In the Matter of:
JOHNNY F. NEAL, ARB
CASE NOS. 06-84
06-86
COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2006-ERA-3
v.
DATE: July 26, 2006
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS,
INC.,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL DECISION AND
ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS
On April 5, 2006, a
Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Order
Denying Complainant's Motion for Summary Decision and Granting in Part
Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision (R. O.) in this case arising under the
Energy Reorganization Act (ERA).
This R. O. included the following "Notice of Appeal Rights:"
To appeal, you must
file a Petition for Review . . . that is received by the Administrative Review
Board . . . within ten (10) business days of the date of issuance of the
administrative law judge's Recommended Decision and Order. . . . If no Petition
is timely filed, the administrative law judge's recommended decision becomes
the final order of the Secretary of Labor. See 29 C.F.R. § 24.7(d).[]
[Page 2]
Johnny Neal, the
Complainant, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, the Respondent, filed timely
petitions for review in compliance with the ALJ's instructions. On April 20,
2006, the ALJ issued an Errata stating:
On April 5, 2006 a
Recommended Order Denying Complainant's Motion for Summary Decision and
Granting in Part Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision was issued by the
undersigned. Inclusion of the Notice of Appeal Rights at the end of the Order
was erroneous as the Order did not resolve all aspects of the claim and it was
not intended to be a final order.
In response to the
parties' appeals, the Administrative Review Board issued an Order to Show Cause
stating:
Because the ALJ has
not fully resolved the merits of Neal's complaint, she has correctly determined
that she has not issued a final order.
Any appeal from such an order would be interlocutory. The
Secretary and the Board have held many times that interlocutory appeals are
generally disfavored, and that there is a strong policy against piecemeal
appeals.
Accordingly, the Board
ordered the parties to show cause on or before July 14, 2006, why the
Board should not dismiss their interlocutory appeals. On July 14, 2006, the
Complainant responded to the Board's Order stating that he did not "wish
to oppose the Review Board's decision to return this matter to the
Administrative Law Judge's jurisdiction." On July 17, 2006, the
Respondent replied that it "has no objection to the
[Page 3]
dismissal of the appeals at
this time by the Administrative Review Board." Therefore, we DISMISS
the Complainant's and the Respondent's interlocutory appeals and remand this
case to the Administrative Law Judge.
SO ORDERED.
M.
CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge
OLIVER
M. TRANSUE
Administrative
Appeals Judge