September 23, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
SECRETARY OF LABOR
DATE: March 18, 1988
IN THE MATTER OF
DAVID H. SMITH, JR.
v.
CATALYTIC, INC.,
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert G. Mahoney submitted a Recommended Decision on Remand (R.D.R.) in this case arising under the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. SS 5851 (1982). The Secretary had remanded the case to the ALJ for reconsideration in light of the Secretary's decision in Pensyl v. Catalytic, Inc., 83-ERA-2 (Decision issued Jan. 13, 1984). Pursuant to that remand order, the ALJ held a second evidentiary hearing and issued the R.D.R. After issuance of a briefing schedule by the Secretary, Complainant [Page 2] submitted a brief pro se urging reversal of the R.D.R. Respondent submitted a Notice of Reliance on Previous Brief, that is, its post-hearing brief of November 26, 1986. The record in this case has been carefully reviewed. Based on the entire record, I adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of the ALJ that Respondent fulfilled its obligation under Pensyl v. Catalytic, Inc. to investigate and explain to complainant why the perceived safety hazard was not a threat to his health and safety. (A copy of the ALJ's R.D.R. is attached to this decision.) Thereafter, Respondent had a legitimate reason, Complainant's continued refusal to accept his work assignment, to discharge Complainant. Accordingly, the complaint in this case is DENIED. SO ORDERED.
ANN MCLAUGHLIN Washington, D.C. |
||||||||
|