In the Matter Of:

RANDOLPH FRADY,                              CASE NOS. 92-ERA-19
                                                       92-ERA-34
          COMPLAINANT,                                
                                             DATE: June 7, 1996
     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1]  

                  
     FINAL DECISION AND ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT           
                    CONCERNING DAMAGES 

     The Secretary issued a decision in this case, which arises
under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988), on October 23, 1995.  In that Decision and Order of
Remand (DOR), the Secretary dismissed certain of Complainant's
allegations of discrimination under the ERA but held that
Respondent had violated the ERA by failing to select Complainant
for hire as a machinist or steamfitter trainee, or a SE-5 nuclear
inspector.  The case was therefore remanded to the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) for a determination concerning Complainant's
complete remedy in this case.    
     On March 26, 1996, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order
Approving Joint Stipulation, recommending that an agreement
entered into by the parties concerning Complainant's remedy in
this case be approved.  On the following basis, we approve the
parties' agreement as to the issue of damages only.
     The parties' agreement, which is signed but not dated, is
entitled "Joint Stipulation."  The agreement indicates that
Respondent intends to seek judicial review of the Secretary's
decision of October 23, 1995, see 29 C.F.R. §
24.7,[2]  and expressly provides that Respondent's obligation to
provide relief to Complainant under the agreement is contingent
upon the
[PAGE 2]
affirmance of the DOR by an appellate court.[3]   Joint
Stipulation, ¶¶ 1-4. 
     We have reviewed the terms of this settlement regarding
damages to determine whether the agreement is a fair, adequate
and reasonable resolution of the issue of Complainant's complete
remedy in this case.[4]   See 42 U.S.C. §
5851(b)(2)(A) (1988); Macktal v. Sec'y of Labor, 923 F.2d
1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. United States Dep't
of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and
Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10,
Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.  Based on a review of
the parties' agreement, as well as the record in this case, we
conclude that the terms of this contingent settlement as to
Complainant's damages, as herein construed, constitute a fair,
adequate and reasonable resolution of that issue.  See
generally Pillow v. Bechtel Construction, Inc., Case No. 87-
ERA-35, Sec. Dec., Aug. 16, 1994 (approving agreement
concerning issue of damages only); Goldstein v. Ebasco
Constructors, Inc., Case No. 86-ERA-36, Sec. Dec., Apr. 7,
1992 (concluding that ALJ erred in rejecting parties' stipulation
concerning amounts of back pay and compensatory damages due),
rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v.
Martin, 986 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1993)(table).  Based
on the foregoing, we accept the ALJ's recommendation that the
agreement be approved.          
                              ORDER
     Accordingly, and as provided by the agreement of the
parties, it is ORDERED that:
     1.  Respondent Tennessee Valley Authority will pay
Complainant Randolph Frady back pay in the amount of $57,930.35,
plus interest, at the rate provided at 26 U.S.C. § 6621
(1988), to accrue from the dates that each salary payment, minus
the applicable interim income, see Joint Stipulation,
¶ 4, would have been paid had Complainant been hired by
Respondent to fill the position of machinist or steamfitter
trainee or SE-5 nuclear inspector, see Decision and Order
of Remand, at 49-50. 
     2.  Respondent Tennessee Valley Authority will restore the
balance of Complainant's sick and annual leave accounts and will
credit those accounts for the sick and annual leave that
Complainant would have earned for the period from January 13,
1992 to February 5, 1996.
     3.  Respondent Tennessee Valley Authority will pay
Complainant's attorney, Donald Mart Lasley, $8,000 for attorney's
fees and expenses incurred in this proceeding.
     4.  Respondent Tennessee Valley Authority will reinstate
Complainant to TVA employment in the position of Computer
Graphics Technician, at an annual salary of $39,640. 
SO ORDERED.

[PAGE 3]



                              _______________________
                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                              Chair




                              _______________________  
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Member




                              _______________________
                              JOYCE D. MILLER 
                              Alternate Member

   


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   On April 17, 1996, the Secretary of Labor delegated
authority to issue final agency decisions under, inter
alia, the the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988) and the implementing regulations, 29
C.F.R. Part 24, to the newly created Administrative Review Board
(ARB).  Secretary's Order 2-96 (Apr. 17, 1996), 61 Fed. Reg.
19978 (May 3, 1996)(copy attached).

    Secretary's Order 2-96 contains a comprehensive list of the
statutes, executive order, and regulations under which the ARB
now issues final agency decisions.  A copy of the final
procedural revisions to the regulations, 61 Fed. Reg. 19982,
implementing this reorganization is also attached.  The
Secretary's decision of October 23, 1995, and the entire record
in this case have been reviewed by the ARB. 


[2]   Respondent agrees not to seek a stay of this final decision
concerning damages pending judicial review.  Joint Stipulation, 
¶ 3.  

[3]   In the event that a timely appeal to the appropriate United
States Court of Appeals is not taken by Respondent, the
Secretary's October 23, 1995 decision becomes a final and
enforceable order.  See 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (c),(d), (e)
(1988); 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.7, 24.8.  In the event an
appeal is taken, Respondent's liability, on this record, remains
the same if at least one of the three nonselection violations
found by the Secretary is affirmed following judicial review.

[4]   The "applicable rate" of interest referred to in ¶ 4
of the parties' agreement is that which is provided for by 26
U.S.C. § 6621 (1988).  See Nichols v. Bechtel Const.,
Inc., Case No. 87-ERA-44, Sec. Dec., Nov. 18, 1993, slip op.
at 12, aff'd on other grounds sub nom.,
Bechtel Const. Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 50 F.3d 926
(11th Cir. 1995); Wells v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., Case
No. 85-ERA-0022, Sec. Dec., Mar. 21, 1991, slip op. at 17,
appeal dismissed, No. 91-9526 (10th Cir. Aug. 23, 1991);
see generally Johnson v. Bechtel Const. Co., Case No. 95-
ERA-0011, Sec. Dec., Sept. 28, 1995, slip op. at 2-3 (addressing
date from which prejudgment interest must accrue).