
decision 88:10
90:13 107:2
133:10 137:2,4
140:13 154:19
156:5 161:14
182:3 183:13,16
239:12 253:13
decisions 89:20
92:10 140:14
declaration 89:19
declare 89:16
Decorator's
174:13
dedicated 50:3
56:12 92:11
dedication 47:20
deeply 33:14
Deepwater 31:17
32:3,6,10 44:8

 

50:12
default 226:6
defeat 35:10
defend 98:7,19
defending 95:14
97:2
defense 51:17
52:10,17 94:6
95:18 227:17
defer 110:14
180:15,17,21
181:6,7,18 182:4
deferral 180:4,12
deferring 104:9
definable 55:21
definitely 228:22
definitive 69:8
188:6
degree 218:7
deherts@sikorsky.com 3:8 delay 61:2 delegated 117:8,9
deliberations
111:15
delighted 18:13
26:14 28:20
Democratic 23:15
Democrats 47:22
denials 59:22
denied 90:1
deny 61:2
department 1:12
5:4 15:4 16:9
20:10 21:9 25:15
26:17 28:4,7
45:20 54:21

 

64:18 68:10
70:17 87:18
92:13 93:18
94:1,12 127:4
128:19
133:13,15
137:16 160:8,12
165:20 172:16
191:11 207:7
208:16 246:20
Departments
116:1
Department's
21:17 53:10
depending 126:10
145:19 149:20
170:10
depends 252:14
depressed 161:20
Deputy 20:3
30:12,13 56:17
132:17 190:16
describe 140:20
described 109:7
125:10 150:6,13
176:13 219:7
245:18
describing 221:10
description 47:18
188:2
descriptions 95:7
234:20
design 106:14
Designated 7:7
designee 190:20
desirable 172:22
desire 76:21
157:16 163:13
221:15

 

 

desired 163:18
171:18
172:11,15 173:6
desk 141:8
desperately 105:1
115:5
Despite 47:1 108:6
despites 49:4
detail 24:18 50:4
70:14 146:13
193:3,4
detailed 126:7
173:16
determination
92:6 102:22
163:11,15
176:2,21
177:14,15 189:8
determinations
87:8 91:17
183:11
determine 124:18
183:15 199:13
determined
191:19 194:9
deterrence 91:21
deterrent 90:16,17
92:15 95:22
deterrents
69:12,20 70:22
71:2,19 90:11
188:13,14,15
195:21
deters 93:12
detriments 168:4
Detroit 4:14 20:11
52:14
develop 64:11
78:14 96:18

 

197:4 221:15
developed 40:6
220:5
developing
226:16,22
development
40:14,15,21
77:10
developments 55:1
develops 116:9
215:19
deviate 216:3
devoting 247:11
dialogue 104:19
227:3
difference 44:3
89:4 117:17
118:3 138:13
140:17,19
150:1,7
151:3,10,16
153:21 218:2
differences 101:12
120:10 140:8
146:8 157:8
different 32:13
40:21 63:6 68:14
71:18 76:16
78:12 80:1,6
87:1 111:20,21
113:12 114:1
116:5 117:5,13
123:18 125:16
126:5,6 130:19
131:9 134:4,5
141:1,17,18
142:5,7 155:21
162:22 168:2
171:22 175:15
176:14,15 180:2
189:1 190:12,13

 

191:16,21
193:16 195:7,11
200:22 209:8
212:6 213:18
217:7 227:11
237:7 240:1,12
differently 43:15
149:20 150:19
differs 175:2
difficult 16:19,20
37:12 49:10 91:1
130:2 224:5
228:8
dig 200:6
Digital 255:14
ding 167:18
direct 82:18
110:17 194:1,8
197:21
directed 64:7
direction 188:6
255:6
directions 48:15
220:22
directly 61:18
62:18 136:17
190:9 195:12
242:7
Director 4:2,17
6:19 10:15,20
18:16 19:16 21:3
22:11,14 23:18
26:3 29:6 30:15
51:2,4 68:2,7
74:22 90:5 92:9
99:18,21 102:9
106:6,10 253:8
Directorate 6:20
7:9 8:12,22 21:3
28:15 51:2,5
56:10,12 57:2,5

 

58:2 74:21 75:1
92:7 127:16
128:3 191:20
224:17
Directors 92:7
102:8
discharge 34:7
89:10 129:15
135:19
disciplinary
104:10
discipline 92:19
94:13 103:11
232:9
disciplined
93:2,10 102:1
231:9,17,22
232:3
disclaimer 211:1
disconnect 188:19
220:4,12 221:12
250:11
discouraged 72:11
discouraging
184:14 229:22
discovered 33:8
discovery 133:21
136:7 137:12,13
discretion 209:9
discretionary
211:3
discriminate
34:8,17
discriminated
95:8
discrimination
5:14 19:1 82:2
94:19 96:9
115:20 137:14

 

 

169:15 209:13
247:2 252:17
discuss 54:22
126:18 172:18
discussed 111:12
172:14
discusses 193:3
discussing 40:17
discussion 11:1,7
14:5,8,10 29:9
37:2 42:5 49:8
83:22 84:10 86:4
88:2 109:22
110:3 112:7
145:21 152:11
155:13 198:3
224:10
228:13,16,19
234:22 235:4
237:21 240:16
247:8 249:22
discussions 252:2
disease 129:13
disincentive 42:7
55:14 61:15,19
67:9 229:22
disincentives
42:19
dismal 94:21
dismiss 72:22
127:22
dismissal 101:20
dismissals 75:6
91:17
dismissed 102:1
143:17 156:9
174:2 187:21
Disney's 56:20
disposal 104:20

 

dispute 63:16
disputes 64:4
disseminate 78:16
disseminating
78:5
distant 206:10
distorted 42:17
distress
161:11,12,22
162:11 164:11
distribute 105:16
176:6
distributed 105:21
District 55:22
118:1 133:11,19
138:11,14
division 7:8
10:6,17 19:21
21:21 22:12,16
23:11 24:12
25:4,14,18 83:10
99:22 106:12
197:6
docket 66:9,11
110:7 111:2,4,21
docketing 125:9
Doctorate 56:17
DOCUMENT
13:12 66:3
documents 65:16
66:7,10,12 111:1
143:6 226:1
Dodd-Frank 44:16
208:6
DOL 6:18
dollars 31:21 33:4
domesticated 59:2
done 27:17 29:19

 

30:17 31:8
46:10,11 57:7
68:13 73:2 74:4
95:2 102:12
145:18 159:19
168:5 170:12,15
176:7,8
178:13,18
184:12
186:1,9,16 188:9
211:9 216:11
222:1 224:4
227:19 229:6
237:14 243:7
248:20,22
249:2,4,15,21
250:5,18 251:18
doors 15:15
DOT 145:6
double 59:12
double-duty 185:5
doubt 91:16 112:3
185:21
Dougherty 5:13
13:19 18:21
49:11,20 70:6
82:1,4 238:7
239:6,9 241:18
downside 217:17
Do-Wop 56:11
dozens 43:3
Dr 49:21 51:7,10
52:5 54:5
55:6,15,17 56:3
57:9 59:15
61:12,17,19
62:19 65:4 70:20
76:5,12 78:2
79:14 102:7
113:6 120:15,20
141:19 186:20
194:16 202:7,13

 

223:14 228:4
242:4 247:16
248:6,11
249:16,20 250:5
253:18
draft 63:7 67:10
draw 138:1
143:4,8
drawing 116:10
Drinking 141:9
drive 4:4 106:16
145:6
driver 145:5
drivers 44:18
117:11
driving 80:15 81:6
dropped 33:5
drug 58:18 187:4
drum 76:2
due 30:9 60:1 92:1
101:22 108:13
116:14 121:19
142:12 162:5
164:2 183:7
186:20 202:15
213:11
dumped 208:3
Durant 9:8
durant.frances@dol.gov9:14
during 15:15,22
16:6 61:4 86:15
109:18 111:4
155:12 165:22
188:2
dust 84:6,17,18
duties 166:3
dynamic 78:4

 

 

217:11
dynamics 217:22

 

E
e.spieler@neu.edu
2:8
eager 42:4
eagerness 76:21
159:16
earlier 72:14 90:8
122:10 150:13
207:15 243:10
early 63:19 108:16
127:21 130:6
133:5 157:20
192:20 195:2
ears 53:6 208:20
easier 63:5 198:10
220:15
easily 63:9 252:22
East 4:13
easy 69:21 105:6
154:7 197:12
eaten 45:2
echo 72:5 128:12
246:19
economies 162:22
economy 31:21
206:7
Ed 11:21 21:7
23:18 30:21
65:15,17 66:4
67:15 110:14
132:2
EDGAR 199:13
edge 209:4 237:6
Edmund 8:1 13:13
Edna 67:3

 

Ed's 186:8
educate 211:13
education 23:16
109:2 233:14
educational 5:2
19:5,6
Edwin 2:4
EEOC 136:4,7
162:13 246:21
247:1 248:17,19
effect 90:17 92:15
95:22 121:13
161:21 188:13
203:20
effective 57:3 71:7
74:9 90:11,19
91:7 98:15 99:3
115:13 152:11
170:21 197:15
198:12 200:13
effectively 29:20
48:21 56:6 89:5
204:8
effectiveness 91:2
97:12,16
198:8,21 201:21
202:3,6
effectuate 76:17
efficiency 27:8,11
105:8
efficient 195:22
217:14
efficiently 29:20
effort 62:1 68:11
97:8,10 102:21
103:2 108:14
219:14
efforts 48:10 98:6
102:3 209:2

 

egregious
153:8,9,13
Eherts 3:2 13:18
19:19 78:18,20
202:20
203:12,15 204:9
205:1,6 210:5,6
211:2 218:19
254:6
eight 46:14 173:7
either 95:9 117:19
127:9 140:14,15
158:12 164:1
167:13 186:20
194:11 219:14
229:10 237:15
electronic 239:2
241:11
elements 150:12
elevated 152:20
Eleven 31:19
eliminate 41:15
57:5
eliminated 54:8
eliminating 41:18
else 16:17 69:7
81:21 83:20
127:3 133:18
140:4 178:11
198:5 229:5
232:11,15
240:20 252:13
elsewhere 190:18
email 2:8,18
3:8,15,22
4:7,15,22
5:10,19 6:9,16
7:4,15,22 8:8,18
9:6,14 67:3
200:17 217:9

 

embarrass 120:5
embrace 50:14
77:13
embraces 77:6
emergency 16:3
118:17
emerging
137:12,14
Emily 1:7 2:3
13:3,8 15:2 26:9
30:5 65:10 110:6
203:16 253:19
Emily's 202:20
emotional
161:10,12,22
162:10 164:11
emphasize 54:4
62:4 179:8
empirical 42:2
employed 33:3,10
255:8
employee 20:6
33:8
34:8,9,13,17,22
60:4 61:3 67:8
91:3,9 101:17
107:9 108:1
117:15 118:8
123:10 130:22
131:15 145:8
155:17 156:16
176:17 177:10
183:12 210:12
211:7
employees 26:16
33:15 37:17
39:14 55:10
59:18,19 79:11
89:9,21 92:19
100:21 104:2,8
117:12 119:11

 

 

135:12 163:6
178:11
179:1,2,13,14,19
202:22 203:4,8
204:14,16
210:9,15
211:10,12,13
212:8,10,16
224:1 233:9,11
employee's 93:10
Employees 10:17
22:12 99:19,22
176:13
employer 34:19
35:9 38:10 55:14
58:7 62:17,21,22
71:4,22 72:10
80:11 96:14
118:8 131:16
136:9 137:6
151:17 153:22
155:17
160:6,14,19
174:7,8 175:5,12
176:4,5,12
178:20
179:9,10,18
188:3,4,7 195:20
203:9 204:3
209:19 219:17
229:21 230:20
231:18 249:12
employers 26:15
35:4 36:6
37:4,8,16,17,21
38:2,5,11 40:16
49:2 50:10,13
51:21 53:11,13
59:19 71:6,7,10
76:15,16,18,20,2
2 77:2,12,16,21
78:11 79:8
80:5,11,14 92:19
95:21,22 99:1

 

134:14
135:8,10,11
151:14 160:22
163:5 178:13
184:7,12 186:19
195:19
204:12,22
208:20 209:6
212:7,9,17
218:21
221:2,8,9,14,22
230:22
232:12,14
233:1,8
234:14,16
244:16 250:13
employer's 131:11
150:10
Employers 208:8
employment 61:4
205:22
enacted 115:8,17
170:21
encountered 136:3
encourage 35:5
44:1 79:2 80:7
120:9 148:1
172:21 173:15
202:22 203:3
204:6 206:18
233:6
encourages 96:19
encouraging 71:5
91:6 204:2,22
endless 222:20
energy 32:20 76:7
119:9,10 162:15
222:16 247:11
253:4
enforce 39:10
48:21 49:12

 

88:12 118:20
126:20 139:20
174:11 211:5
enforceable
210:22
enforced 29:2
84:18 117:22
enforcement 6:3,5
39:19 54:14,15
61:21,22 62:15
69:9 91:5 92:11
100:19 107:5
109:2 148:21
149:3 151:13
192:7 197:8
208:18 220:17
225:22
enforcements
100:20
enforcing 89:2
190:12 231:19
engage 98:11
engaged 125:19
engaging 107:11
203:13
engineers 10:21
22:15 23:22
44:19 100:5
106:7,11,14,15
England 11:3
21:13
112:10,12,18,19
engrained 102:19
enhance 55:19
97:13
enhanced 97:8
enhancing 96:3
151:13
enjoyment 109:4

 

Enron 32:19
33:2,8,12 44:7
50:13 52:6 80:16
Enron's 33:14
ensure 29:18
33:18 46:16,17
52:19,22 56:14
64:19 66:22
179:19 241:13
ensured 57:10
ensuring 95:2 98:2
entail 224:14
enter 62:2 125:11
177:5,7
enterprise 179:11
enterprises 101:4
enterprise-wide
219:10 220:17
entertain 253:17
entertainment
52:15
entirely 204:18
entitled 67:12
entrenched 102:15
enumerated 27:10
196:10
enumerates
252:5,7
envelope 251:9
environment 5:4
32:9 196:5
environmental 4:2
19:17 31:22
32:14 44:11 89:4
101:9 119:8
140:1
envisioned 113:9

 

 

EPA 140:1
equal 32:17
equally 30:19
43:13 45:21
equipment 59:2
73:18 107:21
108:1
equitable 144:9,14
era 47:22
160:11,13,15
Eric 4:17 13:15
18:15 68:7,9
72:6 77:8 84:3
149:6,9,10
173:18 175:22
176:22 185:16
187:14,15
205:3,5 207:14
209:11
218:16,18
225:15 227:7
233:17 243:4
eric.frumin@changetowin.org
4:22
Eric's 210:6 227:6
especially 127:13
167:22 177:13
178:19 181:16
206:6
essentially 27:10
34:15 38:15 41:7
175:6
establish 27:14
58:6
established 57:10
74:12
esteemed 113:11
etcetera 79:16
80:1 119:13

 

126:6 205:18
209:17
ethical 77:5,13
ethics 7:18 20:4
80:1 237:9
evacuate 16:7,10
evaluate 71:15
131:10
165:11,18 166:9
239:7
evaluated 166:1,6 evaluating 78:8 evaluation 68:18
70:8 133:6
202:16 223:3
238:13 251:4
evaluations 74:3,7
202:15
event 16:5 171:9
205:3
events 54:19 95:7
eventually 30:11
33:12 213:20
everybody 15:10
37:19 43:5 45:13
175:7 214:16
249:9
everybody's
157:17 213:6
214:18
everyday 52:17
57:6
everyone 16:22
17:17,22 18:5
37:20 65:20
139:3 155:2
everyone's 36:3
everything 66:1,2
75:4,9 82:11

 

140:4 184:2
186:22 224:8
233:10 240:3
250:6
everywhere 52:21
114:6
evidence 28:16
42:2,3 142:14,17
216:20
evolves 253:13
evolving 220:7
exact 150:11 164:7
exactly 33:2 65:1
78:3 180:20
214:18 231:1
240:15
example 33:22
38:8 42:20 43:12
60:2 71:11 72:20
101:5 103:9
105:14 116:6
122:12 123:9
139:17,22
141:22 142:7
143:1
144:8,10,22
145:4 146:22
151:3 156:14
160:10 164:3
170:19 180:22
181:18,19 196:3
201:9 225:3,5
249:13 251:14
examples 92:22
95:6 107:6
174:12
exceedingly
132:20
excellent 109:1
144:6 146:17
except 37:15 147:6

 

230:7
exception 89:10
169:20 174:18
exceptionally
193:6
exceptions
118:13,16
126:11
Exchange 147:1
199:4,6
excited 187:9
exciting 77:21
129:3
excluding 121:4
exclusive 174:13
exclusively 195:9
excuse 113:17
executed 158:14
exemplary 134:18
exercise 34:13,21
88:11
exercising 32:11
94:20 95:9,14
Exhibit
66:13,14,15,18
67:1,3,6,10,11
exist 182:15
197:10 248:5
existence 90:1
116:2 146:10
exists 32:21
exit 15:15
exits 16:11
ex-officio 49:18
expand 235:8,9
expanded 53:3

 

 

expansion 59:8
expect 45:5 46:5
58:4 59:15
109:13 211:5
250:19
expectations 29:21
221:1
expected 58:1
253:20
experience 29:18
48:20 64:8 78:7
114:8 135:11
142:19 162:21
164:19 176:18
184:11 211:9
212:6 231:5
232:5 240:6
245:6
experienced 71:10
expert 233:4,5
expertise 105:6
201:11
experts 65:2
198:17 201:8
explain 34:16
106:13 139:5
explaining 65:2
explanation 41:22
exploded 31:18
explore 81:12,13
explosion 32:7
exposed 153:10
express 51:18
163:13 172:12
expressed
157:16,22
227:22
extend 64:7

 

233:20 236:11
extended 74:5
extensive 228:1
237:20
extent 87:11
123:21 136:14
148:2 182:20
226:19 227:2
230:19 239:1
241:3
external 195:19
196:1 246:3
extraordinary
253:20
extreme 42:20
43:12
extremely 28:19
200:13 217:10
eyes 53:5

 

F
fabulous 31:9
face 17:1 41:2 92:9
FaceBook 136:11
faced 153:22
facie 218:8
facilitate 127:12
128:3 158:1
facilitation 157:4
facilities 15:17
99:2
facility 15:12
fact 15:11 28:3
51:22 57:4 62:16
76:7 78:3 87:17
121:19 126:15
130:22 132:13
152:20 162:7
167:19 174:4

 

176:6,7 178:12
179:1 189:5,11
193:8 208:9
226:2 241:14
fact-bound 134:1
fact-intensive
134:2
factor 138:19,21
168:1,2
factors 170:11
facts 114:13
130:20
131:10,17
133:10
faculty 2:11 254:4
fair 25:14,17
84:20 115:13
127:2 156:15
177:4,7 194:10
212:1 247:7
Fairfax 30:12 67:7
72:9 92:18 93:6
102:7 187:7
196:3 229:11
231:12 249:5
fairly 49:4 114:1
127:2 202:5
246:7
fairness 27:7,11
105:8
faith 233:2
fall 125:6,8 232:1
falls 124:19 146:19
familiar 101:5
136:4 174:22
183:14 234:19
family 51:1 85:21
fan 69:12
fans 16:18

 

fare 166:16
far-reaching 58:19
fascinated 237:20
fashion 104:15
fast 116:8
faster 167:2
fast-forward
121:9
Father 57:1
fault 194:13
favorable 174:5
fax 7:3,14 8:7,17
9:5,13,21 123:17
faxes 147:17
FBI 52:4
FDA 59:3,9
Fe 62:1
fear 33:20 35:19
36:1 71:6 80:15
81:4,6,18,20
224:2,3
fearing 29:4
feature 219:4
February 37:5
Federal 6:1 7:7
20:6,18 27:20
39:11,16 40:5
54:11,16 60:15
64:2 66:5 82:20
89:11 98:8 100:9
106:22
107:10,13
109:21 112:3
118:1,20 119:22
122:5 126:21
128:20
133:11,14 135:4
138:11,14

 

 

139:20 141:10
142:2 154:14
169:13,20
201:12 208:4
236:10 238:12
240:2 245:10,13
252:17
Federation 18:17
feed 85:21
feel 35:18 36:6
50:16,17 79:11
96:12 148:4
196:20 197:22
207:22 213:1
252:22
feeling 252:4
feels 211:4 243:16
fees 89:1 143:15
fellow 24:21 25:9
26:6 53:12 129:6
136:6
Fellows 31:1
Felsen 132:15
felt 32:8
fewer 37:22 38:3
field 7:8 25:4
31:7,13 46:17,22
47:4,6 55:14
56:4,13 80:6
97:8,10 102:10
128:5 201:11
fifth 128:21
fifty 102:19
figure 17:4 40:8
190:13,15 200:6
213:10
217:16,19
218:15 245:21
figured 199:12

 

205:2
figuring 235:14
file 34:18 36:14,18
47:1 63:5
117:15,19
124:16 128:2
133:11,19
135:3,4 138:10
144:13
199:5,10,15
200:12
244:12,18 245:2
250:16
filed 34:9 39:15
55:21 61:10
63:9,14 67:13
118:19 123:13
154:18 161:5,7
180:22 247:1,4,5
248:4
files 140:3 144:4
filing 58:6 107:14
118:1 138:5,7,14
149:12 150:2
241:2 245:11
filings 117:20
fill 240:11
final 58:18 60:10
92:5 147:2 152:6
158:13 194:21
223:3 253:5
finalizing 58:13
finally 16:3 31:7
64:13 113:6
115:2 125:22
140:7 141:15
144:18
financed 102:15
financial 6:4 20:7
32:18 34:1 44:15
60:7,8 129:14

 

170:19 171:3
177:6 209:14
210:11 255:9
finding 41:17 81:4
174:2,6,20
188:10
findings 64:9
102:21 117:19
126:8,9,10
138:13,17
139:9,14 143:9
147:3 154:15,16
180:15,17
187:22 188:5
finds 118:7 126:16
fine 50:16 71:6
87:12 153:7,11
189:19 213:19
fines 72:1 85:14
fir 233:19
fire 31:17 34:16
fired 150:8,9
161:18
firing 49:5
firm 18:11 22:20
76:14 207:17
firm's 18:12
first 15:7 17:18
27:3 29:15
34:3,16 41:7
51:9,12,17
52:10,16 61:3
62:8 63:18 68:10
81:20 82:7
83:14,17 100:12
108:3 112:21
115:17 116:1
134:19
172:3,5,10
186:13 187:3

 

196:10,19
198:21 199:1,8
204:1 210:12
212:3 227:7
228:6 232:22
246:17 249:17
fiscal 45:3,12 58:5
67:2,14 121:10
143:18
fit 47:18 240:15
five 86:6 87:1
162:22 165:12
194:22 216:21
222:9
fixes 251:14
fixing 207:8
flags 238:17
flavor 47:20
flip 40:20
floor 15:16,19
244:1 247:20
FMCS-directed
63:22
focal 94:8 221:5
focus 51:12 53:7
70:7,15 72:13
82:5 94:4 115:4
146:7 197:17
214:15 215:1
235:10
focused 39:8 67:17
70:13 76:19
110:2 237:8
238:5 240:7
focuses 15:5 38:11
58:21 214:18
focusing 41:11
46:15 51:16
177:19 229:3

 

 

230:19
FOIA 226:3
folks 73:21 129:18
132:2,4,8 137:1
146:2 194:5
follow-up 148:7
170:2 173:8
181:10
fondly 56:11
food 44:22 45:1
52:15
58:15,17,19,20
59:6,11,14
122:12 129:16
145:7,8
Foods 4:3 19:17
forbid 174:7
force 170:17
Fordham 67:3
foregoing 255:3
foregoing/
attached 256:6
foreign 59:4
forever 102:2
fork 61:12
form 63:7 67:11
124:15 238:16
240:9,19,20
241:1,11
formal 86:8
101:14 251:17
formally 17:13
65:18 104:21
former 20:3 131:6
forms 238:19
forth 69:18 110:9
133:21 234:22
251:18

 

fortunate 254:1
Fortune 32:21
77:2 163:1
forum 181:7,22
182:1 183:3,5
forward 17:9 18:3
27:16 28:18,19
29:4 32:9 57:12
79:3 80:20
81:3,8,14 83:7
91:6 92:22
93:10,11 95:3,13
99:13 100:18
104:19 109:19
111:9,13,16
187:11 195:5
197:11,16 198:2
199:22 204:14
210:16 219:22
221:12 222:22
228:2 229:12,16
231:5 246:8
254:10
foster 77:10 108:8
founded 50:16
founder 33:9
four-and-a-half
18:18
Fourth 16:9
fraction 45:15
frames 58:7
Frances 1:13 9:8
frankly 36:21
49:18 78:6 132:8
135:10 222:3
fraud 209:14
fraudulent 34:1
free 50:16 52:11
frequently 53:13

 

162:5 183:10
Friday 43:16
friendly 82:17
front 16:8 74:14
85:21 92:2
117:20 206:22
FRSA 39:13,19
40:1 45:9 60:16
61:1,8,10,21
62:10 100:18
120:13 181:21
184:9 233:22
234:3
fruits 58:21
Frumin 4:17 13:15
18:15,16 68:7,9
110:6,20 111:9
149:7,9,10,11
150:14 151:11
152:2,21 173:19
177:1 187:16
189:15,19
205:4,5,8
218:17,18
225:16 233:18
234:7,9,12
236:20 243:5
244:6
frustrating 49:10
frustration
81:19,21
frustrations 252:1
FTE's 56:4
fulfill 30:3
full 27:13 49:22
92:1 109:4
111:14 120:3
196:18
full-time
116:19,20

 

fully 47:3 96:17
163:8
function 130:5,7
159:22 162:6
179:15,16,17
191:17 222:18
functioning 30:8
191:16 193:13
196:6 244:4
functions 57:7
191:15,20 192:1
193:5
funded 208:18
funnel 83:3
future 37:12 59:5
74:19 99:10
109:18 111:16
112:1 122:13
174:9 179:2
224:20 228:16
247:15
FY 163:9
FY2012 121:18

 

G
galloping 206:11
GAO 42:16 46:14
167:11 168:6,8
169:3,8 170:1
Garde 20:15
Gary 12:1 24:2
gas-drilling 42:22
Gateway 5:7
Gawandi 79:17
gears 165:7
general 4:11 20:3
46:12,13,19
66:19 69:15
95:17 101:19

 

 

145:21 169:15
generally 27:21
37:22 68:10
101:8 157:4,5
176:11 180:14
186:15 192:8
generate 122:13
generated 88:3
238:10
generic 176:17,19
genuine 102:5
George 12:3 24:6
115:15
Georgia 52:14
Geppetto 56:21
get-go 28:12
gets 37:14 75:14
105:21 154:18
203:9 207:1
240:10
getting 38:8 71:9
132:21 161:19
162:1 167:16
169:22 181:4
192:19 206:12
213:13 220:13
229:10 231:16
232:6 239:1
245:12 250:7
gift 15:17
Girls 84:5
given 15:10 30:4
35:6 46:2,7
77:12 94:3 97:22
98:6 129:20
134:7,8 156:4
159:17 220:11
226:12 233:13
241:22 245:4

 

gives 128:4
giving 60:19,20
gkeating@littler.com 3:15
glad 76:9
glaring 98:4
glove 130:9
goal 27:11 41:14
72:20 108:8
171:18 179:4
209:1
goals 17:15 149:18
God 125:17 174:7
gone 140:10 170:9
202:9
gotten 47:9 53:21
54:21 79:12
164:12 176:7
204:12 232:3
244:15
governed 101:9
governing 60:11
government 19:14
30:3 69:7 114:7
124:22
208:17,18 219:2
graded 153:5
grapple 38:6 85:9
Grassley 48:6,9
66:14
great 20:12 30:18
70:14 81:18
100:16 104:5
105:22 116:13
125:2 129:5
141:22 142:7,22
143:2 156:3
166:22 167:1
168:14 171:4

 

181:15 185:1
186:3 209:4
211:8,15,22
222:3 233:5
249:3,12,13,14
greatest 152:13
greatly 103:11,12
170:10
GREETING 13:2
Greg 13:17
18:8,10 75:21
78:2 79:20
145:22 146:5
147:8 171:12,13
207:13 221:9
236:18
Gregory 3:10
75:22
Greg's 146:22
210:7
grievance 99:2
180:7 181:14
Gross 12:16 26:3
ground 159:15
groundbreaking
85:11
group 4:3 18:13
19:17 30:14
31:10 100:16
167:2 196:15,16
201:14 209:3
220:9
229:1,3,6,8,17,1
9 230:4
231:16,21,22
232:21
233:4,5,15,19
236:2,11,13,16,2
1 237:5,8,15
238:3 239:13
242:10,22 243:6

 

250:7 251:1
252:8
groups 14:10
27:14 28:1 55:5
98:12,13
222:13,18
223:8,11
228:17,19,21
230:18 236:9,14
237:17,22
243:18,20,21
244:3 250:22
253:10
Grow 130:10
guard 104:8
Guenther 12:13
25:16 30:22
65:10 132:8
guess 58:17
64:13,14 106:12
110:9 140:21
166:11 167:18
185:17 201:20
guests 50:1
guidance 55:13
60:17 77:4 78:6
123:2 235:18
guided 253:21
guidelines 58:20
234:21
guilt 177:9
guilty 101:17
Gulf 31:22
gun 216:20 217:2
245:7
gut 217:4
guy 216:10
guys 79:5 83:19
185:15

 

 

H
H&S 4:17 68:7
Hadley 2:4
half 86:4
half-hour 197:19
Hall 2:14
hallway 15:13
hand 189:20 210:8
211:7 249:10
250:12
handbook 211:1
handbooks 210:14
hand-in 130:8
handle 47:3 69:5
129:19 148:10
154:7,8 180:3
197:14 226:12
handled 82:13
197:2
handles 128:6
handling 17:7 55:2
58:14 59:16
60:6,11
handout 121:16
handouts 48:6
120:6
hands 207:2 226:1
227:21 247:17
handy 131:17
happen 47:16
75:20 84:21
152:8 179:20
201:10 210:18
211:19 213:3
232:16 240:17
happened 44:7
76:4 83:1,3 93:9

 

132:20 134:5
147:18 188:9
203:6 240:13
happens 70:8
131:7 147:20
148:9,11 153:14
156:7 159:14
172:8 196:3
202:16 237:13
251:2
happy 18:19 58:8
65:5 122:22
145:14
harassment 107:3
235:21
hard 28:13 43:14
69:4 102:14
105:5 107:2
134:8 154:8
157:15 167:2
191:4 218:15
226:1
harken 207:15
harm 129:14
212:18
Harriman 38:15
Harris 6:2 20:5,6
177:4,6 215:7
217:18 218:5
haven't 35:22
46:10 83:2
163:15 176:20
182:11 201:2,5
204:12 208:6
238:1 241:6
249:21
having 36:5 60:2
65:2 74:14 76:19
114:8 116:7
150:18 161:22
178:1 200:22
205:17,20 209:9

 

217:6 220:13
227:22 233:2
239:2 241:11
251:1 252:16
hawing 213:8
hazard 35:15 44:2
78:8 103:20
118:17 145:2
150:10
hazardous 107:18
108:2
hazards
41:14,15,18
94:15 95:10,19
150:3 205:16,17
206:4 244:13,20
245:3
head 23:3 119:4
162:18 207:1
217:1
heads 28:15
health 1:11 5:4
18:16 21:20 22:7
23:12,19 24:12
32:8,12 34:2,20
35:11,15 37:20
46:8 51:14,15
52:15,18,20
59:1,18 60:3
71:1,5 93:18
94:1,11
115:7,14,22
116:5 129:17
148:16 151:4
191:13
205:16,17,20
206:15 224:9
234:20 250:2
healthy 115:16
hear 16:4,20 17:2
55:22 73:19
82:15 84:1 86:10

 

100:4 202:12
heard 42:21 51:10
72:14 83:2,3
98:3 119:21
120:12 130:21
141:18,19,20
170:16 190:11
195:18 208:1,15
227:7 231:4
251:10
hearing 88:20
117:20 178:2
237:11
250:12,14
heart 64:13
heartbreaking
129:10
heavy 133:1
Heckman 25:20
heightened 94:4
held 134:21 140:3
Hello 99:20
help 16:11
17:5,11,14 29:18
31:13 37:1 46:7
47:15
48:17,19,22
50:5,7,9 66:22
68:5 70:15,17,18
71:15 78:13 80:6
99:12 101:2
102:10 103:1,22
104:1
109:11,14,15
112:19 130:20
132:12 155:1
171:10 190:13
220:21 235:8,9
237:13
helpful 28:20
74:10 105:14

 

 

132:5 133:4
143:5 155:8
156:4,7,11 161:4
164:14,15,17
182:9,20 201:16
225:16 226:11
237:18
242:10,21
helping 30:2 65:11
104:5
helps 19:13
hemming 213:8
hereby 255:3
256:2
here's
219:19,20,22
220:19 249:13
he's 56:21 65:19
120:21 177:17
222:17
Hey 123:11 175:7
Hi 22:17,19
25:1,3,6 160:5
hide 227:14
high 28:3,5 30:14
38:8,12 47:13
166:17,21
203:19 211:11
higher 29:21
144:21 156:19
209:18 242:21
highest 47:8
highlights 66:18
highly 116:21
high-quality
166:20
historical 224:19
historically 147:17
history 31:20

 

114:17 122:16
hit 134:10 164:18
hold 103:9 123:22
124:2,4
hone 68:2
honest 104:19
Honestly 216:21
honored 15:3
28:21 51:8 76:9
Honors 25:12
hook 199:19
Hooper 132:17
hope 42:4 43:21
48:17 62:16
65:12 77:9 79:5
81:11 92:12
211:20 240:10
hoped 64:5
hopefully 16:12
152:5 161:3
243:1 247:14
hopes 29:21
hoping 71:14
128:14
Horizon 31:17
32:4,6,10 44:8
50:12
Horowitz 130:16
132:15
horrible
129:11,12,13
horrific 32:1
horse 198:5
hospitals 119:12
host 51:8
hotline 212:20
hotlines 211:11

 

hour 26:19 86:4
156:17 197:6
209:12
hourly 156:16
159:6
hours 30:6 84:7
93:1 132:18
212:22
House 23:16
housekeeping 13:2
15:6,12
Houston-based
32:20
How's 168:13
HR 24:9 213:14
hub 238:15
huge 68:21 136:12
188:16 212:10
220:4 229:14
232:5 242:15,18
243:2 247:10
hugely 222:2
Hughes 11:15 23:2
human 62:6
239:22
hunch 245:19
hundred 102:19
Huntington 2:6
hurdle 133:16
Hutcheson 8:10
12:15 25:21
hutcheson.cori@dol.gov 8:18
hygiene 59:1

 

I
I'd 17:16 18:5
48:22 49:8

 

50:10,13 67:18
86:7,14 91:21
110:3 112:21,22
113:2 122:15,18
132:11 154:22
165:6 166:17
168:6 178:15
179:8 190:14
197:2,21 214:22
222:18 224:13
227:6 228:21
232:20 243:8
249:19
idea 108:12 132:22
157:13 179:21
197:4 209:4
222:11
Ideally 35:14,15
ideas 11:7 14:11
17:14 28:9
197:22 235:13
242:14 243:1,13
244:2,5 246:8
identified 37:11
42:11 65:7
identifies 35:14
identify 40:4 54:1
68:5 78:13 96:2
112:4 234:17
identifying 78:7
227:9 234:15,16
iffy 239:12
ignorance 179:17
212:11
ignorant 208:8
ignore 53:18
IL 4:5
ill 84:6
I'll 29:22 34:6 51:1
68:9 72:8 73:4

 

 

74:1 91:3 112:6
128:7,17,20
170:18 172:4
226:21 230:1
243:14
illegible 12:20
Illinois 19:18
illness 107:18
illnesses 52:11
59:9 72:11
184:15 186:19
230:1
illustrative 87:10
I'm 15:3,8 16:22
17:17
18:11,13,16,19,2
1,22
19:3,8,9,12,15,1
9,20
20:1,3,5,6,9,10,2
0
21:2,5,8,9,11,12,
15,19
22:5,7,8,14,17,1
9,21
23:2,5,10,18
24:2,10,16,18,20
25:1,3,6,8,11,13,
16,19,21 26:5,14
29:5 37:13 39:5
42:4 50:19
57:1,11,13
58:2,8 65:15
70:5 71:14 72:12
75:3,19 76:8,13
77:19 82:22
83:11,17 86:1
87:2,22 93:22
94:1 99:20
105:10 106:9
110:16 112:11
113:14
114:9,15,16

 

119:9 120:5
131:1 133:21
136:15 137:20
139:3 146:5,8,11
149:8,10
151:2,20 152:16
153:2,13 157:5
159:7 163:20
165:2 168:3
169:7 171:4
172:13 174:19
175:6 177:5,19
178:1,3,11
182:13,19
185:1,22
188:19,20 190:2
194:19 195:5
197:20 200:15
202:13 210:5
212:19 213:9,22
214:8,9 215:4
216:10 217:19
218:12 219:17
221:4,10
222:4,21 223:22
224:21 225:20
226:6 228:17
230:10,20 234:8
237:20 240:21
241:10,19
243:12 245:14
246:11 247:6,18
250:11
imagine 49:19
immediate 139:19
immediately
139:15
immune 208:8
impact 32:1 44:21
46:2 161:1
impacted 33:14
impediments 96:2

 

implement 80:12
198:9 232:10
implementation
109:1
implemented
71:10,16,17
120:20
implicating 241:4
implications 139:4
159:20
importance
47:15,19 70:5
153:5 210:3
important 26:11
29:1 30:3 38:5
44:5,10,14,17,22
45:7 48:15
49:9,13 50:11
54:4 64:15,16
68:19 69:16
70:1,7 71:20
72:16 78:1
79:9,19 81:16
83:6 86:5 96:18
97:14 102:17
112:16 113:2,5
115:11,12
117:17 118:3
131:2 154:9
156:20 162:8
163:12 166:13
168:22 206:17
229:2 234:17
235:2 246:19
247:10,12,13
importantly 50:6
77:15 214:14
importer 59:4
impose 90:13
202:8
imposed 57:6

 

impossible 245:2
impress 120:3
impression 28:12
174:11,17,21
175:1,4
impressive 112:14
improve
17:5,7,9,12 27:7
28:14 48:19
57:11 65:4 66:21
84:9 100:18
104:11,15
improved 46:15
168:5
improvement 28:8
92:14,15 104:6
185:12
improvements
76:3 120:20
168:21
improving 105:8
228:6
inability 42:10
inadequacies
252:5
inadequate 159:10
inadequately
197:9
inattentiveness
101:18 231:9
inaudible 136:13
181:8 205:7
208:7,14 238:20
249:19
incentive 41:2,4
55:14 61:15,19
67:8 83:12,14,18
94:14
214:12,13,15

 

 

229:21 230:14
incentives 38:17
42:17 168:4
incentivize 44:2
Incentivizing
41:16
inception 130:12
incident 42:14
93:1,3 235:5
Incidents 44:7
Inclima 10:15 14:3
22:10
99:16,17,20
105:18,22 106:2
inclinations 235:7
include 49:14
58:20 248:7
included 44:10
65:18,20 86:19
91:9 110:10
includes 15:20
49:16
including 38:21
44:8 46:4 101:20
107:12 111:7
196:3 244:2
inclusive 26:11
incorporate 62:9
incorrect 89:13
increase 45:5
55:21 59:12
121:17 203:1
207:20 243:2
increased 46:17
47:2
increasing 36:12
218:21 220:22
251:14

 

increasingly 45:7
244:11
incredible 63:12
incredibly 26:10
65:12 86:5 239:4
246:18
indeed 53:9 91:22
218:19
independently
200:10
in-depth 202:15
indeterminate
194:9
indicate 17:20
65:18
indicated 65:5
74:5 224:16
indicates 93:6
183:14
individual 42:9
50:7 87:9,14,17
111:12 190:20
202:17
219:6,9,14
238:15 252:18
individually 40:9
individuals 19:13
164:21
industries 52:15
141:17 142:6
162:15
industry 32:18
38:14 39:5,7,9
52:13 58:20
60:7,12 61:13
98:8 101:3,6
102:14 103:6,22
117:12 120:13
141:21 236:12
237:8

 

ineffective 90:2
infer 136:13
inference 143:4,8
inferences 116:10
influx 242:15,18
inform 174:4
207:9 219:16
233:9
informally 104:22
information 14:9
67:4 74:21 111:7
120:8 136:17
147:19 148:6
151:3,7,8 152:15
165:19 172:15
173:6,17 186:6
188:7 196:14
213:17 222:11
223:2,10,16
225:11,17
247:21 248:2
251:5 253:7
informed 36:19
143:7 207:7
informing 188:3
inherent 133:6
initial 47:5 51:12
79:3 124:17
initially 115:20
118:15
initiates 103:19
initiative 47:10
injure 43:8
injured 37:22
41:5,14 43:1,5,8
61:4
injuries
37:5,9,10,12
38:4,10 41:9

 

42:1,3,8,11 44:3
52:11 72:11
92:21 93:8 94:15
95:10,19 101:1
103:12
184:10,15,17
186:19 206:2
229:10 230:1
injury 37:21
38:4,12,16,17,21
39:1,2,18
41:1,10,12,17
93:8 101:13,22
103:17 107:18
142:2 184:9
187:5
231:8,11,15
232:2
innovative 32:22
33:2 228:10
input 237:11
Inside 22:18
229:13
insight 177:16
insights 131:16
inspect 38:10
100:1
inspection 34:20
123:11
150:16,20
151:5,6
inspections 116:5
151:2,16
Inspector 46:13,19
123:10 206:22
Inspectors 115:21
instance 101:12
137:6 148:21
instituted 34:9,10
instructing 185:4

 

 

instructors 185:4
insurance 59:18
60:1,3 129:17
insurers 59:19
intake 82:18
123:7,20
integrate 245:20
integrated 77:21
209:7
integrity 44:14
46:15
intensive 138:19
intentional 135:21
intentions 211:15
interact 221:1
interest 36:2,3
136:20,21
137:2,10 157:22
222:15 227:22
255:10
interested 65:22
131:12 193:9,10
223:22 224:13
233:2 248:15
250:6
interesting 42:5
118:4 129:9
130:2 131:22
152:1 159:21
225:9 248:13
interestingly
119:14
interfere 61:2
interim 58:14,18
112:2 242:2
internal 68:13,15
70:16 201:8
219:20
International 3:12

 

4:12 5:6 19:7
20:11 118:16
180:5,16
internet 63:10
239:18 240:5
interpret 116:8
interrelated 90:6
intersect 127:15
243:13
interview
123:20,21
124:17 130:22
131:3 151:5
213:16
interviewed 32:4
interviewing
124:6
intimidated
101:21
intimidation 94:13
100:21 102:17
107:3
introduce
17:17,18,19 18:4
20:21 86:15 87:4
93:21
introduced
88:16,17
introduction 86:3
INTRODUCTIONS 13:4,5,6 18:9
21:1 22:4
introductory
13:7,9 26:8
29:11 57:14
86:16
invariable 220:12
investigate 36:11
46:5 57:22 75:11

 

96:9 134:9
150:11
investigated 42:12
115:21
investigating 32:3
125:12,18
147:11 216:19
investigation
42:14 67:22
101:14 116:17
125:15 129:21
134:11,12 139:9
143:11 151:20
152:12,14
157:18 163:19
166:14
172:1,3,6,9
176:10 199:22
235:5 244:8
investigations
27:9 29:19 33:21
46:1 50:21
55:2,17 71:21
101:16 104:10
105:9
114:14,21,22
116:4,7,16
119:16 123:5
126:3,8 158:2
166:4,10,15
169:15
180:12,15 244:9
245:20
investigative 24:14
170:17
Investigator 5:14
8:21 11:2 19:2
21:12 82:2
112:9,12
113:14,21
121:8,11 125:15
130:16 158:18
165:14 166:2

 

169:1,18 171:14
173:7,13
investigators
33:7,13 47:7
50:2 54:17 55:8
56:2,7 73:16
96:8,10,12,16
102:10 104:9,12
112:20
116:19,20 119:6
121:2,3,4,14
130:17 133:1,3
134:8 143:3
144:16 149:2
157:20 158:11
159:13,22
165:8,10,13,15,1
7,18,21
166:3,6,19 167:2
169:4,11,21,22
173:10,11
175:17 180:3,9
190:11,19 191:2
193:12
200:2,8,19
201:4,14 213:12
216:3,15 239:11
Investigator's
157:2
investigatory
55:11
invitation
86:20,21
invite 67:19 98:13
inviting 111:1
246:17
involve 39:16
136:5
involved 40:6
61:10 63:1 125:4
126:7 128:18,22
138:15 149:16

 

 

151:4 152:7,12
159:15 160:10
171:2 188:14
195:16 199:17
203:7,11 251:11
involvement
126:22 130:6
133:5
involves 32:19
227:21 241:5
involving 54:15
83:16 126:19
131:15 150:17
ISCA 119:3
126:12 127:18
141:3,9
Island 84:13
isn't 112:2 119:3
156:3 168:5
193:7 209:17
213:13 223:5
229:5 232:15
251:7
issuance 178:12
189:5
issue 38:6 47:21
48:13 59:3
72:7,15 73:4
75:7 94:17
99:11,14 126:10
136:3 138:12
142:11 143:8
148:11 153:20
160:5,7
167:9,10,22
172:14,15,19
178:22 183:10
185:11 186:3
187:17 192:19
197:2,5 200:22
203:9 206:17
209:11,12,13,14,

 

21 210:3 212:12
228:22
229:9,12,14
231:8 232:5,9
243:6 244:7
246:5,10
247:3,10 251:9
issued 46:14,19
117:18 164:2
issues 15:13 26:18
27:16 34:21
62:18 69:1,21
74:20 81:12 86:5
87:16 106:21
130:2 131:22
136:12 139:9
147:12 149:16
152:13 154:14
180:18 181:12
191:19 192:20
196:20 206:15
213:13,14
215:14 229:4
230:22 237:19
243:1 246:20
issuing 72:1
138:17
item 61:16
iterations 200:3
it'll 75:20 243:20
it's 18:17 20:13
26:10 27:5,19
30:1 31:22 32:21
36:2,21 37:11
38:1,2 39:1,11
42:13 43:10,12
44:10,14,17,22
47:20 48:14
49:13 52:16
56:20 60:19
63:1,8,17,21
64:14 71:3 73:15
75:18 80:3,15

 

85:15 88:17 89:5
91:1,2,19 94:15
96:7,18 98:17,18
100:14 102:5
103:12 105:5
108:12 110:16
113:18 122:3
128:13
129:4,11,12,13
130:11 132:20
133:16,18 134:2
135:20,21
138:16 146:5
149:13 153:6,9
155:18
156:14,19
157:12 158:14
159:3,5,14,15
160:7 162:6
166:11,13
171:13 172:2
174:17 175:5
178:21 179:16
182:7,15
186:12,15 187:5
189:9 192:16,22
200:10 202:5
204:18 205:11
208:22 210:2,10
212:2,6,11,12
214:1 217:5
218:13,15 219:9
221:17 222:9
224:19,22 226:1
228:2 230:8
231:10,13,19,20
233:20
234:17,21
235:9,12 236:18
237:1 239:11,12
241:20 242:1,5
244:14,15
245:1,12 246:6
247:10,12,13
248:20 249:7,12

 

250:15 252:17
I've 41:20,21 42:1
46:9 64:16 69:12
85:3 109:7
113:8,22
114:1,3,4,6
128:18,19,22
135:9 136:5
155:4 163:4
165:16 175:9
177:20 183:2,18
194:20 195:18
196:10,20
212:22 213:1
222:5 226:3
232:5 247:21

 

J
Jack 20:17
Jacquelyn 12:14
25:19
jailer 101:15
104:11
James 12:18
January 1:8 46:13
66:20 67:12
172:18 173:8
Jason 6:11 19:12
160:1,3,5
242:8,9
Jeff 11:22 23:20
Jefferson 4:13
Jersey 52:13
174:14
job 17:6 30:18
31:9 35:5 46:10
61:13 70:11
85:20 91:10,14
95:2 97:2,4
108:21 139:16
161:22 162:5

 

 

181:4 185:9
228:7
jobs 38:9 96:11
104:14 135:18
John 11:17 20:15
23:7
Johnson 11:16
23:5
join 29:17 50:1
93:16
joined 245:1
246:12
joint 103:18
jointly 45:17
joking 252:10
Jordan 30:11
56:16
Jordan's 57:1
Josie 12:16 26:3
judge 88:21
101:14 104:11
117:21
118:10,22
Judges 92:2
judgment 135:5,7
174:15
judgments 161:9
judicial 208:11
Judiciary 48:7
July 170:22
juncture 243:17
June 253:15
jungle 244:15
jurisdiction
146:19 147:9,11
246:4
jurisdictional

 

144:3,8
jury 101:14
104:11
Justice 133:13,14
justifiably 252:11
justify 144:14
jzuckerman@osc.gov 6:16

 

K
Kansas 3:21
Katelyn 12:10
25:8
Kathleen 11:15
23:2
Katie 12:19
Keating 3:10
13:17 18:10
75:22 146:1,5,7
147:7,8,14
171:13,18
207:13 218:18
236:18,22 237:2
Keller 25:20
Ken 19:15
Kenneth 4:1 33:9
Kent 132:16
key 41:8 88:7
90:17
Khadka 12:9 25:6
kick 68:9
kids 45:2
kill 134:12
killed 31:19
kinds 63:18
159:16 168:2
186:20 187:6
206:19 209:6

 

213:17 225:8
227:15 232:9,17
248:21
King 93:4
knew 140:22
191:12 231:20
245:7
Knous 1:21
255:2,14
knowledge 29:17
105:6 125:20
knowledgeable
206:9
known 32:16
125:9 213:15
Kojola 10:13 14:2
87:19
93:15,17,22
Kraft 4:3 19:17
249:14,16
kudos 83:19
Kurtz 11:22 23:20
KWengert@Kraftfoods.com 4:7

 

L
la 129:9
labor 1:12 4:9
10:3,8 15:5
17:21 18:17 19:3
20:10,15 21:6,9
25:14,17 26:17
28:7 29:13 31:4
39:6 40:4
45:18,20 55:19
62:6 69:6 70:16
92:14 101:6,7,8
103:13,18 114:3
117:8 118:2
127:4 137:15

 

139:20 160:8,12
165:21 172:17
180:5,16
181:1,2,3,19
191:12 192:4
204:17 207:7
208:16 245:9
247:7,13
labor-intensive
239:5 252:16
Labor's 54:21
laceration 43:9,10
Lafayette 5:16
laid 231:12
Lakes 4:4
landscape 77:13
207:19 208:13
language
124:13,15
158:10,14
175:12,16
216:1,2,4
lapsed 240:1
large 30:14 71:6
72:1 116:14
159:17 184:2
212:9 217:3
222:1 223:22
224:2
largely 121:18
216:17 218:1
larger 42:6 47:10
159:19 229:9
largest 31:20
39:12,21 45:8,11
76:14 207:17
last 28:13 36:10
39:14 45:10 47:5
70:13 76:4,19
80:3 91:18

 

 

121:15 127:7
143:21 149:8
161:8 163:9
187:19 205:5
208:1 245:6
247:5,8
252:12,18
253:18 254:4
Lastly 57:9 98:16
late 93:2,11,20
latent 235:7
later 16:17 37:3
58:11 70:1 81:13
128:21 177:14
188:12
lauded 115:10
laundry 178:16
Laura 7:6 12:11
25:3,11 30:13
law 2:4,5,12,13
3:19 19:10 24:3
25:20 35:4,10
37:4 71:11 72:19
76:14 88:18,21
89:11,22 92:2
108:22 109:2
115:13 117:21
118:10,22
130:20 131:12
144:20 160:17
174:7,9 175:6
183:13 191:13
205:16 206:10
213:15 214:6
219:17 231:6
laws 15:5 17:11
29:1 44:18 48:21
51:13 53:2
60:19,20
101:6,9,10
104:16 106:22
107:15 116:8,9

 

246:4
law's 59:21 107:7
109:3,9
lawsuit 118:1
138:11,14
154:18
lawsuits 118:20
lawyers 30:22
lawyer's 133:3
lay 33:9 58:5
layers 96:5
lead 252:3,22
leadership 54:2
56:3
lead-time 171:1
Leahy 48:5,8
66:14
learn 36:15 48:19
71:9 129:22
222:21 223:3
225:12
learned 32:5 73:11
79:1 115:2,6
116:2,4 122:22
136:6 141:16
142:9 143:1,21
223:6
learning 27:4
204:12
least 26:21 27:21
42:15 51:12
79:22 81:12
82:22 84:21
89:21 99:1 131:4
135:8,10,20
137:3 143:17
161:5,10
162:1,17,20
163:3,9 164:19
165:1 169:8

 

178:4 184:13
195:1,5 207:19
219:17 220:14
225:18 238:19
239:10
leave 74:1 112:6
186:4,7 194:19
195:1 226:21
led 44:8
legal 6:12 10:5
20:10 21:20 83:9
126:22 131:13
133:7,20 160:4
206:10
legalese 165:4
legislation 44:9,10
115:10,11
legislative 23:8,20
91:11 207:21
208:9 251:14,19
legislature 84:8,10
legitimate 70:15
leisure 120:9
Lerner 11:18
23:10 132:3
less 119:16 138:18
216:21,22
217:15 232:7
Lessin 5:1 13:16
19:3 72:4,5
83:22 153:1
154:11 161:3
183:21 186:9,12
193:21 223:1,13
227:4 228:20
229:21 230:7,9
231:2 250:9
lesson 79:1
lessons 115:2,6
116:2 122:22

 

141:16
let's 43:7 92:5
130:4 149:7,11
181:18 188:15
234:10,11
letter 48:5,14
66:14 142:12
147:3 164:2
241:17
letters 124:3
142:18
letting 77:6 109:11
level 36:22 38:22
40:9 73:14
102:10 104:8
140:15 144:21
153:5 192:7
208:4 211:18
214:12
leveled 213:21
levels 28:5 211:11
231:2
Lewis 11:13 22:19
licensees
119:11,13
lies 84:14,15
life 75:7 76:20
80:21 145:3
life-threatening
80:22
likelihood 43:9
likely 38:9 145:19
Likewise 132:6
limb 145:3
limit 93:8 137:12
limitations 138:4,6
143:20 144:3,8
limited 46:2 136:2

 

 

220:11 245:12
limits 17:4 126:6
Lincoln 2:16 19:10
Lindhorst 11:14
22:21
line 38:3 42:5
51:17 52:10,16
82:8,18 108:21
138:1 202:16
213:5 214:19
lines 227:4
link 220:10 221:20
linkage 244:8
list 40:6 72:12
79:17,18 120:6
125:17 178:16
194:3
listen 50:14 113:5
listening 57:12
literally 76:15
literature 41:20
litigate 131:18
136:10
litigated 156:2
252:16
litigation 21:16
83:15 131:15
155:7 156:6
164:4
little 74:16 81:14
115:6 116:12
121:5 122:19
128:8,14 129:20
136:16 141:15
154:4 157:3
163:8 170:22
171:5,6 173:20
180:3 188:14
212:15 218:15

 

233:12 234:22
236:7
Littler 3:11 18:12
76:1 221:14
live 192:17
198:9,12 200:16
210:1
lived 113:16
lives 32:13
living 221:22
local 114:5 220:1
location 16:8
locomotive 10:21
22:15 23:21
44:19 100:5
106:7,11
Log 37:7,16
38:10,13
logical 35:2
logistical 15:6
Logs 37:14,15
long 84:7 93:9
103:1 112:14
113:16 115:15
122:7 175:1
220:5 221:11
228:12 231:7
235:20
longer 32:21 36:18
95:21 110:17
169:10
long-term 79:6
81:16 161:1
Lord 12:5 24:10
lose 43:11 70:17
85:20 153:22
212:16
losing 129:16

 

losses 33:6 162:4
lost 101:19 135:18
lot 39:6 60:14
70:10,18 71:20
73:13 76:6
77:1,2,17,18
78:21 82:16
85:13 96:16
97:22 99:4
100:14 116:2
123:9 124:21
131:21 136:6
138:18 141:18
142:18,20 153:2
156:17 157:11
163:10
166:14,21
175:22 176:19
198:10,11 211:6
212:7 213:19
217:13,21
222:5,15
227:19,21
232:4,8 236:17
240:4,22 249:2,6
lots 38:17 80:6
111:20 247:22
lottery 232:8
loud 16:19
love 73:9 76:17
184:22 194:5
223:2 227:4
229:7 242:6
lovely 48:14
low 37:21 39:1,2
159:7,11 162:6
206:8 218:9
lower 38:4 104:7,8
155:5
lowest 38:16
lunch 15:22 29:10

 

67:15 86:2,12
93:20,21
Luther 93:4

 

M
MA 2:7 3:13
Mabee 11:2 14:6
21:11 68:14
112:8,11 113:20
116:14 137:18
139:7 140:7
142:5 144:1,6
146:17
147:13,22
148:13,15
150:5,21
154:6,12 156:12
163:7 165:9,12
166:12
168:8,12,18,20
169:10 170:4,10
171:17 172:4
173:3,5 175:9
177:11
178:12,15,18
180:10 181:15
185:17 188:22
189:17 190:4,15
191:4 192:22
198:19 201:19
202:4,11
203:3,13 212:1
215:21 217:21
Magazine 32:21
Magazine's 52:2
main 3:5 123:2,16
maintain 100:1
136:19
Maintenance
10:16 22:11
99:19,21
major 144:11

 

 

207:20 234:1
majority 57:21
122:3 169:13,18
189:6,9 200:8
219:4
malevolent 42:16
manage 56:6
managed 73:9
195:10 204:8
235:15
management 3:1
17:21 18:11
19:16,20 20:1
22:20 24:21 25:9
26:6 31:1 39:6
46:22 76:13 97:7
100:21
103:13,19 104:8
107:4 108:15
114:4,5 116:18
125:20
205:12,19
206:16,18
207:10,17
212:19 214:2,3
218:22 219:8
220:7 230:5
234:18,20
235:9,11,18
247:13
management's
215:10
manager 38:20
90:12,14 210:1
213:2 214:19
managers 54:17
62:6 67:8 102:15
179:13 211:16
213:1 230:3
249:6,8
managing 14:8
46:20 197:19

 

198:3 204:2,13
235:1,10
mandate 52:19
mandatory
167:15,21
168:22 169:1,6,9
manner 34:8
92:20 150:12
manners 123:18
215:8
manual 46:17
55:17 123:5
124:3,11 125:10
127:11 144:16
146:18 157:2
158:2,5,6,10,15,
16 175:16
176:14 180:20
215:22 216:8
map 187:6
Marcellus 12:8
25:1
March 61:17 67:6
72:10
marching 149:19
150:6
Marcia 3:17 20:1
167:6,7 212:4
225:1 244:16
247:18
Marcia's 252:3
Marcus 12:12
25:13
MARCY 256:2,10
Mark 11:18 23:10
132:3
markedly 175:3
Marthe 132:16
Martin 93:4

 

Maryland 22:9
88:1
Massachusetts
21:18
84:4,7,9,12
153:15 184:6
massive 33:6
207:20
material 78:5
materials
78:13,14,16
121:16 248:18
matter 51:22
56:19 57:4
80:15,17 113:2
126:14
146:15,21
149:14 180:14
225:21 237:3
245:15 252:1
matters 15:6
Maurer 12:4 24:8
maximum 153:6
may 27:17 28:10
50:15 58:16
59:20 71:7 73:1
77:1,15 82:8
93:15 106:13
111:21 112:11
123:10 125:16
126:20 133:10
136:10 139:16
143:4,8
144:10,17
151:7,8 154:17
160:9 168:5
175:14 176:1,4,5
177:15
180:15,17
181:5,17 182:12
191:19 195:1,3

 

196:2,7 197:8,10
202:4 204:16
209:12,20 210:4
211:12,15
212:14,15
213:14 215:11
217:4 221:9,13
225:12 227:10
228:15
233:11,13 234:5
235:16 239:3
241:14 252:3
maybe 58:2 110:4
130:3 167:9,10
174:6 185:8
200:14 201:2
209:3 212:5,6,7
213:12 215:18
223:9 227:5,12
229:3 232:15
233:10 238:2
239:22 244:21
250:11,15
McCollum 2:14
mean 41:3 43:10
56:18 134:18
142:12 193:7
197:8 199:11
218:9 230:4
meaningful
227:15
means 16:6 35:13
37:22 81:9 93:9
118:7 125:11
134:21 139:8
215:13 227:11
meant 57:2 88:12
Meany 115:15
measure 79:4
91:10 166:8
198:7 201:21
228:10

 

 

measurement
72:15
measurements
166:11 167:8
measures 74:15
75:14 107:5
174:3
mechanics 117:11
mechanism 41:22
98:2,11 209:10
241:13
mechanisms
235:22
media 136:7
137:13
mediate 64:3
Mediation 64:2
mediations 64:9
medical 61:3
108:3 137:7,8
162:19
meet 30:11 31:10
165:22 253:15
meeting 1:4
16:8,21 20:17
22:7 27:3,5,12
29:5 51:9 65:13
66:13 86:10,19
111:13,16
145:19 196:18
241:22 246:6,21
247:6,15 253:22
254:12
meetings 27:18
37:13 40:19
109:18,22
110:11 132:13
222:5 242:2
254:4
meets 185:15

 

251:6
Megan 12:13
25:16 30:21 65:9
132:8
member 13:4 18:9
22:22 48:9
49:17,18,22 50:3
195:1
members 13:14
17:18 18:2,3
20:12 29:15
66:5,8 67:5,19
100:1 103:12,15
105:17 107:2,7
108:8,10,22
109:4,6,9 111:12
113:3 135:13
224:20 236:10
243:19
Memo 61:17
72:9,10 92:18
93:6 187:8 196:4
229:11,16
231:12,14
232:10 249:5
Memorandum
67:6
memorized 158:17
Memos 224:11
Mendelson 3:11
18:12 76:1
244:14
mention 70:3
mentioned 52:6
55:7 59:15 61:20
69:2 76:16 77:8
164:10 236:8
248:17
merit 75:8 91:16
102:21 117:22
118:7 126:12,16

 

138:11,17
140:11
142:11,15 156:5
163:19
164:1,8,22
174:1,20 176:11
178:19 187:21
188:5,10 216:16
226:9 228:9
meritorious
188:18 213:11
218:15
merits 157:18
163:11,16
176:3,21
177:14,15 189:8
message 95:20
179:5
messed 249:9
messenger 108:18
met 30:21 101:13
123:10
metrics 38:21
74:11 78:21
79:16 201:22
226:17,19,22
227:5,11 249:11
Metro 234:2
Metropolitan 16:8
Mexico 42:22
MI 4:14
mic 17:1 22:1
178:2
Michael 11:2 14:6
21:11 112:8,11
246:17
Michaels 10:2
13:10 21:5,6
29:12 49:21
51:7,10 52:5

 

54:5 55:6,15,17
56:3 57:9 59:15
61:12,18,19
62:19 65:4 66:15
70:20,21 76:5,12
78:2 79:14 102:7
113:6 120:15,20
141:19 186:20
194:16
202:7,13,14
223:14 228:4
242:4 247:16
248:6,11
249:16,20 250:5
253:18
Michigan 83:17
231:4
mics 16:17
mid-December
56:8
middle 138:1
163:1,2 214:17
mighty 45:15
Mike 65:9 68:14
110:3 128:12
130:2,15,21
132:14,15 133:9
139:3 145:17,22
165:7 171:13
178:16 184:21
194:20 196:11
205:11 221:5
234:8 245:18
Mike's 129:20
milestones 58:1
military 114:7
mill 84:4,16
Miller 11:20 23:15
million 18:18
153:11
mills 84:11

 

 

mind 59:12 90:12
112:15 136:15
162:8 219:22
220:1 241:10
minds 197:14
Mine 24:11
minimum 158:12
159:6
Minnesota 18:22
49:11 70:6 82:4
238:8 239:10
minute 86:7 139:6
206:13 246:11
minutes 86:6 87:1
111:17 194:21
195:2 197:18
mishandling 59:11
Miss 79:2
misses 79:3
missing 236:16
mission 46:6
Missouri-Kansas
3:18 20:2
mistake 226:4
mitigate 162:4
mitigation 162:7
mix 28:11
MN 5:15,17 82:3
MO 3:21
Moberly 2:10
19:8,9 147:16
148:7,14 149:5,9
165:6,10 166:8
167:5 189:22
190:5,22 210:20
211:8 223:19,22
225:14 232:20

 

Moberly's 234:13
mobilized 208:19
model 40:16
103:21 118:21
models 234:17
modern 89:6
118:14
Modernization
58:15 122:12
145:7
moment 77:8
161:13 253:19
momentum 76:8
money 53:15
156:17 165:3
188:14
month 47:6,21
58:17 64:6
months 24:19 33:9
39:9 43:2,5,7
54:3 62:9 76:5
159:5 161:8
202:16 252:13
254:11
month's 43:1,6,11
morass 191:13
morning 15:2,10
18:15 19:8,11,15
20:5,9
21:4,5,7,11
22:10,13 66:6
86:14,16 88:4
90:6 122:11
236:8
mortgage 129:16
motion 253:17
254:4
motivating 138:19
168:1

 

Motor 20:18
201:13
MOU 182:7
MOU's 148:2
182:11,19
224:18 246:9
move 67:17 81:8
84:2,12 95:12
99:13 111:17
145:21 187:11
220:22 221:4,6
222:19 223:11
229:16
moved 231:5
254:6
movie 56:21
moving 116:9
228:16
MSHA 26:19
80:18 247:4
MTA 234:2
multinational
184:3,4
multi-stakeholder
220:9
myriad 53:4 54:14
myself 93:22 120:5
128:17 132:2,7
158:12 252:17
mystery 109:3

 

N
N-2700 7:20
N-3647 9:11,19
N-4624 7:1,12 8:15
9:3
Nancy 5:1 13:16
19:3 72:3,4,5
78:21 83:21

 

152:22 153:1
164:18 183:20
186:5 193:18
222:22 223:1,12
227:3 228:17
229:18 230:19
250:8,9
Nancy's 156:10
Narine 3:17 20:1
167:7
168:10,16,19
169:7 170:2,5
171:11 198:4
201:18,20
212:2,4 225:2
230:3,8,10,14
247:19
248:10,16
249:18 250:3
254:7
narinem@umkc.edu 3:22
narratives 221:20
222:5
national 18:17
60:16 73:13 92:7
96:19 97:9 100:8
101:8 102:8
123:14
127:15,19 128:2
131:20 132:4,10
141:11
152:10,20
179:10,18 180:1
181:2,3
190:18,22 216:6
248:3,8
nationally 194:3
248:19
nationwide 34:3
48:4 56:5 161:6
nature 31:4 85:1

 

 

144:3 146:12
NE 2:16
nearly 198:11
Nebraska 2:13
19:9
necessarily 40:18
125:6 161:16
169:2 181:12,13
201:1
necessary 109:10
173:10 202:15
Needless 40:13
negotiate 157:14
179:3 215:13,16
negotiated 155:18
158:7 175:21
negotiating 157:3
negotiation 224:22
negotiations 164:6
166:4
neighboring 83:16
neither 225:19,20
227:20 255:7
newer 144:19
164:1 181:16
News 24:9 67:12
nexus 126:1
NHTSA 60:12
Nicole 12:17 26:5
Nixon 115:10
nlessin@uswtmc.org 5:10
NLRB 181:6 182:7
nobody 229:1
231:20 232:2
nominates 248:19

 

non 213:10 236:9
non-admission
177:12
none 225:8 237:21
238:4
nonferrous 101:17
Nongovernmental
55:3
nonissue 144:5
non-merit 188:17
nonprofit 19:6
237:8
non-retaliation
210:14
nonunionized
163:5
nonvoting 18:2
nor 225:21 227:21
255:8
norm 101:4
normal 148:19
North 5:16
Northeastern 2:5
Northern 62:1,13
161:15
Northfield 4:5
notably 61:22
note 57:18 98:4
228:15
noted 47:4 109:21
183:4
notes 256:5
nothing 147:18
155:10 181:5
224:3 235:3
236:1
notice 56:16 92:18

 

112:3 176:12
noticed 90:4,22
91:17 143:12
Notices 109:22
178:7
notifications 28:2
notified 16:5
notifies 146:20
notify 107:16
125:11 142:13
notifying 107:16
notion 69:10
notorious 92:22
not-quality 166:14
not-so-quality
166:17
novo 117:20
NRC 119:11,12
160:10,13
162:13
NRLA 181:14
nuances 134:3
nuclear 119:12
numerous 119:20
171:22
nuts 128:15
131:19
NW 1:14 6:6,13
NY 4:20
NZT 234:21 235:3

 

O
OASAM 165:19
Obama 47:11
191:10
objection 117:19

 

253:5,16 254:9
objectives 50:8
obligated 142:11
obligation 134:6
162:4 234:4
obtained 195:21
obvious 185:19
obviously 15:21
42:9 68:12 76:13
80:7 83:12
87:7,9 97:21
104:6 129:11
130:21 137:8
140:21 151:5
195:14 225:1
231:19 239:4
249:8 251:22
253:11
occasions 123:22
Occupational 1:11
21:20 22:6 23:11
24:9 37:19 51:14
115:7
occur 28:2 31:12
96:8
occurred 28:10
42:13 49:5 59:10
110:22 216:21
occurring 37:12
occurs 36:15
OFCCP 247:8
offer 40:12,14
101:2 105:6
109:19 242:13
243:1
offering 165:2
office 6:5 8:3
9:10,18 10:6
11:5 19:12

 

 

21:8,17,21
23:8,11
24:3,4,6,11
25:7,12,14,18,20
,21 26:2 30:21
31:3 40:3
45:17,20
46:12,13 54:22
55:18 56:2,8
60:16 66:19
83:10 92:8 94:7
102:8 112:17
122:20
123:15,17
126:13,17,19
127:15,19
128:2,9,11
129:22
130:10,15
131:20 132:4,14
133:14 137:10
148:18 149:21
152:10,20 164:4
190:8,22
191:8,15,17
192:2 194:2
198:16 200:3
206:22 207:1
216:6 217:6
220:1 243:16,21
245:16 246:16
Officer 3:3 7:7
20:4 151:6 209:9
Officers 115:22
152:9
offices 132:10
148:20 149:2
150:18,22
162:20 198:18
245:17,18
official 174:6
180:13
Officials 245:9

 

offshore 31:16
Oh 125:17 173:3
215:4
OIG 172:13,17
173:5,15
OIG's 172:21
oil 31:16,20
okay 15:14
16:12,16 21:22
68:9 81:21 83:7
87:19 112:4
137:18 145:16
148:15 152:21
165:12 172:4
173:4 191:21
194:14 198:19
212:19 220:16
228:14,16 234:7
old 202:2
oldest 88:6
OMB 58:9 63:8
67:11
omission 98:5
174:8
onboard 46:4
192:19
ones 103:16 135:9
141:7 148:8
227:1 249:17
one's 43:5
ongoing 74:17,18
onion 134:2
online 63:7 170:6
210:1 238:10
on-the 61:12
on-the-ground
195:14
on-the-job 39:18
100:22

 

101:13,22
open 65:15 104:19
105:16 109:8
110:16 145:16
186:8 195:6
244:1 247:20
opened 119:18
operate 214:11
operating 104:3
operation 42:22
Operations 7:8
25:4
opine 185:13,19
opinion 172:12
192:16 193:8
opportunities
28:18 60:17
opportunity
29:3,8 63:19,20
99:10 106:20
112:22 113:10
142:16 194:10
opposed 189:11
224:7 241:5,9
option 98:22
108:7,9
options 179:4
oral 63:12
239:1,4,9
orally 63:15
ORC 221:14
order 64:11
116:18 118:7,20
124:16 139:9,12
160:7 198:2
ordering 139:22
142:13
orders 108:4

 

149:19 150:6
organically 245:1
organization 5:3
19:5,6 68:17
77:5 92:13 102:6
organizational
68:16 190:3
191:14 220:14
organizations
69:5,13
original 51:13
OSC 242:17
OSHA 9:10,18
10:3,5 13:5
15:4,11 17:5
18:4 21:1,6
22:18 23:14 24:6
26:1 27:3,21
28:7 29:13,18
30:9 31:3,8
33:21
34:2,6,19,22
35:2,3,7,8,13,15,
20 36:5,8,13,17
37:4,7,8,14,15,1
6 38:9 39:15,18
40:2 45:18 46:20
47:2,21 49:12
50:20 51:1 52:20
53:4
54:2,7,10,16
55:7,13,19 56:3
61:7,10 62:2
64:18 66:16
67:13,22 69:10
80:18 82:6,20
83:10 84:17 85:5
88:5,8,9,10,19
89:2,13,16
94:7,18 95:1,16
96:18 98:6,21
103:1,2,22
104:12,17

 

 

114:1,19
115:18,21
116:1,2,3,15,16,
22 117:5,9,18,21
118:7 119:2,5,15
121:3,6,13
122:19
123:10,13,15
126:7,16,22
127:7,10,12,18,2
1 134:10 138:12
139:8
140:10,11,14,18
142:10 143:4,5
146:20,22 147:2
148:7,18,20
149:4,13 150:9
151:4,15 153:4,6
154:13,14
155:18 156:13
157:4 158:8,9
160:9,20 162:19
163:10 164:1
170:22 172:6,8
173:6 174:17
175:10,14,15,20
176:1,2,6,9,19
178:7,22
181:1,5,18 182:8
189:3,10 190:2,6
191:12 192:9
195:10 196:2
199:8,18 204:11
206:22 208:3
215:14,19 220:1
224:6,9 225:20
231:3,21
232:10,13
233:4,8 234:5,19
235:9,17 238:12
242:12 243:2
244:11,12,19
245:12
248:2,4,21
249:15

 

osha.compliance@state.mn.us
5:19
OSHA-2012 66:11
OSHA's 17:11
21:12 24:4,14,21
25:2,7 27:8 35:5
48:10 52:19
54:15 56:14
69:14 71:1 83:13
98:17 102:3
104:5 106:21
107:5 114:17
120:17,18
121:21,22
139:14 157:1
195:12
OSHA-USDOL
6:22 7:11 8:14
9:2
ostracized 249:10
others 20:21 30:9
34:14 68:14
70:11 77:1
104:13 105:11
141:2,7 167:3
195:13 210:4
222:4
otherwise 53:18
86:8
OTI 185:3
ought 236:2
ourselves 82:9
241:13
outage 144:12
outcome 41:16
140:4 155:20
161:1 163:21
174:5,10 175:3
outlined 144:15

 

157:1
outreach 232:22
233:7,14 234:13
236:22 237:1
outside 19:18 28:9
31:8 33:12 64:19
101:3 196:6
224:8 229:14
230:20,21
243:19 253:1
overall 67:21
overalls 106:16,17
overburdened
45:21
overdue 103:1
overestimated
54:7
overseas 80:4
oversight 66:21
155:17
overstate 132:3
overtime 206:6
overtook 122:6
OVERVIEW
13:12 66:3
overwhelming
223:14
owner 43:4
owners 84:16
Oxley 146:22
199:1

 

P
P.C 3:11
p.m 254:13
P.O 2:15
PA 5:8

 

Pacer 225:22
Pacific 22:22 23:3
52:12
103:8,14,16
105:13
package 57:15
61:17 63:8
packet 110:10
page
13:3,4,5,6,8,10,1
1,13,15,16,17,18
,19,20
14:1,2,3,4,6,7,8,
9,10,11,12
66:18,19
pages 126:10
paint 33:13
palpable 76:6
panel 37:6
panoply 146:9
PAPA's 174:13
paper 138:1
paradigm 230:21
participants 55:3
participate 34:19
64:1
participated
54:13,19
participating
225:22
participation 64:1
particular 26:19
46:3 72:8 110:21
146:11 182:3
189:4 200:13,20
201:3,15 216:16
217:16 251:12
particularly 15:11

 

 

26:14,18 30:5
32:16 39:4 62:20
69:22 74:16
98:6,8 99:5
155:14 168:3
176:1
parties 43:13
63:21 64:1
125:12
127:10,13 157:3
158:7 159:18
163:13,17 255:8
partisanship 48:1
partner 100:4
part-time 159:6
party 175:14
pass 78:22 79:13
88:15
passed 22:1 34:6
36:16
passes 29:1
passionate 53:9
past 46:9 53:20,22
54:6 114:3 161:6
164:13 165:16
169:3 170:15
178:13,19
248:22 249:15
patchwork 140:20
path 188:6
patience 245:8
Patricia 10:8 11:8
14:12 192:3
246:13,15
Patrick 48:5
pattern 100:20
patterns 220:5
225:17 226:12
Paul 5:17 12:2,18

 

24:4
pause 246:11
PAWA 88:16
pay 78:21 129:16
139:17 154:1,2
155:12 161:21
181:5 206:6
paying 32:2 231:9
pee 187:4
peeling 134:2
peer 43:17
pegged 38:21
penalties 215:2
225:5
penalty 101:20
214:8
pending 40:1
62:12 139:16,17
people 16:21
17:1,9 20:14,22
22:2 26:13,14
27:1 28:10 29:2
30:20 33:3
37:6,22
41:1,4,14 42:1,3
46:8 65:7,22
76:6 77:6 80:20
82:7,15,17 84:1
86:20,21,22
87:1,16,18 98:13
101:5 102:11
106:13
110:8,11,18,22
113:12 114:6
120:4,12 123:15
125:1,4,7 131:2
141:21 153:9,10
155:22
167:14,16,18,20
168:16 169:9
170:8 171:8

 

178:8 183:9
184:10 193:19
196:5 197:22
198:13 199:17
200:16
201:9,12,15
205:21 206:2,3,5
207:22 209:20
211:9,16,19
212:15
213:15,16 215:2
217:6 221:12,13
222:6 227:22
230:5 231:21
236:12 239:20
240:8 244:18
247:22 248:14
250:16 253:6
people's 111:6
per 121:7,11
156:17 173:7,12
percent 39:15 45:5
61:9 91:19,20
101:16 121:17
122:2 127:8,9
141:22 142:2,3
163:9
184:8,10,12
186:7,15 187:22
214:5 242:20
percentage 30:14
37:16 248:3
percolated 209:11
perfect 166:20
203:6
perform 145:3
performance
72:15 74:11,15
75:13,14 79:15
205:12
226:17,19,22
227:5

 

performing 166:4
perhaps 27:5
32:13 112:5
163:18 169:4
177:16 179:2
187:13 195:15
202:4 231:21
233:13
period 15:22 16:7
67:16 86:16
109:17 111:4
170:6 179:2
201:3 220:6
244:4
periods 109:18
Perkins 1:13
permanent 49:17
permission 186:8
persistent 100:20
person 34:7 49:6
82:22 83:2 131:3
149:11,12 150:9
191:11 198:8
212:20 219:20
232:2 241:1
personal 107:18
245:5
personally 102:6
121:22 229:7
240:22
personnel 40:4
52:21 62:7,8
116:17 165:20
person's 150:8
Persons 52:6
perspective 76:12
114:2,20,22
121:5 128:8
130:19 133:3
156:13 213:2

 

 

perspectives 28:9
113:13 114:19
pertinent 120:7
156:10
PESH 234:3
ph 226:1
pharmacies 137:8
phenomenal 125:3
168:15
phenomenally
252:15
Philippe 8:20
24:13
phone 3:22 4:15
82:18 199:18
200:4
photograph 86:8
physician 108:5
pick 78:13 183:21
184:21 205:15
picked 91:18
picking 188:20
picture 33:13 50:8
67:21 156:7
piece 68:16 83:14
115:9,11 216:20
218:16 236:16
pieces 44:9
piggyback 219:7
pilot 64:6 74:4,8
194:3,8
piloting 63:16
pilots 44:19
73:6,10 79:2
193:22 223:3
251:5
pilot's 79:18

 

pink 131:4,7
Pinocchio
56:20,22
pinstripe
106:16,17
Pipeline 44:13
120:1
Pittsburgh 5:8
pizza 43:13,16
places 29:2 53:6
73:12 239:20
plan 5:12 19:1
60:10 70:13 82:5
108:4
planning 48:3
plans 49:12,14,16
54:19 70:5
83:4,19 233:22
248:7
plants 119:12
play 44:5 50:11
78:4 105:7
158:20
plays 70:22
please 87:12 95:12
128:16 173:4
pleased 39:5
40:13,20 47:9
83:17 94:1,2,3
pleasure 62:15
102:5 128:13
plus 164:9
point 52:2,7 68:2
69:11 70:4 73:2
75:5 79:5 83:7
88:6 92:17,18
94:8 107:6
109:13 110:2
122:17 151:21

 

152:6 159:21
164:3 181:6
182:10 194:4,16
202:5 204:9
205:5,8
209:11,18 213:2
214:3,11 216:13
221:5 222:14
236:19 238:22
244:15 250:7,10
251:1,5 252:1,8
pointed 62:19
122:10 175:22
244:16
pointing 48:15
points 90:5 111:20
207:14 210:6
252:3
Police 16:8
policies 40:4,7,15
62:3 67:9 77:10
95:6,11 210:9,14
211:21 218:22
235:21
policy 40:9,10,12
61:14 63:11 96:6
124:11 153:8
157:1 158:3
159:19 180:13
184:13 191:19
192:7 205:17
210:21 211:4
213:5
policy-making
104:7
poor 59:11
poorly 36:21
population 206:12
216:17 217:3
portion 86:10
137:19 145:19

 

pose 130:1
poses 115:2 137:20
position 87:13
114:9 131:12
209:15 254:1
positions 56:4
positive 218:11
possibility 89:15
157:21 222:7
possible 26:12
49:7 74:3 104:21
113:7 157:19
158:22 182:9
204:18 222:12
227:2 233:20
236:8
possibly 140:16
143:10 152:15
post 105:17 161:19
posted 87:16 110:9
poster 174:17
176:1,4 189:4
219:5
posters 189:11
posting 37:7
175:19,21
176:13,17,18
178:7,9 189:4,13
244:7
postings 136:11
174:16 175:5
176:15,19 188:4
189:10 219:10
postpone 180:14
postponement
180:12
potential 59:21
69:19 108:13
122:13

 

 

power 91:13
144:12 152:14
209:8
powerful 118:11
142:8
powers 235:6
practical 56:18
180:14 242:13
243:1
practice 10:11
18:13 87:21 88:1
89:18 160:11
181:1 184:14
219:1 220:5,8
practices 33:14
67:9 72:10 95:21
186:14
188:11,17
204:13 218:22
220:10,14
221:16 223:6
227:12 229:5
231:14 233:3
234:15 237:12
251:3
praise 132:9
praised 48:9
preexisting 60:1
prefer 203:8
preliminary 118:6
126:20 138:22
139:2,4,7,11,21
140:2
142:8,13,15,19
prelude 208:21
premature 238:2
premium 60:3
prepare 65:11
present 53:8
141:17 179:1

 

186:1
presentation 112:6
145:14 154:7
presented 108:10
presently 121:3
165:12
President 19:20
33:11 114:5
115:10,15
191:10
Presidential 24:21
25:9 26:6 31:1
32:3
press 58:16
pressure 43:17
156:3 159:11
pretext 231:13,19
pretty 17:1 63:12
68:15 69:3 88:4
94:21 118:18
129:13 133:2,15
159:7 188:5
191:18 218:12
244:15,17
245:6,12
prevailed 88:22
prevalent 229:12
prevent 37:12
234:18
prevented 42:12
preventing 37:10
41:9 50:12 235:2
prevention 41:12
105:3
preventive 59:5
previous 165:17
188:2 224:10
price 229:2

 

pride 62:15
primarily 169:14
primary 41:12,13
50:8 146:19
147:5,8,9,11,20
195:12
prime 218:8
Principal 5:14
82:2
principles 84:15
144:9
prior 33:10 75:7
111:13 133:12
142:12 149:22
155:7
priorities 47:8
priority 47:13
private 10:11
87:21 88:1 89:1
135:16 136:18
138:8,10 160:11
167:17 251:15
Privilege 136:21
137:3,11
prize 38:15 186:21
232:7
prizes 229:10
probably 33:1
86:2 98:19 127:2
128:21 130:4
148:3 150:21
156:15 158:1
166:18 189:10
196:22 206:4
215:9 216:21,22
217:10 226:11
227:3 241:21
242:21 249:7,11
253:14
problem 16:13

 

39:4 42:6 51:19
53:17 62:21
70:18 71:19
95:14 133:18
136:14
137:5,13,14
184:20 206:21
207:2 212:3,14
221:22 237:12
239:1,17
problematic 41:5
43:19 73:1 74:16
222:2 231:6
problems 70:9,12
80:12 87:10
88:5,7 96:20
120:16 141:18
142:7 196:8
205:22 207:5
220:13 251:12
procedural 110:7
151:10
procedurally
151:19
procedure 99:3
180:8
procedures
58:7,14 59:11
60:10 77:20
124:3 133:20
148:19 150:22
181:9 209:7
proceed 196:21
199:21
proceeding
34:10,12 107:15
229:8
255:3,4,5,7,9,10
256:3,5
proceedings
131:13,14 256:8
process 26:12

 

 

28:6,20 35:16
36:4 58:5 63:21
66:10 74:17
92:1,3 119:1
125:9 127:20,21
132:21 142:12
148:18 150:1
155:9,13,19
156:22 164:2
173:22 175:3
183:7 206:10
216:4 219:20
225:19,21
235:1,2 238:11
240:16 241:5,7
242:1,13 244:1
processed 131:4,6
242:12
processes 75:12
172:7
process-focused
237:19
processing 58:7,13
82:14 195:22
196:6 218:14
238:3
processing- focused 237:19
Product 120:1
productive 65:13
166:19
productivity
102:17 103:17
products 78:6
professionals
54:12 62:7
Professor 2:4,12
19:9
profitability
102:18
program 1:6 5:1

 

8:11 17:13 21:13
24:15,17,22
25:2,5,10,12
26:4,7 28:14
29:7 38:11 41:13
42:21
46:11,16,21
47:12,15,19,20
48:1,4 50:11
54:8,20 56:9
57:11 62:16
63:17 64:6,10,12
65:4,8 66:21,22
67:2,8 68:13,21
69:22 73:14,15
74:13 80:8 81:17
83:14 87:14
90:10 91:22
92:10,12,16
98:18 113:8,21
114:2,18
116:17,19,22
117:4 120:17,22
121:22 122:16
128:19 129:3,7
171:2,3 173:21
184:14 215:20
249:14,20 250:1
programs 40:22
41:2,15 44:1
55:15 57:21
61:15,16,19 62:5
63:18 64:11
71:10 74:4,8
79:1 83:12 94:14
95:7 186:21
197:15 232:7,17
248:21 250:1
program's 83:18
Programs 6:21
7:10 8:13 9:1
21:4 24:5
25:17,22 28:9
30:16 51:3 54:17

 

56:10 127:17
128:4 133:14
229:22
Program's 122:1
PROGRAMS 51:6
75:2
progress 47:13
72:6 102:11
103:2,3
progressive 40:15
prohibition
232:16
Prohibitions 59:22
prominence 129:4
promise 210:21
promulgate 58:4
pronounce 99:16
proof 138:20,21
218:2
proper 82:12
124:20 125:7
168:4
properly 75:11
96:17
proportion 206:11
proposal 253:9
proposed 59:3,5
prosecuting
114:22
prosecution 83:18
protect 35:11
44:18 46:7 51:15
94:19 95:19,20
136:22 144:20
197:4 233:6
234:4
protected 34:4
70:9 93:13 105:2

 

107:10,11
125:19,21
126:2,6 145:1,9
217:17 245:4
protecting
44:6,14,17,22
48:10 53:12
88:15
protection 1:6
6:4,20 7:9
8:12,22 20:8
21:4 25:22 26:4
29:16 30:15
31:2,15 37:1
44:11 45:15,16
47:12 50:11
51:3,5,9 53:1,2
55:1,6 56:9,10
57:19 58:10
59:18 60:8 66:21
67:2 75:1,8
92:16 94:5
96:3,8 97:9,14
105:1 127:17
128:4 141:12
144:21 170:19
171:3 175:8
177:6 205:21
207:21 245:16
protections 48:12
54:16 88:7 89:7
96:22 107:7
108:6 109:1,3,9
113:6 117:11
120:15 144:18
145:10 203:1
208:14
Protection's 59:22
protective 203:14
204:15
protocol 73:22
proud 252:11

 

 

prove 217:5
provide 35:4 36:22
40:22 60:17 89:9
94:8 97:18
141:13 142:16
144:9 177:16
181:17 182:1,2
186:5,11 233:4
provided 38:15
43:1 47:6 55:13
111:3
providers 137:8
237:10
provides 59:18
89:11 108:22
117:10
providing 41:4
55:7,9 56:13
109:8 207:21
233:1 241:13
provision 61:6
63:13,14 89:1,3
99:7 100:19
115:19 118:5,11
139:2 142:8
160:15,16
164:20
provisions 34:4
44:9,12,17 46:16
59:22 60:21
100:10 118:15
158:22
public 2:2 10:10
13:22 17:21
19:10 20:16 28:1
30:2 33:10,16
37:20 44:7,22
52:7,11 53:13
57:16 60:12
66:7,9 67:5,16
86:10,17 92:9
105:2 109:17,22

 

110:21 111:7,13
113:3 125:4
242:5 253:11
publically 123:3
publication 58:11
publicly 46:9
publicly-
assessable 66:9
publicly-available
172:20
publish 60:10
published 58:18
90:21
pull 162:17
pulled 183:6
punished 108:18
229:11
punishment 85:1
186:22 230:8
punitive 85:1
134:19 141:6,13
153:3,14,16,18,2
1
154:3,5,12,15,17
155:3,11 158:19
161:10 162:12
164:11,20
177:22 178:6
purchase 15:18
purpose 35:10
87:11 91:5,12
purposes 151:13
226:18
pursing 42:18
pursuant 106:22
pursue 88:19
149:7,11 231:3
pursued 154:5

 

pursuing 180:5
push 130:8 171:19
198:11
pushing 251:9
puts 108:20 114:9
236:14
putting 30:18
31:15 244:14
puzzle 229:2 252:9

 

Q
qualitative 166:8
quality 46:16
66:22 116:15
166:13,14,16,22
167:3,4,12
203:19 210:10
228:10
quantitative
166:11
quantity 167:4,12
quarter 132:14
quarterly 132:13
question 69:2,3,19
81:22 110:7,15
140:5 143:22
144:7 146:1,18
149:17 151:12
155:1 156:10
157:2 159:10
163:8
167:8,11,14
170:2 171:20
172:5,10,11
173:9,19,22
176:22 181:16
182:4,19 183:2
185:17 188:3
189:18 192:10
193:21 197:19
198:4,15,20,21

 

200:15
201:17,21
205:4,10 210:21
216:2 241:6
244:6 248:13,16
251:15
questions 29:8
65:5,15 67:20
112:7 123:1
128:5
145:15,17,21
153:2 154:8
186:14 191:4
194:22 196:17
197:18 198:7,13
199:20 200:17
222:15 228:8
235:18 238:1
239:13 240:22
241:12 247:20
248:8
quick 193:21
quickly 18:6 22:1
49:4,7 63:20
122:18 152:16
171:7 228:2
239:15,19
quite 38:19 39:3
57:3 78:10 83:13
87:10 122:13
129:18 130:3
132:8 155:21
193:16 222:21
quote 76:17

 

R
raft 208:9
rail 10:18 22:12
23:22 85:13
99:22
100:4,6,7,8,9,17
102:13 104:18
105:1 106:12

 

 

107:3 228:22
229:2,4
233:19,20
234:1,10,12
236:11
railroad 23:1
38:14,16
39:5,7,8,14,21
40:2 52:12
60:12,15 100:21
101:3,6,14,17,20
102:15
103:5,8,14,17
104:3,9 105:3
106:22
107:10,14,17
108:8,14,15
119:22 120:13
122:5 141:11,21
142:3 154:14
183:5
Railroaded 98:9
railroads 23:6
62:14 100:2
103:4 104:2
135:14
Railway
39:11,16,22 40:5
101:7 181:19
raining 119:19
raise 29:4 33:19,22
35:17,18 36:1,4
44:20 50:17
72:18 85:4,19
151:12 152:3
203:8 210:8
raised 34:5 35:21
42:15 88:5 183:1
209:14 211:7
238:16 248:12
raises 92:18
136:12

 

raising 35:9 81:4
151:21 249:11
ran 212:20
Randy 12:20
range 71:4
159:4,22 176:14
179:4 188:11,17
189:1 192:14
225:18
226:13,15
ranking 48:9
rarely 216:18
Raskin 194:19
rate 38:8,16 41:2
91:18 92:3 93:21
216:16 227:19
228:9 242:20
rates 37:21,22
38:4,12,18,22
39:1,2 103:17
rather 41:17
108:18,20
232:17
rational 137:12
rattle 119:4 120:2
RE 14:5,8 198:3
reach 146:15
156:5 230:22
reached 89:12
155:16
reading 58:16
64:21
reads 64:22
ready 99:12
238:12
real 42:7 43:13
57:1 69:20 130:8
137:2 164:11,12
185:14 214:4

 

220:13,20
227:15 228:5
229:15
realistically 245:3
reality 153:14
188:20 244:11
realize 146:2,7
165:1 209:20
realized 199:12
really 17:1
28:6,14,16,18
30:6,18 31:4,12
37:1 44:3
47:10,14,18 60:8
64:9 71:4,17
72:15 73:14 74:7
75:3 76:6 78:12
83:6
85:12,13,17,21
94:16 98:17,22
99:11 103:20
114:8 118:4
120:3,8 122:18
129:5,18 130:7
131:7 132:3,22
133:17 134:5
142:6 156:4
160:7,22 161:17
162:6,17 163:10
177:20 187:5,11
192:19 193:14
199:19 200:5,6
202:9 209:9
212:18 220:21
226:8,10 228:5
229:12,16
231:10 236:3
237:1,10,21
238:9 239:15,21
241:5,8 244:9
246:5 247:9
249:3 253:1,19
reason 41:7 45:5

 

102:16 111:3
144:12 200:20
213:8 216:16
220:6 250:11
reasonable 39:1
93:7 145:2 218:8
reasons 39:2 94:2
135:22 250:14
rebuttal 142:16
recall 175:11
receive 36:18
122:3,4 146:21
148:15 151:1
158:4 186:8
received 36:9
45:4,12 47:5
48:5 115:8
119:6,20
receives 36:8
recent 39:9 54:1
55:1 57:20 58:1
59:9 152:7 161:6
168:21
recently 60:15
94:7,18 98:7
122:6 136:3
146:10 162:1
165:13 178:4
recently-enacted
137:22
138:3,5,9,12,18,
20 139:1
140:8,13 144:19
recognition
53:16,17 250:1
recognize 38:5
53:21 60:18,20
68:19 70:6 71:3
recognized 187:14
249:4

 

 

recognizing 80:1
recollect 159:2
173:1
recollection 161:9
recommend 48:14
96:2 99:6 245:15
recommendation
233:18 251:17
252:4
recommendations
46:14 57:13
68:18 235:16
236:5 237:21
246:9 251:21
252:6
reconsider 89:19
reconvene 86:9
194:15,18
record 65:19
67:12 105:15,16
111:3,15,17
183:22 186:8,11
187:1 255:7
recorded 42:13
255:4
recordings 256:6
recordkeeping
94:22 95:1
records 137:7
recourse 135:17
recover 88:22
reduce 44:3
108:14 116:22
reduced 103:11
255:5
reduces 42:3
refer 61:14
82:7,11,21 87:13
124:20

 

126:13,17,19
148:17 149:1
158:2
referenced 61:18
65:16
referral 239:16
referred 55:15
82:19 120:16
129:6 164:4
192:8 205:9
244:7
referring 168:9
reflect 91:4
refresh 201:6
refusal 144:18,21
145:10
refuse 145:1,6,8
refuses 139:19
refusing
107:12,19,20
regard 59:14
60:15,18 63:10
67:21 80:3
146:10 183:8
186:6 196:9,13
204:13
235:14,17
237:22 244:7
246:2
regarding 55:5,14
67:4,8 109:22
regardless 62:22
164:22
regime 130:6
region 11:3 21:14
24:17 54:18 56:1
75:12,15
112:10,12,17
129:6,20 132:22
135:3 161:6

 

165:14,18 167:9
168:6 184:5
190:17 191:21
192:12,15,16
193:5,12
194:1,8,11
227:12 252:10
regional 11:5
21:17 31:8,9
55:20 67:7
73:8,15 92:7
112:16 114:21
118:2 126:17
128:9,11 129:21
130:16
132:14,15,16
133:8
190:7,10,16,19
191:2,17 192:18
193:8,10,16
207:1 223:4
245:17 251:2
regionally 248:19
region-based
228:1
regions 56:15
60:18 61:20
63:17 64:7 68:15
73:7,16 82:13
97:2,3 104:17
114:1 117:6
123:2,7
132:10,13
190:12,21
191:17
192:14,21
193:4,14 194:13
238:15 251:6
register 84:1
109:21
registered
199:3,10,14
200:11

 

Registrar 112:3
regs.gov 66:11
regular 15:20
82:10 133:20
185:8
regularly 186:12
regulate 84:11
regulated 84:18
regulation 84:14
107:13 148:12
180:11,19 181:9
regulations 46:3
58:10 60:5
107:16 145:6,9
201:13
regulations.gov
110:8
regulators 33:16
210:17
regulatory 10:20
22:14 52:22 53:5
96:6 106:6,10
203:4 221:19
reinstate 139:15
154:1
reinstated 214:6
reinstatement
91:9 118:6
126:20 138:22
139:2,5,8,10,12,
18,21,22 140:2,3
142:8,13,19
158:21 159:4
247:5
rejoining 194:16
relate 195:12,14
related 34:11
100:2 107:14,18
149:14 184:9

 

 

255:8
Relatedly 171:20
relates 42:9
225:11
relating 79:19
106:21
relation 221:18
relations 62:6
101:8 180:6,17
181:2,3 247:13
relationship 56:1
149:3 192:6
relatively 45:14
reliable 64:20
relief 89:15 90:1
134:15,17,18,21
136:1 162:9
rely 98:20
remain 104:20
109:3 222:2
remains 108:7
remanding 75:15
remarkable 68:15
remarkably 142:7
remarks 13:9
29:7,9,11 65:17
remedies 89:21
90:18 139:16
180:4
181:11,13,17,20
182:1,2 183:3
195:15
208:10,11
245:21 247:7
remedy
89:9,12,14,17
90:2 92:1
139:11,12
154:16 164:5,9

 

181:11
183:15,17
remember 146:3
158:17 159:3
161:14 167:17
193:22 194:1
213:14
remind 27:1 33:1
reminder 68:4
removed 190:8
remuneration
30:1
Renner 10:11 14:1
22:8 87:19,20,22
93:14
reorganization
70:16 119:9,10
162:16
reorganize 68:12
reorganized 56:9
repair 100:2
repeated 159:20
repetitive 187:2
report 41:1
42:16,21
43:10,18 45:1
46:14,19 58:9
66:19 73:10
79:11 81:1 94:15
95:9,10,19 96:20
100:22 101:21
102:2 108:13
144:20
165:10,13
168:6,8,9
169:3,8
172:14,17,18
173:8 184:10
187:3
190:6,10,11,16,1
9 193:2 203:4

 

224:1,4,7 229:10
232:2 252:4
reported 1:21 33:3
93:1 107:8
231:11 256:3
Reporter 22:7,18
68:6 255:1,2,14
256:3
Reporter's 256:5
reporting 1:21
39:18 42:1,7
59:21 61:12
63:14 72:11 79:2
90:16 92:21
93:2,8,12 107:18
108:19 142:2
152:13
184:15,17,19
186:19 190:8
191:16 194:2,8
206:2,3 211:20
230:1 235:1
reports 47:4
64:21,22 71:14
95:3 97:1 126:8
148:9 166:9
167:11
172:20,22
173:15 187:5
199:5,15 200:12
231:8,15
report-writing
166:5
represent 19:10
34:22 100:8
representation
98:5
representations
55:4
representative
5:12 17:21
18:11,22

 

19:4,16,20
20:2,6,10,15,16,
18 49:16 60:9
76:13 196:8
212:19
representatives
2:2 3:1 4:9 6:1
13:5 18:1,4 21:1
23:17 30:20
31:10 39:6
204:17
represented 97:21
98:1 127:14
143:13,16 214:9
representing
18:18 26:15
76:14 82:5
represents 184:1
reprisal 61:6
242:18
Reps 206:18
Republicans 47:22
request 86:8 143:6
requesting 108:3
requests 14:9
196:14
223:10,15,16
require 37:8 116:4
142:22 172:12
176:4,5,12
178:20
required 27:19
104:14
199:4,10,15
200:12
requirement
175:22
requirements 58:9
71:12 75:13
94:22

 

 

requires 66:7
143:2
requiring 178:7
research 184:11
217:15
resole 49:4
resolution
63:17,19 90:8
219:13 221:6
resolve 63:20 86:6
157:7 220:9,10
resolved 67:13
161:8 167:10
resolving 135:6
215:14
resource 62:6
125:3 138:18
200:21
resource-friendly
170:14
resource-intensive
138:16
resources 17:4
46:2 52:21
53:3,7 56:6
72:21 73:17
78:15 104:14
120:21 121:19
186:2 201:4
203:18
216:12,13
220:12
respect 126:3
162:13 202:20
213:12
respects 117:13
126:4
respond 35:7
70:20 75:3
203:18 216:9

 

218:18 239:19
responded 56:19
respondent 114:12
139:13,19 140:2
142:14,20 143:7
157:7
response 70:4
118:18 188:2
205:14,18
209:10
responsibilities
45:19 53:22
55:11 60:22 61:1
responsibility 27:5
46:7 61:5,8 78:1
80:14,18,19
96:21
responsible 94:10
rest 65:10 103:21
153:18 187:22
190:1
restaurants 16:1
restrooms 15:13
result 40:11 42:17
59:11 61:22
107:6 146:14
184:16 204:4
207:19
resulted 55:20
181:4
results 33:16
103:20 202:2
204:16
resume 114:3
retaliate 34:17
199:6 204:22
212:8,9 235:7
retaliated 35:8
39:17 49:2 50:18
61:11 184:18

 

207:22 229:9
retaliates 151:17
211:6
retaliation 29:4
33:20,21 35:19
36:2 44:9,12
49:1 53:10
58:8,14
60:6,11,21 63:1
70:9 102:16
107:11 108:13
142:1 146:14
147:10
148:10,22
149:13 150:16
160:15 179:16
184:9 186:22
195:15 203:11
207:10 211:18
216:20 218:22
219:4,9 224:2,7
225:5,12 234:18
235:2,11
245:4,10 246:22
247:1,4,7,9
248:1
retaliatory 49:5
129:15 135:19
153:13 177:9
return 29:22
reutilization
250:15
revamped 54:7
168:21
revenues 33:4
review 68:12,13
90:20 128:1
193:15 224:17
225:21
reviewed 26:22
66:8

 

reviews 70:13
128:6 167:18
173:21
revised 182:21
revision 40:11
revisited 182:21
revitalize 47:11
revolutionary
77:18
reward 41:4 43:19
rewarded 108:18
rewards 42:1
Rhode 84:13
Rich 30:11
Richard 2:10
10:11 11:20 14:1
19:8 22:8 23:15
67:6 87:19,20,22
102:7 147:15
149:9 165:5,6
189:20,22
210:19,20
223:18,19
232:19,20
Rick 10:15 14:3
22:10
99:15,17,20
rid 72:20 73:1
rig 31:16,18 43:4
rights 36:16,20
85:6 88:11,12
94:20 95:9,15
136:13
176:5,17,19
179:14 189:3
206:9 208:9,11
233:9,13 239:22
Rina 6:2 20:5
177:3,5

 

 

Rina.harris@cfpb.gov 6:9
ring 199:18
ringing 200:4
Risch 11:17 23:7
rise 250:20
risk 58:22 163:16
213:3
River 220:2
rmoberly2@unl.edu 2:18
road 5:16 185:15
200:21 251:7
Rob 7:17 10:5
13:20 21:19
30:21 65:9
83:8,11 132:2
robust 108:17
145:11 237:10
role 17:11 44:5
50:12 55:5 70:22
77:22 78:5 89:2
105:7 165:8
196:2
Rolfsen 11:11 22:5
Ron 11:16 23:5
room 4:19 5:5
7:1,12,20 8:5,15
9:3,11,19 16:19
17:17,22 18:5,7
22:1 30:10 76:8
86:13 93:15
104:6 120:3
223:10
root 103:19
rough 100:15
roughly 187:19,21
232:21
routine 108:20

 

175:5 185:8
routinely 186:17
Rowley 52:4
Roy 12:4 24:8
RPR/CSR 1:21
rubber 185:15
251:6
rug 53:18 227:14
rule 59:3 92:20
93:9,11 95:1
107:13 174:18
231:13,17,20
rules
58:5,6,14,19,20
59:5,9 93:6
run 15:9 187:17
189:3 191:20
192:1 195:3
228:12 235:6
247:6
running 122:8
193:18 253:4
rushing 221:3
ruthless 244:18
Ryder 20:4

 

S
S-4004 8:5
Sabina 12:9 25:6
sad 129:17,18
Sadler 7:17
sadler.robert2@dol.gov 7:22
sadly 36:5
safe 35:4 51:18
115:16 118:16
141:9 189:9
210:15

 

safer 79:10 108:17
safety 1:11 3:3 4:2
5:4 10:15 17:10
18:16 19:17,21
20:19 21:20
22:6,11 23:11,19
24:9,11 32:7,11
34:2,20 35:12,14
37:19 38:18
39:11,16 40:5
41:15
44:13,18,21,22
46:8 51:14,15
52:18,20 53:17
54:11
58:15,19,21
59:14 60:15 67:8
71:1,4 78:8
93:18,22 94:11
98:9 99:18,21
100:9
107:1,10,14,19,2
1 108:2,10
115:7,14,21,22
116:5 119:22
122:5,12 141:11
142:3 145:7,9
148:17 149:15
150:10 151:5
154:14 191:13
201:13 203:4

206:15 209:12
210:10 224:9
230:4,6,11,14
231:13 234:20
249:11 250:2
safety-related
107:21
salary 43:12
156:19
salutatory 208:22
salute 68:10

 

sanctions 232:13
sanitation 52:13
Santa 62:1
Sarah 12:12 25:13
Sarbanes 146:21
198:22
Sarbanes-Oxley
44:15 45:10
71:11 89:5 120:1
135:15 143:2
146:11 160:17
162:16 199:2
saved 32:13
saw 31:17 84:6
118:15 123:5
169:8 202:2
scared 137:8
scenario 43:21
149:11 150:6
scene 56:19
Schakowsky
249:17
scheduled 58:11
schedules 113:4
school 2:5 3:19
185:22
scratch 206:1
screen-out
241:5,14
screen-outs 241:9
scrutiny 46:12
sea 52:1 79:22
Seaman's 58:10
141:12
SEC 146:13,15
147:10,17
160:18 208:16

 

 

second 16:1 39:11
42:10 51:19
63:22 70:3
117:6,17
122:4,5,8
126:14,18 143:9
165:14 172:5
183:1 195:18
196:4 198:15
200:14 204:2,20
233:7 248:16
254:7,8
secondary 246:10
secondly 96:1
175:2 184:8
Secretaries 30:12
Secretary 10:2
17:6,7 20:20
21:6 25:7
27:6,15 29:6,13
56:18 107:17
117:8 190:9
222:17 236:9,13
243:15
251:17,21 253:8
Secretary's 147:3
SEC's 199:13
Sectary 68:1
section 34:5 57:20
107:1,9 115:19
117:16 133:22
134:16 135:19
137:3 150:3,20
151:13,15
193:19
199:3,5,10,15
200:11 245:11
sector 167:17
sectors 97:20,22
98:2,11,13 103:5
securities 32:18

 

34:2 147:1
160:17
199:3,4,5,9,14
200:11
security 101:11
107:14,19 108:2
141:12
seeing 59:12 65:22
69:4 90:18 91:12
187:7,13
231:5,15 232:7,8
248:15 250:11
seem 162:6 193:21
Seeman 7:6 25:3
30:13
seeman.laura@dol.gov 7:15
seemed 196:10
221:17,18
seems 80:16
81:5,15
153:12,20 156:9
195:7 221:7
223:7 236:1
seen 39:4 42:2
76:4 85:3 108:19
121:15 135:9
155:4 163:4
178:8,10
184:6,16 227:13
247:22
sees 211:3
seize 76:11
select 45:22
self-criticism
68:16
Senates 48:7
Senator 48:5
Senators 48:9

 

66:14
send 95:20 105:20
142:18 146:22
147:19 148:6
239:20 240:11
242:4,6
sending 56:19
124:3
sends 147:2
Senior 6:12 8:21
23:2 160:4
sense 38:22 41:3
72:17 192:12
221:8 225:13
236:17 237:17
sent 111:11 174:12
sentences 113:15
119:10
separate 63:18
152:18 172:7
218:10
separately 191:15
192:1 196:6
244:22
September 48:3
54:10 61:9 66:15
172:16 253:15
series 28:16
serious 95:13
153:6 184:19
209:21
seriously 94:17
215:3 250:13
serve 48:7
served 158:1
service 30:2 64:2
157:17
services 52:15
60:7

 

settle 40:12 127:14
131:18
142:10,19,20
157:15,16
158:11
163:13,17 164:9
175:20 177:18
189:6
settled 127:8 156:8
177:17 178:4
188:1 189:7
settlement 91:4
127:10,12
128:22 147:4
155:9,13,19
156:3,15,17,22
157:1,14,19,21
158:9,13
159:4,11,18
163:18 164:6
166:4 174:2,20
175:11,21
177:7,13 178:20
181:8 188:18
215:12,15,22
226:8
settlements 90:22
91:2,8
155:6,7,14,16
158:3,6
159:16,20
163:10 164:13
175:14,15,18
176:20 189:2
218:11
219:5,15,16
225:18 226:7
settles 127:7 181:7
seven 58:4 119:7
121:7 134:4
several 16:1 32:6
47:1 54:18 89:12
117:13

 

 

sexual 235:20
shake 84:20
sham 80:8
shape 196:16
share 33:11 88:3
109:4 146:15
173:1 206:19
253:6,10
shared 78:1 228:3
Shareholder 3:10
75:22
shareholders
33:15
shares 33:5
sharing 95:11
sheer 238:17
Sheet 176:6,7
179:1
Sheets 178:12
189:5,11
she'll 105:21
shelter 16:5
Sherrill 12:6 24:16
Sherron 33:8,10
52:6
shift 110:2
shock 161:18
shop 15:17
shops 184:1,2
short 191:5
shorted 206:5
shorter 113:15
119:10
shorthand 230:15
shortly 31:17 33:6
showed 32:7 155:5

 

shows 207:1
SHRM 24:9
shutter 36:17
sic 61:13
sides 114:8 115:9
157:9,15,21
sight 70:17
signed 103:8 110:8
significant 57:8
89:3 90:22 128:6
154:3 168:20
208:10,13
significantly 155:5
156:19
signing 219:18
Sikorsky 3:4 19:21
78:19,20
silo 220:12
Silver 22:9 88:1
similar 26:18
55:10 109:18
197:5 235:13
similarities 120:11
Similarly 208:10
simply 38:18
41:9,11,16,18
48:13 52:20
130:1 131:14
151:21 222:6
252:7
single 101:13
201:2
single-out 245:22
sit 15:22 110:4
132:17 205:18
214:10
sitting 22:2 39:7
70:5 239:21

 

situation 17:9
43:17 153:4,9
197:7 206:12
207:2
situations 78:12
80:21 81:1 145:1
six 32:22 54:3 62:8
119:7 141:22
173:6,12
sixth 15:16,19
size 76:16 97:22
184:7 186:18
sizeable 47:17
sizes 207:16
skill 116:5 213:18
skills 116:6 213:14
sky 119:19
Slavet 6:19 13:11
15:8,10 16:15
21:2 28:15 30:12
51:1,4 66:1
74:22 79:14
81:18 90:5
105:20 111:2,21
113:7,18 116:13
120:16 141:20
152:5 164:17
173:1,4 182:18
186:5,10 191:5,8
194:7 229:18
238:22 239:8
241:3 254:8
slavet.beth@dol.gov 7:4
Slavet's 127:16
slice 43:16
slightest 155:1
slightly 163:2
180:2

 

slip 131:4,7
slog 100:15
slow 116:11,12
slower 113:15
119:9
small 30:14 37:15
45:14,15,21 72:1
135:11 159:20
162:19,20,21
163:3,5 184:1
212:9
smaller 77:3
smarter 140:21
Smith 10:8 11:8
14:12 130:7
246:13,15
Smith's 192:3
smoking 216:20
217:2
snacks 15:18
snowstorm 144:12
social 101:11
115:11 136:7
137:13 220:18
societies
52:9,16,18
society's 52:1
sodas 15:18
soil 59:1
SOL 156:6 192:8
solely 92:11
Solicitor 8:3 10:8
11:8 21:8 25:15
31:4,9 40:3
45:17 50:3 54:22
55:18 118:2
126:22 130:7
132:16 133:8

 

 

139:20
140:10,11 156:2
192:4,18 193:9
195:3 216:5
246:12
Solicitors 55:20
102:9 118:3
127:5
Solicitor's 10:6
11:5 21:17,21
23:11 24:11
25:12,18 30:20
45:17,20 55:18
56:1 83:10
112:17 114:21
122:20
126:13,17,19
128:9,11 129:22
130:9 156:13
164:4 177:17
191:15 192:2
200:3 246:16
solutions 96:3
206:19 222:7
253:1
somebody 81:4
144:4 154:2
161:19 166:15
170:16,20 179:7
185:5 187:1
213:5 231:8,15
238:19 240:9
somebody's 157:8
somehow 226:18
someone 75:14
161:16 174:22
252:10,13
someone's
43:15,18
someplace 248:5
something's 213:3

 

sometime 68:11
83:13
somewhere 130:1
185:18 213:5
sophisticated
135:13
sorry 146:5
149:8,10 177:5
178:3 194:19
202:13 210:5
215:4 226:2
sort 41:12 67:21
68:17 69:4,11
111:19 131:8
140:20
179:11,20 194:2
202:14 215:10
221:4,5,15
222:19 224:21
237:6,18 243:21
248:7
sorts 71:18
78:11,12 162:14
sought 152:9
153:17,19
154:18
sound 16:4,18
17:2
sounded 188:1
sounding 130:18
sounds 159:7
235:12 246:1
source 74:16 151:7
sources 123:9
248:14
SOX 156:17
199:18,21 201:9
214:5 225:3,5,12
spaces 237:7
speak 16:22 55:9

 

68:5 91:13 99:10
103:15 109:11
110:8 147:22
148:3 152:6
157:6 160:8,20
193:15 237:16
SPEAKERS
10:1,10 11:1
speaking 16:18
77:6 83:12
185:22
speaks 124:13
Special 6:12 19:12
160:4
Specialist 24:14
specific 55:13
146:1,12 149:19
150:5,15,22
176:18 179:2
189:4,12 224:21
specifically 46:21
145:17 158:18
188:8 196:9
235:10
specify 165:3
spectrum 137:15
speed 171:10
spells 164:20
spend 68:20 71:20
246:5
spent 76:19 254:3
Spieler 1:7 2:3
13:3,8 15:2,3
16:14,16 20:12
21:22 26:9 30:5
51:7 65:14 67:15
72:3 74:2 75:21
78:17 80:13
81:20 83:6,20

 

99:15 105:10,20
106:1,4
109:12,16
110:14 111:6,11
112:1,22 139:3
140:6 142:4
143:22 144:2
145:16 146:3,6
147:15 149:6,8
151:22 152:4,22
154:22 158:16
164:15 165:5
167:6 171:12
173:18 177:3
178:1 179:22
182:6 183:20
185:16 187:14
189:20 191:7,10
193:18
194:14,18
202:12,19
203:21 204:10
205:2 207:12
210:19 215:4
218:6 221:4
223:9,17,20
224:15 225:15
226:16 227:17
228:14
230:13,16
232:19 233:16
234:5,8,11
235:12
237:1,3,5,14
241:19 242:8
243:4,11 246:1
247:17 250:8
251:20 254:3,9
spill 31:20
spine 91:13
split 165:15
spoke 123:12
spoken 119:21

 

 

212:21,22 213:1
spread 84:15
103:21 116:14
Spring 22:9 88:1
St 5:17
STAA 118:5,15,22
119:3 126:12
132:1 141:9
201:10
stable 51:13
staff 6:18 16:10
23:14,15
30:9,10,13,22
31:7,8,9
45:15,16 47:4
48:4 50:3 51:8
54:6 56:5
65:9,10 68:20
92:10 102:9
staffing 47:2
203:18
stage 172:3
stages 130:18
171:22
stake 160:6,22
stakeholder 55:5
stakeholders
17:13
stamps 129:16
stand 136:21
standalone
135:9,12 179:9
standard 84:18
108:9 158:10
175:16 189:3
202:8,14
215:15,22 216:1
219:1,4 234:21
standards

 

25:14,18 69:15
151:15 165:21
166:1,2,6 180:8
215:17 216:6
219:22 244:20
247:7
standing 136:22
standpoint 69:9
85:2 149:18
Starbucks 15:21
start 18:3,8 49:8
89:5 209:21
223:9
started 113:20
252:15
starting 192:3
state 5:12,15 18:22
19:1 24:5 42:21
49:11,12,14,16
54:18 55:10
70:5,12 82:3,4,5
83:4,17,19
89:8,11,18,22
131:13,15
133:12 185:19
208:4 233:22
234:3 238:8
239:10 240:2
244:19 245:13
statements 188:4
state-of 233:2
States 11:3 19:1
21:13 30:5 31:22
32:1 36:19 46:9
49:12 55:12
70:10,14,18 82:5
89:10,12 100:3
112:10,13,18
statistic 91:15
statistical 64:21
statistics 57:14

 

58:3 67:1 72:16
73:3 90:9,18,20
127:6 132:19
233:14
Statue 127:20
statues 45:6 66:16
115:3 118:14
119:2,21 120:10
122:11 139:11
status 57:5 133:20
statute 11:1 14:5
36:8,21 40:5
45:11 50:7 66:7
94:21 98:19 99:6
110:1 117:6
125:6,9 134:16
138:4,6
143:14,20
144:2,7 149:15
155:6 160:1
162:9
170:5,7,11,20
182:3 218:3
statutes 36:11
39:10 45:3,7,19
47:2 49:9 57:19
73:22 84:22 94:9
96:20 115:4
118:21
119:7,8,14,15,19
120:3,7,8,13
121:6 122:18
124:12,19
125:16 126:11
137:22
138:4,6,9,12,18,
20 139:1,10
140:1,8,13,19,20
141:5,7,13,17
142:9,22 143:5
144:19 145:4,11
146:9,19 147:6
156:20 162:14

 

164:2 167:22
169:13,17,20
170:13,17,18
171:6 174:10
175:4 181:16
185:20
201:1,7,9,15
208:2,3 217:15
245:13
statutory 52:22
96:6 134:10
154:16 164:19
stay 16:6 86:7
147:17
stayed 118:9
139:13
staying 91:9
steel 184:3
Steelworkers 5:2,6
19:4,7 72:4,5
153:1 184:1
223:1 229:14
Steenburg 20:17
stenographer
205:6
step 115:15 132:21
197:3 242:12
stepped 137:10
208:17
steps 196:13,14
222:11,19
Steward 114:4
stick 84:3 85:19
194:20
sticks 69:11 77:9
85:18
stop 232:12
stopped 200:4
stopping 207:10

 

 

237:12
stories 32:15 80:19
87:10
story 31:14 52:3
73:3 80:16,17
87:11 227:7
strain 187:3
195:18 196:4
204:20
strains 204:1
strands 195:8
strategic 197:4,8
strategically 46:1
strategies 71:2,3
97:13
strategy 96:19
210:7,16
Stratford 3:6
street 3:5,20 4:19
6:6,13 16:2,9,12
Strengthening
48:12
stress 161:19
stressing 209:5
strides 104:5
strong 47:21 61:22
stronger 99:8
struck 146:8
structure 73:9
97:7 118:19
190:3,7,18
191:14 193:3
251:2
structures 100:3
107:22 108:1
193:17 223:5
struggling 197:6

 

stuck 230:21
studies 41:10
53:14 224:3
247:22
stuff 60:14 239:17
subcommittees
27:15 28:1
subcontractor
43:2
subject 67:11
101:10
subjected 59:20
subjects 221:8
submitted 63:8
88:2 90:4 158:7
240:18
subordinates
133:9
subpoena 136:17
141:1,2,4 143:5
subsequent 133:5
155:7 200:3
241:22
subsequently
120:14 173:7
subset 162:11
Substance 141:10
substantial 102:13
substantially
55:16 216:22
substantive
148:8,9 181:12
224:4,8,13 246:4
sub- subcontractors
43:3
subtle 215:9
success 79:4,7

 

81:17 242:16,20
successful
83:15,18 116:21
succumbs 210:18
sudden 207:3
suddenly 56:22
suffer 129:13
suffered 248:1
sufficient 57:18
suggest 78:15 93:7
98:11 243:9,12
253:6
suggested 65:17
suggesting 172:2
182:14
suggestion 92:4
195:4 234:13
suggestions
109:20 130:19
131:8 195:6
224:21 238:4
242:6 243:8,19
Suite 3:12 211:16
summary 66:17,18
supervised 114:6
165:16
supervising
114:20 157:5
175:10 216:19
supervision
158:12
supervisor 62:10
113:22 124:5
165:8 166:15
185:6 211:6,17
214:19 216:5
239:14

 

supervisors 35:18
56:6 121:4
165:16
167:14,19
193:11 198:15
201:14 211:14
supervisory 11:2
21:12 46:22 50:2
112:9,11 130:16
165:14
191:20,22
supplemented
53:3
supplier 59:4
support 30:7
32:11 47:21
56:13 76:6
104:13 128:5
251:18
suppose 161:6
supposed 94:19
165:22 166:3,10
198:16
supposedly 221:2
suppress 90:15,16
Supreme 140:16
161:14 208:12
sure 18:10 41:3
57:16 75:10
105:10,21
110:16 111:14
112:11 130:8
133:9,21 139:3
144:1 163:20
165:9 167:5
168:8 170:4
180:10 182:19
189:15,17
200:15 209:16
218:12 221:10
222:21 224:21
226:17,22

 

 

245:14
Surface
117:7,9,14,18
118:11 122:6
145:4
surfing 240:8
surprise 171:6
surprising 249:6
surprisingly 218:9
survey 32:5 202:1
surveying 186:16
surveys 186:9
211:10 248:9
Susan 11:14 22:21
suspect 230:17
Swain 10:5 13:20
21:19 30:21
83:8,11
swath 206:7
swear 113:15
119:10
sweep 53:18
switch 165:7
symbolically 49:21
symptoms 187:2
synthesize 198:1
system 36:3 44:15
46:16 77:8 85:15
101:11 108:17
141:11 203:8
205:19 207:11
219:8 235:11,18
238:10 252:20
systematic 206:21
systemic 87:10
207:8
systemically

 

120:19
systems 50:14
71:13 108:16
205:12 206:16
207:8 219:1
221:2 230:1
233:3
234:1,18,20
235:9,15
system's 238:12
Systems 75:8
134:21

 

T
table 65:21 66:2
87:3 103:3 110:5
123:6 155:11
158:19 196:12
209:20 215:18
222:16
tactical 198:6
taint 77:1
taking 39:18 96:13
183:19 209:22
215:18 238:15
239:4 243:7
250:13 254:2
tale 84:4
tales 32:17
talk 31:11,12,14
42:20 57:14
69:22 82:22
113:10,15
114:16,18
115:1,6
122:18,19,21
126:14 127:1,2
128:8 130:3,21
131:11 132:18
134:15
137:18,21
141:15 154:4

 

156:12 157:20
161:12 165:7
180:3 186:3
187:10 188:12
190:17 192:21
193:1 205:15
214:16 229:13
236:4 239:13
240:14
talked 79:16
174:11 184:8
192:5 203:22
231:7 233:1
241:7 248:22
talking 26:13 58:2
72:14 78:21
79:15 80:10 84:3
116:11 119:9
129:8
132:1,2,4,6,7
135:12,13
136:6,16 145:18
146:11 152:16
154:9
161:3,18,20
162:19 169:7
174:19 186:7,21
189:13 214:8,9
216:10 225:20
232:11
talks 180:11,19
tangible 76:3
tank 178:9
Tanner 12:2 24:4
task 30:1
tasked 224:6
tasks 30:17
tax 60:3
teach 54:22
team 22:22 23:4
65:2 108:7 109:3

 

116:18 191:11
Teamsters 10:17
22:12,16 23:22
99:22 100:5,6,17
104:18 106:12
technical 56:13
128:4,5
Technologies
19:22
Technology 64:18
telephone 2:17
3:7,14 4:6,21
5:9,18 6:8,15
7:2,13,21 8:6,16
9:4,12,20 241:16
ten 56:14 194:20
197:18
tend 62:14 69:7
164:21 180:14
tends 173:20
tension 197:10
term 130:10
215:15
terminated 123:12
157:8
terms 31:14 45:11
63:13 69:1 75:13
80:10 98:5 114:2
122:8 145:13
151:8 156:22
158:2 165:18
167:21 170:12
172:22 175:19
176:16 183:3,6
186:2 188:13
190:18 191:14
193:14 202:17
204:12 213:16
214:21
215:7,9,12
216:15 217:11

 

 

218:13,14
221:15 223:2,4,7
225:6,9
238:9,11,17
240:6 248:3
250:22 252:21
terrible 249:1
terrific 76:8
192:15,18
228:14
test 131:1
tested 245:8
testified 34:11
testify 34:12,20
testifying 107:15
testimony 131:5
testing 187:5
thank 26:10 29:14
30:5,19 51:7
65:9,13,14
67:14,15 70:19
78:2 83:20 86:10
87:22 93:13,14
99:9,14,15
105:4,9 106:1,2
109:11,12,16
112:21 113:1
128:12,13
137:17 140:6
146:6 164:16
171:11 182:5
246:17
247:10,14,16,17
253:19 254:2,9
thanking 29:15
50:22
thanks 30:8 70:20
83:7 107:5
109:15 128:12
129:3 147:14
149:5

 

That'll 37:2
that's 16:14,15
32:16,19 34:5
35:10 38:1
41:9,14 43:12,19
47:10 49:15
50:16 55:20
57:6,15
63:8,12,19 68:11
69:13,16,20 70:1
75:16,17 78:3
80:5,9 81:15
82:13 87:11
88:12 89:3
91:14,20 94:18
96:4 98:14
100:16 103:20
110:10,12
113:20 127:2
131:7 133:3,6
134:16,22
135:22 136:13
137:16 139:21
140:17 142:7
144:21 146:17
150:14 152:1
153:3 154:1,21
157:19 162:7
163:11 164:13
166:22 168:22
174:10 175:16
179:10,11,15,20
180:13 181:9,15
182:22 183:18
185:8,9 188:12
189:19 191:21
192:9,16 193:12
202:8 203:1,6
204:9 206:16
208:20 211:19
214:21 215:18
216:16 217:18
220:11 227:2
229:8 232:4
234:12 237:17

 

238:10,11
241:21 244:9
245:5 250:7
252:14
the-art 233:3
themselves 17:17
18:4 20:21 35:12
44:6,21 53:12
84:10 157:3
197:1 201:6
233:8
thereafter 62:9
255:5
there'd 92:8
therefore 42:11
73:12 159:11,12
191:19 196:4
there's 15:17 28:3
35:16 38:13,17
39:1 42:6,7,14
43:17 59:12
60:14 63:7 70:10
71:3,12 73:13
76:7 77:17,18
80:6 84:22
85:1,7,18 86:8
90:16,22 92:21
100:14 110:9
112:2 123:6
126:1,5 135:7,16
137:1 140:11
142:11,15
151:10 153:4
155:10 157:22
159:10 161:17
163:1,16,19
164:1,8 174:1
176:11 178:19
182:7 187:4
188:5,7,10,13,18
,19 192:5,14
195:2 203:20
208:9,10 209:18

 

212:10 214:7
217:4,10,17,21
218:8 221:11
222:15,20
227:18 229:1
230:7 232:4
234:22 235:4
239:12 245:19
249:2 250:11,14
253:5,16
they'd 168:19
they'll 82:20 143:9
158:14 240:10
they're 35:22
37:11 69:6 78:14
82:16 84:12
93:11 96:13
126:4 129:10
130:1 134:1
135:11 143:7
145:9 159:6
165:15,21
166:1,10 169:1
178:21,22 180:6
184:17,18
198:11 204:8
207:4 208:18,19
209:15 210:15
211:5 215:13
220:18 229:22
233:10,21 241:1
245:1 249:7,11
they've 30:17 73:7
74:9 96:14
133:15,17
140:10 169:17
180:18 206:19
207:3,22 208:17
248:1,20 249:4
thinkers 47:16
third 16:9 39:12
45:10 175:14
200:15 201:16

 

 

204:3 208:15
third-highest
225:3
third-party 59:6
Thompson 25:19
thorough 104:15
152:10,14
thoroughly 29:19
124:7
thoughts 88:3
97:18 202:17
205:10 228:20
230:19 253:5
thousands 88:13
thread 184:21
threads 183:22
threat 142:20
235:10
threats 51:16
three-day 54:10
three-part 198:19
three-years 54:8
thrilled 60:9 72:8
throughout 65:6
throw 72:8
thrown 133:17
243:13
thumbs 233:16
tide 102:3
ties 54:21
till 251:4
tilting 208:13
timeline 131:11
240:18
timeliness 75:9,10
116:15

 

timely 104:14
203:19
tire 184:4
title 112:14
today 17:3
20:14,17 27:4
37:3 40:18 49:8
62:20 67:16
81:13 85:3 88:2
100:4,6 103:14
112:22 114:15
119:22 120:5
141:19 170:16
182:14,16 195:8
208:1,16 222:10
240:15
today's 66:13
toilet 178:9
token 148:20
tolerated 95:22
tolling 144:9,14,17
tone 214:16,17
tool 37:16
toolkit 108:10
tools 59:2 77:4,18
102:17 189:1
top 50:2 81:11
119:4 155:12
162:18 190:6
193:2,15 217:1
219:7
topic 113:5 180:2
topics 54:15
tort 89:9,11
135:21
total 121:3
totally 217:7
touch 152:19

 

238:9 243:17
touched 208:6
tough 96:13 200:5
217:10
toward 221:5
towards 51:21
52:1 96:16 109:7
115:15
Toxic 141:10
track 37:5,9,11
107:21 108:1
171:21 172:8
196:9,10 209:15
tracked 153:15
tracking 37:9
tracks 100:2
152:18
train 171:8 179:19
trained 96:17
170:1 206:9
216:15
trainer 185:1,5
trainers 168:13,14
training 44:2
46:18 47:5,6,7
48:4 54:14
55:8,9
62:5,8,10,11
73:18 104:12
143:1,3
167:8,12,15,19,2
1 168:5,14,22
169:5,9,12,18
170:9,12,13,14,1
5,17 171:1,2,4,9
179:12
185:2,8,11,20
186:2,3 197:1
198:5,8,9,16,22

 

199:18 201:2,22
202:6 204:21
209:22 210:1,2
211:21
213:9,13,14,18,2
0
216:10,11,13,14
217:11,13,17
248:21
trainings 202:7,14
Trainmen 10:22
22:15 23:22
106:8,11
trains 106:16
transcript 255:6
256:4,6
transcription
16:21 256:1,7
Transcriptionist
256:11
transfer 92:5
transit 141:11
233:20
234:1,10,11,12
Transition 191:11
translator 124:14
transparency
27:8,11,21 28:5
105:8
transparent 27:18
Transport 23:19
transportation
23:8 44:18,20
60:13 98:4,7
107:17
117:7,9,14,18
118:11 122:7
145:5
traumatic 161:19

 

 

Travel 9:9,17
traveling 44:21
treat 149:19
treating 108:4
treatment 61:3
108:3,4
tremendous 30:17
46:7 122:13
129:14
tremendously
81:16
trial 172:1
Tricia 130:7
trick 120:2
tried 64:16 73:6
128:20 136:17
trigger 235:7
trouble 178:1
211:6
truck 44:18
117:11 145:5,6
232:8
trucking 117:12
true 31:2 38:3 41:9
69:13 81:2 96:7
192:9 218:6
255:6 256:7
truly 102:15
trust 85:7
truth 91:13 134:4
221:20
try 42:18 64:3,19
69:8 82:9 124:2
130:20
131:17,18
132:12 134:6
135:6 136:14,22
137:11

 

157:7,10,13,15,2
2 166:12
171:1,7,8 189:2
198:1 201:3
209:2
220:9,14,21
253:15
trying 57:2 63:4
68:21 72:17 73:5
77:10 128:21
132:21 159:8,14
162:4 164:8
178:11 185:5
188:19 189:15
213:9 215:10
217:19 247:18
Tucker 6:2 20:5,6
177:4,6 215:7
217:18 218:5
Tuesday 1:8 43:15
tunnel 187:2
turn 15:8 29:5
51:1 68:21 87:3
128:7 166:21
228:17 253:6
turned 131:5
turning
166:16,17,20
197:8
turns 234:5
tweets 136:11
twenty-first
218:19 219:8
251:13
twice 108:12
two-and-a-half
43:7 132:18
two-part 149:17
171:19
type 91:21 92:3,12

 

106:14,15 155:8
189:13 201:5
typed 256:4
types 42:19 126:16
132:7 143:14
166:5 195:11
218:3
typewriting 255:5
typical 192:13
typing 198:13

 

U
U.S 19:12,14 59:10
70:16 97:1
133:11
UAW 4:12 20:11
180:2
ultimate 61:15
ultimately 80:14
81:16 143:16
154:18 159:8
UMKC 3:19
unable 53:8
144:13
unacceptable
158:22
unanticipated
52:17
uncommon 175:2
uncover 114:14
uncovers 206:20
underlying 147:11
148:11 151:18
221:7 224:12
228:8 244:13
245:3
underrated 244:9
understand 44:5

 

48:22 62:13
65:1,20 73:5
74:11,13,17 79:8
80:12 101:3
132:12 155:9,13
159:8,14 179:14
185:11 195:2,20
224:10 227:18
233:21 236:6
251:11 252:6
understandable
90:10 226:5
understanding
85:18 124:7
147:16,19
155:18 185:14
217:15 218:21
224:11,15
understands 139:4
155:3
understood 35:3
44:4 189:16
234:14
undertaking
224:17
underway 150:17
Unemployment
131:13
Unfair 181:1
unfortunate 42:8
135:17
unfortunately
77:1 91:1 129:10
177:1 227:20
uniform 96:21
97:4
uniformity 104:16
unintended 72:19
231:7
union 4:12 5:6

 

 

18:17 19:7 20:11
22:22 23:3,8,19
52:12
103:8,14,16
105:13 114:4
135:12 180:2,6
184:1 229:14
unionized 99:2
unions 18:18
26:15 69:6 95:5
97:1 99:12
100:6,8 206:8
221:13
unique 105:6
114:9 219:6,9
United 5:6 19:7,22
23:8 30:4 36:19
46:9 100:3
universal 174:19
University 2:5,13
3:18 19:9 20:2
unknown 108:7
unlawful 61:2
93:12
unless 159:6 204:7
253:5
unlikely 242:1
unrepresented
136:19
157:6,7,12,13
unsafe 100:22
107:8
108:11,14,19
untimely
143:17,19
unusually 48:1
unvarnished
68:18
update 55:16

 

updated 55:16
82:10
upon 76:11 87:2
105:11 109:10
119:20 125:22
Upper 80:17,22
upstairs 15:18
USC 107:1
USDOL 7:19 8:4
useful 74:19 78:4
97:15 98:14
132:21 151:9
182:16 196:11
223:7 227:3,16
228:12 243:16
252:7
users 202:3
usual 101:9 179:8
usually 143:9
185:3

 

V
vacation 206:6
vacuum 206:15
vague 69:4
validity 165:2
valuable 75:5
131:16
value 38:4 132:4
161:18
Van 20:17
variation 225:18
226:13,15
varies 170:10
variety 53:14
123:8,17
various 38:21
66:16 73:7 96:5

 

104:17 114:7,19
130:17 193:4
201:7 224:11
vast 169:12,18
200:8 206:7
219:4 226:9
vegetables 58:21
vehicle 110:10
vendors 209:5
237:7
Veneta 9:16 26:1
verbally 124:10,12
verification 59:4
Verna 10:20 14:4
22:13,14
106:4,5,9 109:15
versions 134:4,5
217:7
versus 139:21
155:9 158:20
167:4 176:18
191:17 197:15
240:2 253:15
vesting 209:8
via 123:14,17
170:13
200:17,18 240:5
viable 98:22
Vice 19:20 33:11
vice-versa 151:9
victim
129:11,12,15
136:9,20 162:3
victims 162:2
victory 115:12
view 224:19,20
235:9 237:17
viewing 218:14

 

vigorous 62:15
Vince 10:20 14:4
106:4,5,9
Vincent 22:13
violate 40:5
107:12 175:13
violated 174:7,8
175:6 189:12
219:17
violates 145:6,8
violating 92:20
violation 43:20
107:13 144:20
148:8,12 153:6
160:13,14,18
179:15 224:8
231:12
violations 59:21
90:15 146:13
150:3 151:19
203:4,5
205:15,16 206:4
219:21 224:13
244:19,20
violent 129:11
virtually 39:20
101:13 130:11
visions 54:5
visited 125:22
Visscher 12:1 24:2
vital 30:8
Vitale 12:17 26:5
voice 17:2 32:11
71:6 82:17
85:4,8,9,19,20
98:9 179:6
200:18 248:8
voices 34:5

 

 

volume 166:17,22 voluntarily 62:17
voluntary 40:11
volunteered 254:1
volunteers 243:18
votes 49:19
voting 49:17
VP 3:3 78:18

 

W
wage 26:19 159:7
197:5 209:12
wages 134:22
136:2 161:16
162:2,5 177:21
178:6 206:8
wait 85:12 139:17
253:17
waiting 215:5
232:17
waived 58:9
wakes 56:22
Walt 56:19
warning 108:16
Washington 1:15
6:7,14 31:8,12
92:8
wasn't 33:16 84:16
86:14 169:2
174:2
watch 75:20 76:5
watching 246:12
water 44:13 58:22
141:10
Watkins 33:8 52:6
Watt 11:21 23:18
ways 27:7 32:18

 

44:1 49:10 63:6
72:22 77:10,15
78:15 80:7 81:2
98:17 99:1
103:10 104:15
127:17 190:13
204:4 209:6
228:10 234:16
235:5 237:12
239:2
241:4,10,12
weak 94:21,22
weakened 107:5
weakens 98:10
weaker 151:20
weakest 98:19
wear 106:15,17
Weatherford
12:19
web 240:8
webinar 170:13
171:8 199:16
200:1,13
webinars
198:10,12
200:16,19
website 86:20
87:17 123:3,15
125:2 172:21
we'd 187:10 242:6
248:15
weeds 200:6
week 43:14 58:12
247:8
weeklong 202:7,14
weeks 32:6 130:3
weight 96:14
welcome 15:15,21
26:19 29:14

 

78:16 103:4
106:19 202:18
246:13
welcoming 50:22
welding 162:20
welfare 46:8
we'll 16:4 18:3
20:22 27:12 37:2
40:17 42:4
65:3,6 68:2
69:22 81:11 86:3
110:18 111:14
122:21,22
123:22 124:2
125:5,6,14
126:18 127:14
130:13 133:6,8
145:16,19,20
156:12 157:22
158:13 176:15
194:15 198:1
203:6 223:20
247:14 248:13
253:11
well-served 132:9
well-staffed 96:10
well-trained 96:10
Wendell 12:10
25:8
Wengert 4:1 19:15
we're 15:11 16:7
17:3 19:13 26:13
27:13 28:20 39:3
40:20 45:13 47:8
48:17 58:13
63:6,16 64:9,10
65:5 67:16,17
71:21 80:10
82:6,7,17 85:12
86:6 94:2,3 97:6
101:7 103:15

 

106:14,15
109:10,15 110:2
114:13 115:1
125:12,18
131:12,21
132:1,6,20 133:2
136:16 142:11
145:14 150:11
157:17 158:6
161:18,20
162:19 164:3
176:11 177:20
178:22 179:6
187:6,9,12
194:18 196:15
203:16
215:16,17
220:6,19,20
222:20 226:10
228:11 231:5,15
232:7,8 239:15
243:7 250:12,14
253:4,22
we've 29:16 31:5
39:4,8 42:17
47:9,12,17 53:22
54:8 55:15 61:20
62:19 64:2 65:7
86:3,18 94:12
95:4,10,11,12
97:1 102:11
121:19 129:2
136:3 137:3
141:16 142:9
143:1,21 162:1
164:2,3 168:21
170:12 174:11
176:6,7,8,14
178:4,5,7,13
184:12
186:1,16,17
190:11 195:8
202:9 208:15
228:5 233:1
238:1 241:7,8

 

 

242:18,19
246:12 248:22
whatever 69:17
91:3 97:13
102:16 124:13
147:4 155:7
179:3 194:12
206:6 207:4
218:9 220:6,18
226:13 231:10
249:14 251:18
whenever
109:9,10
whereas 117:16,21
138:16,20 139:1
140:12 143:14
154:13
where's 180:6
191:2
Whereupon
254:12
whether 17:20
69:6 80:3 88:10
90:13 91:11,13
105:12 108:12
124:18
125:19,20,21,22
149:20
150:2,7,18,19
158:18 159:3,10
182:1,3 188:20
196:15,16
199:14,20 200:7
210:10 216:15
233:19 234:21
237:7 239:15
242:16 246:14
248:20 253:14
whirlwind 122:16
whistle 19:14
whistleblower 1:6
6:20 7:9 8:12,22

 

15:5 17:5,8,10
18:12 21:3,13,16
22:22 23:3
24:15,17,22
25:2,5,10,17,22
26:4,6,16 27:8
28:8,14 29:16,19
30:15 31:2,15
45:14,16,18
46:11,21
47:5,7,12
48:4,12 49:3
50:11,20
51:2,5,9 53:2
54:11,16,17,20
55:1,2,6,8,10,17
56:4,5,9,10
57:19 58:4,8
59:13 61:8 63:13
66:20
67:2,5,7,10,13,2
2 69:15,21 72:7
73:14 74:12 75:1
78:10 79:6 84:20
87:14 88:7,9,21
89:6 90:8,18
92:6,12,16
94:4,8 96:3,7,22
97:8,14 98:18
100:10,19
102:8,20
103:11,18 105:9
106:22 107:2
112:15,18
113:2,6,8,13,14,
21 114:10,14,17
115:18
116:3,4,7,9
117:10
118:14,21
119:2,5,8,19,20
120:17,22
121:4,22
122:1,16 125:5
127:16 128:4,18

 

129:1,3,7 130:14
132:7 134:1
135:2 137:22
138:3,5 139:15
140:13 144:16
146:18
148:16,22 151:4
153:12 175:16
176:5,6 179:1
185:7 193:9,11
194:2 202:22
204:7,20 208:8
209:16 211:11
213:4 217:22
218:4 232:18
245:16 249:20
250:1
whistleblowers
50:14 51:21 63:5
88:18 89:22
91:6,12 92:1,22
94:6 95:18
108:16
whistleblower's
88:22
Whistleblowers
47:8 48:11
52:2,4,8,9,16
53:5,8,11,15
123:5 197:5
199:7 212:21
213:10 214:5
233:6
whistleblowers.gov 123:4
whistleblowing
108:6,9
White 161:15
whole 43:4 49:6
84:22 123:17
156:17 161:17
164:5,9 176:14
178:16 197:2

 

206:17 213:17
231:16,20,22
238:11,16
240:22 241:6
whom 30:22 65:8
255:2
Whoops 253:17
who's 16:17 18:7
20:17 90:12
149:11 151:18
185:5 198:9
206:1
whose 48:21
156:18
who've 68:20
211:9
wide 179:12
188:11,17 189:1
wider 84:15
widespread 40:22
wild 59:2
willful 153:7,9
William 4:19
willing 99:12
102:22 105:12
159:18 177:15
215:16 222:17
willingness 76:21
105:4 109:6
Win 4:18 18:17
68:8,10
wish 99:10
withdrawal 147:3
withdrawn 174:3
187:20
witnesses 131:1
217:9
wonder 74:2,5

 

 

225:5
wondered 105:12
190:9
wonderful 73:19
209:1
wondering 86:1
153:13 213:22
work 17:5 19:4
22:19 23:7,16
27:17,22 28:11
29:2 30:7,19
31:5,7 41:18
43:15 45:16
48:19,20,22
49:3,6 68:11
73:12 76:15
80:15 97:7
98:12,13 99:11
100:14 102:7,14
103:4 105:5
106:21
107:17,19
108:11 109:6,14
116:18 118:8
125:5 127:4
130:9 144:18,21
145:10 149:1,2
157:11
166:16,17,20,22
167:2 183:12
194:5 205:14
207:9,16 210:11
226:3,18 227:19
228:11 236:1
238:19 242:17
244:10 247:10
252:21
workday 57:7
workdays 130:5
worked 40:2 54:20
55:18 174:22
194:5 225:7,11

 

worker 35:8,14
39:17 41:8 43:1
49:6 61:11 71:5
82:8 94:12
131:3,6 151:18
159:6,7 174:5
175:7 248:8
workers 18:19
23:19 31:19
32:4,5,7,11
33:19,22 34:5
35:6,11,17,18,20
36:4,6,15,18,19,
22 38:1,18 39:20
41:1 42:10
43:3,17 44:5,20
45:1 49:1 50:16
51:15
52:10,13,14,19
53:1,13
60:6,11,12 70:8
80:3 85:3
88:8,16 94:15,19
95:2,8,14,19,20
96:4,19 97:3
98:7,20,21 100:9
101:10,20 105:1
131:14
144:20,22 174:4
179:5 184:14,17
186:18 188:3,8
189:2,5 206:8
219:16,19
229:9,13 231:16
235:5 244:12
245:2 247:12
workforce 102:18
248:1,3
working 14:10
20:7 24:18 26:18
27:14 28:1,13
31:16 43:3 54:2
56:14 57:12 60:5
64:17 65:3 72:21

 

74:1 76:20 78:4
80:9 95:4 97:16
100:18 148:20
154:3 196:15,16
203:8 209:3
210:7 222:13,18
223:5,8,11
226:20 227:9,10
228:17,19,21,22
229:3,4,19
230:18 232:21
233:19 235:15
236:2,9,12,14,16
,20 237:15,17,22
238:3 241:14,15
242:10,22
243:6,18 244:2
250:22 251:7
252:8 253:10
254:10
workplace 32:10
35:4,16 37:18
51:16,19 52:11
53:6 79:10
108:17
115:14,16
149:15 179:7
229:13 230:12
workplaces
204:15
works 41:22
112:16 130:14
132:12
155:19,20 162:8
236:1 248:20
workshops 54:14
worksite 174:4
world 34:1 37:20
77:19 78:8,11
166:20 199:9
203:7 211:16
212:21 220:20
221:11 250:2

 

WorldCom 52:5
worry 211:18
244:17
worth 160:7,20
179:11 224:19
251:1,8
worthwhile
182:13
Wow 142:4
WPAC 6:18
write 133:6 166:9
writer 22:6
writes 126:7
writing 124:10
208:13
written 36:21 48:5
63:11 88:2 90:4
92:4 95:6
wrong 75:16
135:21 155:15
214:3 227:1,10
wrongful 89:10
wrote 171:14
www.whistleblowers.gov 125:3

 

Y
Yankee 113:19
yearning 77:4
yet 41:21 74:4 81:3
115:13 163:16
176:3,21 188:16
235:4 242:16
248:11
York 4:20 18:19
113:16 234:1,3
you'll 15:18 16:5
30:11 31:10

 

 

55:22 61:17
179:15
yourself 43:8 68:5
86:15 87:4
yourselves 17:19
112:5
you've 29:22 51:10
57:14 58:16
73:6,11 84:8
100:15 119:21
120:12 121:15
141:18,19 152:5
156:16 174:22
179:17 182:10
184:6 188:9
215:5 245:17,18
249:8

 

Z
zealously 136:10
zero 222:8
zoned 237:22
Zuckerman 6:11
19:11,12 160:3,5
242:9

 

 

 

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.