On October 20, the Department of Energy celebrated what it called an exceptional year of safety and cleanup progress at its Oak Ridge facilities in Tennessee. The department praised its contractor, United Cleanup Oak Ridge (UCOR), for logging more than 1.3 million safe work hours while dismantling aging nuclear infrastructure and managing millions of pounds of waste.
Nine days later, a federal administrative law judge issued a rather different assessment of the contractor’s workplace practices.
In a 54-page decision issued October 29, National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key found that UCOR had violated federal labor law by disciplining, transferring, suspending, and ultimately firing employees who challenged management and engaged in legally protected activities.
The contrast is difficult to overlook. DOE was celebrating a contractor’s safety culture while a federal labor proceeding was documenting how that same contractor punished employees who questioned management’s handling of workplace concerns, including safety issues.
The ruling does not establish that UCOR falsified safety records, mishandled radioactive materials, or violated nuclear safety requirements. It does, however, raise a question that the department’s celebratory announcement did not address: How does DOE evaluate a contractor’s safety culture when employees face retaliation for speaking up?
A Safety Record Worth Celebrating, With a Complication
DOE’s October 20 announcement described substantial accomplishments across the Oak Ridge Reservation during fiscal year 2026.
According to the department, cleanup crews managed more than 50 million pounds of waste generated during the deactivation and demolition of Manhattan Project and Cold War-era facilities. Work continued at the Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and East Tennessee Technology Park, formerly known as K-25.
DOE reported more than 300,000 safe work hours at Y-12, another 375,581 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and more than 117,000 in waste operations.
The department credited the workforce’s disciplined approach to safety for allowing crews to complete difficult cleanup operations while reducing risks associated with deteriorating nuclear infrastructure.
UCOR Executive Vice President and Deputy Program Director Sean Dunagan emphasized the company’s workforce-centered approach, saying its performance reflected employees who looked out for one another and identified better ways to accomplish the mission.
Those accomplishments are not necessarily inconsistent with the labor judge’s findings. The October announcement describes fiscal 2026 performance, while the disputed employment actions occurred primarily between October 2022 and April 2023.
Nevertheless, occupational safety statistics and employee confidence in reporting concerns measure different things. A workforce can accumulate substantial hours without recordable incidents while still experiencing problems with how management responds to employee complaints.
The administrative decision provides a detailed examination of precisely that distinction.
When Reporting Safety Concerns Became a Disciplinary Matter
The dispute began well before DOE’s October announcement.
According to the judge’s findings, Patricia Sexton, a longtime grounds equipment operator at the Oak Ridge Reservation Landfills, participated in an October 25, 2022 meeting with UCOR President and CEO Kenneth Reuter and several coworkers.
Employees raised concerns about promotion practices, advancement opportunities, management responsiveness, and workplace safety.
Among the issues was dust control at the landfill. Sexton complained that the facility lacked an available water truck needed to reduce dust, while other employees described maintenance concerns they believed management had failed to resolve.
The discussion also turned to UCOR’s safety observation card program, which encouraged employees to document unsafe conditions and submit them for review.
Sexton questioned the usefulness of the program when reported problems remained unresolved. She explained that some safety concerns required immediate attention rather than waiting for the next review of observation cards.
She also said she would continue working safely but would not keep submitting voluntary safety cards if management failed to address the underlying problems.
Two days later, UCOR issued Sexton a last-chance written warning.
The disciplinary notice characterized her statements as a refusal to follow required safety protocols and identify workplace hazards. It warned that further infractions could result in termination.
The judge found that UCOR had unlawfully disciplined Sexton for protected concerted activity.
The decision also noted that the company had not interviewed Sexton before issuing the warning and that it was her first disciplinary action.
The distinction was consequential. Sexton had criticized the effectiveness of a voluntary safety reporting mechanism. UCOR treated her criticism as deliberate disregard for workplace safety.
The company’s own written policies encouraged employees to raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal. Its Safety Conscious Work Environment Policy describes employee involvement and open communication as essential elements of its safety culture.
The administrative judge’s findings suggest that, at least in this dispute, the company’s response to criticism fell considerably short of that stated commitment.
A Transfer That Management Struggled to Explain
The retaliation did not end with the written warning.
In November 2022, UCOR transferred Sexton from her regular grounds equipment operator assignment at the Oak Ridge Reservation Landfills to laborer duties at the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility.
Although she retained her job classification and hourly pay, the reassignment placed her in less desirable working conditions and removed her from duties she had regularly performed for years.
UCOR maintained that the transfer was justified by operational requirements, including seasonal changes in mowing work and staffing needs at the receiving facility.
The judge rejected that explanation.
The decision describes testimony from project manager Mark Cleveland, who oversaw both facilities and said neither location required the transfer for staffing reasons.
Cleveland also testified that management had informed supervisors that Sexton’s reassignment was connected to her grievance activity.
An internal management email provided additional evidence. In April 2023, Waste Operations Project Manager Clint Mori described Sexton’s earlier transfer as resulting from problems she had been causing at the landfill.
The judge credited Cleveland’s account over Mori’s explanation, finding that operational considerations did not justify the reassignment.
The subsequent treatment of Cleveland presents another unanswered question.
In March 2023, Cleveland transferred Sexton back to her original work location because the upcoming mowing season required qualified tractor operators. Senior management objected to the decision.
Cleveland was placed on administrative leave on April 3 and terminated on April 6.
The administrative decision documents that sequence but does not separately adjudicate whether Cleveland’s termination constituted unlawful retaliation. His dismissal nevertheless adds an important dimension to the dispute, particularly given his testimony about the company’s stated reasons for moving Sexton.
Two Employees Fired Amid Contract Negotiations
The dispute escalated again in April 2023 as UCOR and the Atomic Trades and Labor Council negotiated a collective bargaining agreement.
A memorandum of understanding reclassified approximately 26 laborers as grounds equipment operators, increasing their hourly pay from $30.46 to $32.88.
The agreement also changed how work assignments would be determined, giving management greater discretion and reducing the role of seniority.
Sexton and coworker Wendy Colyer, now Wendy Colyer Bales, questioned aspects of the arrangement and discussed the possibility of a strike with other employees.
UCOR subsequently accused the women of encouraging coworkers to refuse assignments, harassing employees, and interfering with operations.
The company maintained that their conduct violated workplace rules and the collective bargaining agreement’s prohibition on work stoppages.
Following an internal investigation and disciplinary review, UCOR placed both employees on administrative leave on April 18 and decided to terminate them on April 20. Termination notices followed on April 24.
The administrative judge examined the company’s explanations, witness testimony, internal records, and the employees’ activities before concluding that the suspensions and terminations violated the National Labor Relations Act.
The judge found that Sexton’s treatment also involved unlawful discrimination connected to her participation in NLRB proceedings.
The decision did not sustain every allegation in the consolidated complaint, but its central findings were substantial: UCOR had unlawfully interfered with protected employee activities and retaliated against workers who exercised federal labor rights.
An $8.5 Billion Federal Oversight Question
UCOR is not an ordinary private employer operating independently of the federal government.
The company serves as DOE’s lead cleanup contractor at Oak Ridge under contract 89303322DEM000067. DOE’s August 2026 major contracts summary lists the contract at approximately $8.5 billion, with a performance period extending from October 2021 through October 2031.
That figure represents the listed contract value, not necessarily the amount already paid.
The contractor performs work involving contaminated facilities, radioactive waste management, environmental remediation, and maintenance of aging infrastructure associated with the nation’s nuclear weapons and energy programs.
The administrative decision describes a workforce of approximately 2,400 employees, including roughly 900 represented by unions.
DOE’s Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management is responsible for overseeing cleanup operations under the federal contract.
That relationship makes the labor findings relevant beyond the immediate dispute between UCOR and its employees.
The questions now concern what DOE knew about the allegations, whether federal officials reviewed the contractor’s response to employee concerns, and whether the documented employment actions affected the department’s evaluation of contractor performance.
The administrative decision does not establish when DOE officials learned of the underlying allegations or whether the department conducted an independent review.
Nor does it establish that DOE withheld or awarded contract fees based on the disputed conduct.
Those are questions for federal oversight officials, not conclusions that can be drawn from the labor ruling alone.
Still, the department’s public celebration of workplace safety makes them particularly relevant.
A contractor’s ability to complete hazardous work without reported injuries is an important performance measure. Whether employees believe they can report problems without risking their livelihoods is another.
Both matter in an environment where failures can have consequences extending far beyond the workplace.
The Contractor Also Challenged the Labor Board
The administrative proceedings were accompanied by a separate legal challenge.
On April 8, 2026, shortly before the scheduled administrative hearing, UCOR filed a federal lawsuit against the NLRB and associated officials in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The lawsuit challenged aspects of the labor board’s administrative structure and proceedings.
UCOR sought emergency judicial intervention, but District Judge Clifton L. Corker denied its request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction on April 20, allowing the administrative proceedings to continue.
That ruling did not resolve the merits of every constitutional argument raised in the separate lawsuit. Publicly accessible docket information reviewed for this article does not establish its final disposition.
The labor judge subsequently issued her October 29 decision recommending that UCOR cease the unlawful practices, offer reinstatement to Sexton and Colyer Bales, compensate them for lost earnings and benefits, remove references to the unlawful disciplinary actions from their personnel records, and post notices informing employees of their rights.
Those remedies remain recommendations at this stage of the administrative process. The decision is not itself proof that the National Labor Relations Board has issued a final enforceable order or that the employees have been reinstated.
The NLRB’s case record identifies the underlying proceedings as open.
Safety Is More Than a Statistic
DOE’s October announcement highlighted real and measurable cleanup accomplishments at Oak Ridge. The administrative judge’s findings do not erase those achievements, nor do they establish that the department’s reported safety statistics were inaccurate.
What they establish is a serious contradiction between the contractor’s stated commitment to employee participation and its treatment of workers who challenged management.
The difference matters because environmental cleanup at former nuclear facilities depends on employees identifying problems before those problems become incidents.
A safety program cannot be evaluated solely by counting the number of hours worked without injury. It must also account for whether employees can raise concerns, question procedures, and challenge management decisions without retaliation.
For DOE, the unresolved issue is whether its oversight system captures that distinction and what action, if any, it took in response to the conduct described in the ruling.
Nine days before the judge issued her decision, the department publicly celebrated a contractor whose workforce had accumulated more than 1.3 million safe work hours.
The judge’s decision raises a different measure of safety, one that does not fit as neatly into an annual performance announcement: whether the people doing the work can speak freely when they believe something needs to change.
For a contractor entrusted with cleaning up the federal government’s nuclear legacy, that question deserves an answer.
