A $4.8 million jury award for 11 laid-off Hanford pipe-fitters should be reversed because a later state ruling gives the case no legal basis, Fluor Federal Services argued Thursday.

The Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of the 1999 case in Olympia.

In 2005, a Benton County jury found that the pipefitters had been wrongfully dismissed from their jobs at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The pipefitters said they were targeted as whistleblowers.

Some objected to installing a valve that did not carry an adequate pressure rating for tests of radioactive waste pipes, and others were laid off after they supported those who objected.

But shortly after the ruling for the pipefitters in Benton County Superior Court, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in another Hanford case, Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services.

It found in that case that administrative remedies for whistleblowers under the Energy Reorganization Act adequately protected public policy without trying wrongful discharge cases in court.

That decision mandates reversal of the judgment in favor of pipefitters and dismissal of their claims, argued Michael King, attorney for Fluor Federal Services.

But nine of the 11 pipefitters had attempted to use the administrative remedies by bringing their case to the Department of Labor before it was filed in court, said their attorney, Jack Sheridan.

After the 1997 incident with the valve, seven pipefitters were laid off. They took the matter to the Department of Labor under the Energy Reorganization Act, settled and were ordered to be reinstated to work at Hanford.

"There was no detrimental effect in terms of motivating the employer, Fluor, to comport its conduct to the law," Sheridan said.

Foremen were told they had to lay off seven other pipefitters to bring the first seven back on the job, and they retaliated by laying off four pipefitters who supported the original whistleblowers, according to the plaintiffs' case. Eight months later, five of the original whistleblowers were laid off a second time.

The remaining two plaintiffs included a pipefitter who had carpooled with one of the original whistleblowers and a pipefitter who gave testimony under oath that was detrimental to Fluor, which was operating as Fluor Daniel Northwest when the original incident occurred.

Pipefitters filed a second administrative complaint with the Department of Labor, but Sheridan said they "had to deal with discovery abuses." They had no power to subpoena Hanford subcontractors and officials walked out of depositions and withheld documents, Sheridan said.

"We tested the forum and found it woefully inadequate," Sheridan said. In 1999 they switched tactics and filed the lawsuit that led to the judgment in their favor in Superior Court.

If Hanford and other workers are required to use an administrative remedy they feel is inadequate for whistleblower claims, they are not likely totake risks to point out concerns andprotect the public, Sheridan said.

"We're in an environment that really needs to provide every means to protect people who stand up for the environment," he said.

Justice Susan Owens questioned why the issue of whether the case should have been heard by the Department of Labor was not raised during the Benton County trial.

Fluor did point out in a trial brief that a decision in Korslund vs. Dyncorp was pending and could affect the case, King said. But there was no point to raising the issue on summary judgment because Fluor would have lost as state law then stood, he said.

But the Washington State Supreme Court has resolved that the remedies offered under the Energy Restoration Act are adequate, even if the pipefitters don't agree, he said.

It is "a tough remedy" that offers "a full panoply of awards," King said. He also disputed Sheridan's contention that it was not adequate to get pipefitters the subpoenas and depositions it requested.