September 23, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Office of Administrative Law Judges 1111 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Case No. 86-ERA-15 In the Matter of ROGER DALE WENSIL and
B. F SHAW COMPANY,
The governing act in this proceeding is the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 24. On March 14, 1986, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss. The DOE seeks dismissal of the above-captioned case on the grounds that this Office lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Briefs on this issue were submitted by Complainant, the DOE and the DOL on April 21, 1986, May 14, 1986, and May 7, 1986, respectively. The parties presented oral arguments on March 18, 1986 on this jurisdictional issue. The DOE's position is based on the view that under § 210 [Page 2] of the Act, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has the authority to investigate certain discrimination complaints of employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees and their contractors and subcontractors. However, the DOE asserts, the complaints of employees of the DOE or DOE contractors and subcontractors are not covered. The Complainant, Roger Dale Wensil, is an employee of B. F. Shaw, the subcontractor to E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, the contractor for the DOE's Savannah River Plant. Since Complainant is not an employee of an NRC licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, DOE argues, Complainant may not proceed under § 210(a) of the Act. Section 210 provides that:
Claimant's position, that, as an employee of a subcontractor [Page 3] of DOE's contractor, his discrimination complaint is covered, is supported by the plain language of section 210. I find, however, that Congress' intent was to protect employees at NRC-licensed facilities. Congress enacted section 210(a) in the NRC Authorization Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-601 and it is codified in Title II of the Act -- the title governing only the NRC. The legislative history does not indicate that employees other than NRC licensees and applicants are covered, and specifically, it does not mention the DOE. Accordingly, I ORDER this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
E. EARL THOMAS EET/MCA/tt |
||||||||
|