Case No. 84-ERA-22

In the Matter of

SCOTT BULLOCK,
    Complainant

    v.

ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
    Defendant

DECISION AND INTERIM ORDER ON MOTIONS

    Under date of May 29, 1984, I issued an order to Show Cause why Complainant's application pro se for continuance of the hearing herein for purposes of obtaining an attorney should not be granted upon condition that the time limitations prescribed in 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.5 and 24.6 be thereby waived.

    On May 30, 1984, prior to receipt of the Order to Show Cause, Defendant's attorneys submitted an Answer to Complainant's application for continuance, setting forth numerous objections, all of which are devoid of merit. Essentially, they take the position that Complainant should be denied an opportunity to get a lawyer because a continuance

will disrupt Defendant's precious pre-arranged schedule and because Complainant's failure to act earlier has resulted in Defendant's incurring unwarranted expense (presumably the cost of additional postage to expedite the delivery of the plethora of duplicative documents with which Defendant's attorneys have inundated this Office). On June 4, 1984, Defendant's attorneys transmitted an Affidavit in Response to the Order to Show Cause, setting forth the very same captious objections, but without any opposition to the proposed conditions of continuance.

    The expedited procedures prescribed for employee protection statutes such as that of the Energy Reorganization Act (42 U.S.C. § 5851) and regulations thereunder are for the benefit of the employee who is likely to be out of a job or otherwise economically disadvantaged by the employer's alleged retaliation. They are not designed to provide the employer with a means of pressuring or harassing an employee who has "blown the whistle." Considering the obvious need of Complainant to be represented by counsel, and the equally obvious absence of any cognizable prejudice to Defendant, good and sufficient cause for continuance has been undeniably shown. In view of the application made by Complainant and the lack of objection to the condition proposed in the order to Show Cause, both parties are deemed to have waived the time limitations prescribed in 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.5 and 24.6. The parties are cautioned, however, that no further requests for continuance of the hearing will be entertained. Moreover, Complainant is advised that undue delay in obtaining counsel will not be permitted.

    Whether so intended or not, Defendant's tactics with respect to the taking of depositions and discovery, as well as to continuance, has the effect of taking advantage of an adverse party who appears without counsel. In view of the postponement of the hearing, preparatory steps are less urgent, but both parties are required to comply with applicable laws and rules within reasonable limits.

    Defendant's motion to compel Complainant to appear for the taking of his deposition and to produce documents is granted to the extent of directing Complainant to appear and to be deposed herein on June 18 at 4:00 P.M. Complainant is further directed to produce at such deposition, for inspection

and copying by Defendant's attorneys, the documents listed and described in items 1 and 2 of the Notice of Deposition and Request for Production dated May 25, 1984 herein, the documents referred to being limited to those in the personal possession of Complainant. The motion is otherwise denied.

    Defendant's attorneys are requested to cease and desist from burdening the Docket Clerk of this Office with needless copies of papers, and from the questionable practice of sending additional copies of the same papers under cover letters to the undersigned, lest those be perceived as taking on the color of ex parte communications as to the merits.

    In view of the foregoing, it is

    ORDERED that the hearing of this proceeding scheduled for June 19, 1984 is hereby cancelled, subject to being rescheduled upon twenty (20) days' notice; and it is further

    ORDERED that Complainant Scott V. Bullock appear for the taking of his deposition at the Office of Nixon, Hargrave, Devans and Doyle, Esqs., Lincoln First Tower, Rochester, N.Y. on June 18, 1984 at 4:00 P.M., and that he produce thereat the documents as hereinabove directed; and it is further

    ORDERED that Defendant shall cooperate in making it possible for Complainant to attend the deposition ordered herein without reprisal or penalty of any kind.

    Dated at Washington, D.C. this 8th day of June, 1984.

       ROBERT J. FELDMAN

       Administrative Law judge

RJF/mml