| |
U.S DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY MOUND FACILITY
A Public Sector Case
Study
Miamisburg, Ohio
Background
The DOE Mound facility
(a former nuclear weapons plant) of the U.S. Department
of Energy, in Miamisburg, Ohio, is the site of a unique
partnership between the Department of Energy (the customer),
its contractor, BWX Technologies (management), and the
two unions on site, PACE Local 7-4200 and UPOWA Local
146 (labor). DOE Mound began their partnership with
a unique objective: success of the partnership is measured
by shutting down the business. The partnership arose
out of a sea of distrust between all parties and paralysis
in action, but has produced highly effective working
relationships that have reduced the life of the operation
by years, thereby saving the U.S. taxpayer tens of millions
of dollars.
Early History
The DOE Mound facility,
prior to September 1992, was part of the United States
government's nuclear weapons production complex. With
the end of the Cold War, and the decision to no longer
build nuclear weapons, the mission at Mound totally
changed. The mission became one of environmental restoration:
shut down all operation and turn the cleaned-up property
over to others for other use. Not surprisingly, anxieties
and tensions between labor, management, and the DOE
were very high. The management contract to do the clean
up came up for bid, and the long time contractor, EG&G,
publicly stated it was not interested in continuing
in its role. Thus, at the beginning of 1995 the site
was faced with extreme uncertainty, law suits, and little
progress in its effort to complete the clean up and
shut down by the target year of 2012.
By the summer of 1995,
on the heels of the end of production, and after bioassay
program failures, relationships among Mound's represented
work force, contractor management and DOE were virtually
non-existent and becoming more dysfunctional with each
passing month. The Secretary and other DOE Headquarters
PS0's grew increasingly weary of the hammering they
were taking at the hands of Senator John Glenn (D-OH),
U.S Representative Tony Hall (DOH,3), OCAW leadership,
and the press. They were frustrated with the Ohio Field
Office and site management for the endless mishaps and
their failure to regain control of the safety envelope.
Finally, in an effort to assist Ohio Field Office Manager
Phil Hamric, a HQ PSO suggested contacting Tom Schneider
and Restructuring Associates for assistance.
Under the strong leadership
of the DOE Ohio Field Office Director, and with the
help of Restructuring Associates Inc. (RAI), the two
unions, the senior management for the contractor, and
the senior leadership of the DOE for both the facility
and the Ohio Field Office met together in the autumn
of 1995. Following a foundation of joint education and
training, the parties began heavily facilitated, intensive
and candid discussions about their relationships, the
future of the site, and performance challenges.
After discussions
with Tom Schneider, Phil Hamric articulated a new vision
that saw that the remediation would be nearly completed
by 2005. At the beginning of 1995, the DOE remediation
plan foresaw completion in 2012. Accordingly, he appealed
directly to contractor management and labor leaders
to join him in the new vision. Both groups rose to the
occasion and embraced the ten-year vision. As a result,
a new labor paradigm, dependent upon an environment
of cooperation among involved parties, emerged at Mound.
The discussions resulted
in written agreements between the parties which laid
out the following: a shared mission, a shared set of
values and principles by which the groups committed
to work, shared performance objectives, firm commitments
for performance improvement efforts, firm commitments
for employment security, wages and benefits, a restructuring
of work and job classifications down to four with the
full cooperation of labor, training commitments for
all employees, terms and limits on the use of subcontractors
and in-house contract labor, movement of employees between
the two on-site bargaining units involving two different
unions, and successorship requirements. The parties
also agreed to a joint governance structure in order
to implement the commitments and a comprehensive communications
strategy for the organization.
The landmark agreements
between DOE, EG&G and its represented workforces
provided represented workers with an unprecedented degree
of job security in exchange for work force flexibility
relating to job classification, work rules and scheduling
all with firm commitments to the greatly accelerated
timetable for clean-up and shutdown.
False Start
A new tripartite (DOE,
contractor, and two unions) Partnership Council started
weekly meetings with continued RAI support. Trust levels
were still low, but a breakthrough had occurred. However,
by the Spring of 1996, RAI was no longer involved and
the contractor had marginalized the Partnership Council
to the point where it rarely met. When the Council did
meet, it meet briefly and accomplished nothing.
Meetings became largely
"tell-me" sessions with no consensus, no view
sharing, and little trust among members. The meetings
went from lasting an hour to about 15 minutes. By year
's end, both EG& G President Earl Fray and MEMP
Director George Gartrell had retired.
Late in 1996, the
contractor, EG&G, replaced the CEO and Phil Hamric
called in RAI to try to restart the partnership effort.
A series of meetings were held early in 1997 to introduce
the new EG&G and DOE managers to the committee,
the partnership agreement, and its underlying concepts.
After a careful examination of DOE Mound’s status
regarding performance, values, and relationships, the
parties re-chartered the partnership effort, defined
a new set of operating principles for the Partnership
Council, refocused attention on performance, and undertook
serious trust building and communications efforts. Finally,
the Council contracted with the consultant to stay involved
for a longer period of time in order to provide both
expert guidance and discipline.
At this point, the
Council began acting more like a team. Discussions were
contentious, but for the first time real information
began to emerge. Mutual member perceptions were quite
revealing regarding the lack of a healthy relationship.
Council meetings once again became involved with important
worker protection issues, such as the integrity of the
bioassay tests and funding for MEMP-wide site characterization.
The meets lasted several hours, once a week. By the
summer of 1997, the Council was working extremely well,
and very difficult problems and crises were being resolved
quickly, effectively, and openly. Trust was at a very
high level. In June of 1998, after a change in contractors
to BWX Technologies, contractor leadership and the assignment
of Bob Folker, the Deputy Director of the Ohio Field
Office to the MEMP, the partnership was further invigorated,
and the Council continued addressing difficult issues.
Results
Presently, the partnership
continues to operate extremely effectively, despite
facing a major safety crisis (involving misinterpretation
and alleged misrepresentation of employee radiation
exposure test results), a change in contractors, the
subsequent change of the contractor's CEO, two changes
in the Director of the DOE Ohio Field Office, and a
change in the DOE site project director. Today the clean-up
and shut down progress is moving on an accelerated basis
with a current plan of 2005, seven years earlier than
when the partnership was first formed, and with a potential
cost savings in the tens of millions of dollars. The
most difficult safety issues are resolved by the partnership
Council without litigation or political intervention.
Over time every major
issue coming up at Mound has been discussed in meetings
of the Mound Partnership Council. Only litigation and
labor relations issues have been off-limits. Most importantly,
the Council has provided an essential forum for mediating
highly contentious worker protection issues (i.e., site
characterization, bioassay test procedures and results,
and effective implementation of Integrated Safety Management)
that in the past would have been highly politicized
and publicly aired. Grievances dropped substantially
from about 100 per year to 10-15 per year. Moreover,
Council partners working together have assembled a unique
pool of knowledge and experience that has enabled them
to generate various cost- saving ideas relating to how
work is scheduled and accomplished at Mound. Finally,
and most importantly, in stark contrast to the past,
the partnership has produced trust among Council members,
allowing work to go forward and employees to know that
their health and safety is a priority concern to DOE
and contractor management.
Future Challenges
Today the partnership
is beginning to plan for the shut down and its own termination.
This is extremely difficult, and an unusual problem.
How does the organization accomplish highly technical
work, and simultaneously organize a painless exit for
all employees and organizations?
DOE Mound
DOE Mound
4
 Top
|
