DATE:  May 1, 1996
CASE NO. 95-ERA-20


IN THE MATTER OF 

ROBERT O. KLOCK,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AND
UNITED ENERGY SERVICES CORP.,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                   ORDER

     This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851
(1988).  The parties have requested a dismissal of the complaint
with prejudice and submitted a Memorandum of Understanding and  
Agreement and a Joint Motion for Dismissal in support of such
request.
     Since the request for approval of the settlement is based on
an agreement entered into by the parties, the Secretary must
review it to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. 
§ 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988).  Macktal v. Secretary of
Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); 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.
     The Agreement's preamble indicates that payment has already 
[PAGE 2]
been made to the Complainant for backpay, interest and employment
benefits.  Paragraph 1 indicates that a further payment is to be
made for alleged damages, emotional distress, mental anguish,
pain and suffering, humiliation, damage to professional
reputation and attorney's fees and expenses.  There is no
indication as to the actual amount of money to be paid to the
Complainant pursuant to the proposed settlement.  The Secretary
must know the amount Complainant will receive in order to
determine if the settlement agreement is fair, adequate and
reasonable.  This amount affects not only the Complainant's
individual interest, but impacts on the public interest as well,
because if the amount is not fair, adequate and reasonable, other
employees may be discouraged from reporting safety violations. 
See Plumlee v. Aleyeska Pipeline Service Co., 92-TSC-7,
Sec. Dec. and Order, Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 5.
     Likewise, the record does not specify the amount of
attorney's fees to be paid.  As long as the parties are in
agreement as to the amount of the attorney's fees to be paid, it
is not necessary for the Secretary to review the amount with the
specificity usually required by the lodestar method.  Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).  If a dispute arises
between the parties with regard to the appropriateness of the
amount of attorney's fees, a subsequent order requiring an
itemization of such fees may be necessary.  
     The parties are required to file a joint response to this
Order within ten (10) days.  If the parties cannot agree upon a
joint response, Complainant's counsel is to submit the required
information within ten (10) days from the issuance of this Order. 
Respondent may submit a response within fifteen (15) days of the
issuance of this Order.
     SO ORDERED.

                              For the Secretary of Labor

                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN              
                              Director, Office of 
                                Administrative Appeals[1] 

Washington, D.C.






[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   This Order is issued pursuant to Secretary's Order 3-90, 
55 Fed. Reg. 13,250 (Apr. 9, 1990).