three came out soaked with water and sweat; Mr. Tentinger, in particular, upon removing his mask seemed to be near to heat exhaustion. The conditions were referred to as miserable.

   All three were "frisked" and found to be without contamination, although Mr. Hamilton's knee at first caused the machine to "flicker" indicating there may be some radiation. A recheck revealed low contamination level.

   On Tuesday, May 19, Claimant met with Roger Hassebroek and Joe Bowen, both boilermakers, who complained that the water was potentially contaminated and that additionally it was not safe to weld under those conditions. He apparently went to see the health physics people concerning possible contamination.

   Claimant, thereupon, went to David Kerr, fire marshall for Iowa Electric, who was acting safety representative for the whole plant in the absence of Carl Voegeler, on Wednesday, May 20, at approximately 8:00 a.m. Mr. Kerr told him not to have welding going in the water. A "hold" had been put on the work during the previous evening, apparently based on concern over the safety factor of welding in the water.

   Keith Ellingwood and Leon Hamilton, supervisors, upon arriving to work at approximately 7:45 a.m. learned of the "hold". They went to the health physics department who told them the problem concerned an electrical problem; approval to remove the "hold" would have to be obtained through their supervisor, Kevin Konzem. Mr. Konzem told them the question related solely to the concern of welding in water; from a radiologic viewpoint there was no reason not to continue work in the manner prescribed by the Radiation Work Permit.

   Ellingwood and Hamilton returned to the condenser work area where the crew awaited resolution of the WP "hold" before they could go to work. Sartain at that time confronted Ellingwood in an agressive manner, stating that the work had been shut down by Dave Kerr. Ellingwood and Hamilton then went into a staff meeting at approximately 9:00 a.m. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Hamilton emerged with a termination slip initialled by Mr. Gerald L. Nielsen, chief manager of the entire project for Bechtel. Hamilton confronted Sartain and ordered him to go into the condenser to work. Sartain stated he was not going to go into contaminated water,

that he would not refuse to work but he would not go through the water. Hamilton terminated Claimant, who called the NRC from a phone booth outside the building.

   That same afternoon, by apparent coincidence Mr. Sartain was at the Red Fox Tavern, when Mr. Nielsen and his counterpart from Iowa Electric, Tracey Lacy, arrived for lunch. Sartain without provocation verbally abused Mr. Nielsen, followed him outside and twice punched him, challenging Mr. Nielsen to retaliate.

   Duane Sartain testified that he had worked 3 or 4 times on shutdowns for Bechtel over the 18 years he's been a boilermaker (T-12). He was not told NRC maintained an office on the premises prior to discharge (T-15, 16). On Saturday's inspection he saw Mr. Tentinger come out of the condenser gasping, he was sick and not feeling good. He was frisked for radiation and none was found. Leon Hamilton was frisked and found that his knees were contaminated (T-16-18; #1). Roger Hassebroek complained that the working conditions were terrible and the water might be contaminated (T-19). Paul Benson told Sartain that Ellingwood and Hamilton had decided that Bowen and Hasselbroek were going to be pulled off the job and Sartain was going to do it (T-20). Dave Kerr told him (Sartain) that no one had to work under the conditions he explained. He later confronted Benson, Hamilton and Ellingwood and told them what Kerr had said. They said it had all been cleared and taken care of and that they could work in there. He (Sartain) returned to health physics again and asked them if the water was still contaminated and they said yes no one should be working there until the water was removed (T-21). He (Sartain) was aware that Tentinger, Benson and Hamilton had been frisked and no contamination was found (T44). He knew all personnel had to pass through the "Blue Max" that detected any radiation (T-46, 45). Everday when he (Sartain) was a foreman, Neilsen would down and talk to Sartain like he "was a dog". He knew that Bechtel had installed low wattage electrical lights and brought in an air powered compressor (T-60, 61). He saw Kerr again after his confrontation with Ellingwood (T-72). He did not know boards were coming to take care of the electrical (welding) problem, and that it had been discussed earlier in the week (T-73). Sartain has been involved in three other lawsuits involving employment (T-77). He said to Hamilton that he wanted to see the NRC. He contacted the NRC on May 21 (T-840 85). He knew the

layoff would be within a week or 10 days; he expected to get a job right after the layoff through the union (T-96-98). As safety marshall he wanted safe conditions for himself and other workers. He didn't have animosity toward the company, just Mr. Neilsen (T-100).

   Roger Hasselbroek testified: the water he crawled through was "crapped up". The HP told him not to crawl in it. Sartain told him not to go back in the water when he saw him the next day (T-110-113). Concerning the confrontation with Hamilton, he stated:

"Duane came back and asked if he was going to do anything about that crapped up water. Leon says they are going to put boards in the work area and that was it, but he still had to crawl through the water to get to the work area. Leon asked if he was refusing to crawl through the crapped up water. Then they had an argument." (T-117).

Hasselbroek felt his complaint about the water to Sartain was a formal complaint (T-131). In his opinion, the water could have been vacuumed out in a short time if they fixed the leaky valve, but the company did not want to take time to do that (T-155-157).

   Joe Bowen testified: that Hasselbroek came out of the condenser wet and said it was potentially contaminated. Bowen had been contaminated before and it was no fun. They were, also, concerned about the welding being done in water (T-140, 141). He discussed the matter with Sartain, considering it a complaint (T-142). After Sartain was discharged, carpenters came to put boards in place, the ladder was changed so that it shortened the distance to the work place (T-146, 147). He understood that a leaky valve was causing the water problem. For safety's sake, the water should have been removed, or planks put down throughout the floor of the condenser (T-151-153).

   Dave Kerr testified: when an unsafe condition is reported he tries to follow-up and find out what the condition is and correct it. He can stop work process of Bechtel if a condition is unsafe. He didn't know Sartain before his telling him at 8:00 a.m. May 20, that the condenser was unsafe for welding and was contaminated (T-160, 161). He (Kerr) contacted health phsyics

who said from a radiological standpoint he had no problem. He suggested they try to stop the leaking. He called Marie Honey Miller who indicated she was not in charge of the project, but would find out who was (T-162, 163). At that point Mr. Sartain left; he next saw him coincidently at the Red Fox Tavern at noon. Kerr had told Sartain to try to pump out the water and not do welding (T-163). At 10:00 a.m. he was paged by Ellingwood who told him they had built a scaffold in the condenser bay and provided heavier plastic protective clothing. Kerr said as long as the workers were not soaking wet and were not standing in water when they were welding they could go ahead with the work (T-164). He had thought that Sartain and his crew would do the welding (T-166-168). At the Red Fox he was "flabbergasted" to learn that Sartain had been the safety marshall that week and "dumbfounded" to learn he'd been fired for reporting the safety concern to him (Kerr) (T-168-169). He (Sartain) also mentioned something about going to NRC, Kerr believed Sartain was sincere in reporting the unsafe condition (T-170). His main concern was that of welders standing in water, however, he also, discussed contaminated water (T-175). Iowa Electric and Bechtel have a high commitment to safety (T-174). Kerr conveyed to Sartain that there was no radiological problem according to health phsyics (T-176). Mr. Ellingwood told Kerr that the carpenters would place "scaffolding" in the condenser, and that low voltage would be used (T-179-181).

   Henry McQueen, a boilermaker, testified: he helped make a weld after Sartain was fired. The welder had his feet in the water. Mr. Benson told him the water was potentially contaminated (T-186-188). They had trouble setting up the boards and moving the ladder (T-190). He checked with the HP himself and was satisfied there was not a high level of radiation (T-192). He thought they could have squeegeed up the water (T-198).

   Paul Benson testified: that in his opinion Sartain expressed a legitimate safety concern on May 20, but that at the time of discharge he did not express a legitimate safety concern. He was fired because of the confrontation with Hamilton more so than because of the safety concern. In order to work in the condenser a confined space entry permit was needed, as well as radiation work permit (T-204). The RWP spelled out safety precaution such as mask and plastic rain coat, and shoe covers and rubber shoes. The work conditions were miserable (T-206). He reported the HP changed the RWP to 8 mil suits since the lighter ones ripped. In

order to fix the leaky valves, if repacking was needed it would take 2 weeks, replacing would take a little longer. He asked BP about pumps; he concluded it would be hard to get the water out (T-206-209). He thought he would be contaminated since he was soaking wet on the Saturday inspection; but he checked it out and wasn't (T-211). On May 20 there was an HP hold on the job at different periods in the morning. Sartain expressed to Hamilton and Ellingwood a concern about contaminated water and the electrical-welding problem. Mr. Ellingwood said they would take care of it; the discussion was heated (T218, 219). Sartain started the confrontation (T-220). Hamilton (and perhaps Ellingwood) came back later and said that the safety people and the HP people had approved the work provided that the boards had gone in. Benson ordered these (boards) just before break; to his knowledge nobody else had (T-220-223). He (Benson) was told to assign the work assigned previously to Bowen and Hasselbroek to Sartain. Benson opined this was as a result of the confrontation (T-224). This was done before he had knowledge of approval of all the safety and HP people. He did not know whether he had approval from Kerr (T-225). At that time there was a reasonable safety concern for both the welding and grinding on the prep(aration) because the boards were not down (T-225). Benson had no intention of sending anybody down into the bottom of the condenser that morning until the boards were in place (T-226). Hamilton came back and Sartain had a heated discussion with him. Sartain repeatedly said he would not go through contaminated water. He, also, said the job was unsafe and he would see the NRC. Benson, thought the contamination concern was not reasonable, but that Sartain had a legitimate and serious concern. He had no knowledge that Sartain had ever been told the planking would be installed (T-226-229). He was told to assign Sartain the job because he would refuse it, and thus could be discharged (T-230). The job was to replace a broken spray nozzle (T-232).

   Mr. Richard Rockill, mechanical maintenance supervisor, for Iowa Electric, testified: that the water was coming from leaking exhaust hood sprays as well as drain lines. The water could have been squeegeed out, but it would have come right back in (T-243- 245).

   Kevin Konzem, health physics foreman, testified: the initial surveys revealed low levels of contamination and low dose rates. There was sufficient protection from contamination (T-247-252). He spoke to Ellingwood and Hamilton at 8:30 a.m. on May 20, who

wanted to know the reason for the hold on work at the condenser bay. Konzem checked it out and found that the hold had been put on by Dave Kerr, who should be consulted (T-254-259). Mr. Konzem never conveyed the information directly to Sartain. The radiation work permit states contamination levels, radiation levels, as well as the protective clothing requirements for entry (T-265).

   Keith Ellingwood, testified: that Sartain was discharged for challenging me to fire him and the method he did that (T-275). He explained the safety precautions needed to be followed in nuclear plants during such repairs, including; a hot work permit, for grinding, burning or welding, combustible permit for cleaning solutions or equipment, confined entry permit and radiation work permit. In addition, Iowa Electric had an As Low As Reasonably Achievable Program (ALARA), to achieve the lowest possible radiation doses (T-271-278). Leon Hamilton, Paul Benson and he had a meeting on Monday morning after the Saturday inspection. They discussed what needed to be done in order to do the job safely. Also, a low voltage lighting system was discussed, utilizing air power tools instead of electric powered grinders, drills, and saws (T-297-299). Also, Mr. Benson was to talk to the HP's on contamination, suggested heavy duty suits; also, fresh air. There should not have been a reasonable radiological concern. They asked the night shift on Tuesday to fabricate the planking and install it. It had not happened on Wednesday morning. The boards were not required from an HP standpoint or a safety stand- point for personnel to take measurements and to do some checking on the grinding and fit up the joints (T-299-300).

   He was disturbed Wednesday morning that the planks were not yet installed. He went to the HP desk to find out what the hold was about. He found out the night shift log had a concern about safety of welding with water present in the bottom of the condenser. He then went over to see Mr. Hamilton and Kevin Konzem at 7:45-8:00 a.m. He asked Mr. Konzem whether he was aware of the hold on the work in the condenser. He found out it was a safety concern for insulating the welders. Mr. Konzem said there was no radiological danger (T303).

   Mr. Hamilton and he (Ellingwood) then went to inform Mr. Benson that there was no hold on the job, the only concern was about the welder and how it was going to be insulated.

   "About that time Mr. Sartain walks through the entrance door

into the turbine building and announces in a very loud voice that (he has) a hold put on this job. Going to have to pump the condenser out and dry it out before we go down there and do anymore work. Dave Kerr says we cannot do anymore work in there until we do that." (T-305). There was no real way to pump the water out, water was leaking into the condenser from various drain systems. The isolation valves are not designed to be 100% leak free. The condenser is usually a wet environment anyway (T-306). It would be a substantial period of time to get the water out of the condenser. In his opinion it would not have been worth trying to get the water out. Sartain walked up to Ellingwood, Hamilton, and Benson and made the comments; at the time there was a group of boilermakers around. Sartain said Kerr told him they were not going to send a welder down there to stand in water and make a weld. Ellingwood told Sartain they were not gong to send a welder in there. Sartain started getting louder. Ellingwood told him that they were not going to send welders down without putting boards down. Sartain didn't want to hear about it (T-307).

   Ellingwood told Hamilton they'd go to see Dave Kerr. "At that point Mr. Sartain took a definite step forward, leaned up with his face several inches away from mine and very loudly stated well I am not going to crawl through that contaminated water and if you do not like it you can fire me. " Everything before had been safety, the contamination standpoint sounded like a challenge for Ellingwood to fire him (T-308). Six to ten people were around. Ellingwood turned and left to see Mr. Kerr. Sartain had assumed a "fighting stance". He then asked Mr. Hamilton to follow him to see Mr. Kerr at about 8:20 - 8:40 a.m. (T-309). A status meeting was held at 9:00, including Mr. Nielsen. Ellingwood had problems finding Mr. Kerr (T-310).

   Mr. Kerr told him that as long as the welder had an insulating platform to lay on and as long as he was not soaking wet when he got on the platform and started to weld he had no problems with it at all. He told Mr. Hamilton that he should get everything started. He (Ellingwood) would see Mr. Nielsen. Ellingwood felt Sartain should be given the opportunity to go to work or refuse work (T-311). I told Mr. Hamilton to send Mr. Sartain in the condenser and if Mr. Sartain refused to go that he was to be terminated for refusal of work as directed (T-312).

   He went over to Bechtel's construction office and caught Mr. Nielsen going into the conference room for the regular staff

meeting and explained to him very briefly that there was a problem with Sartain and it may end with him being fired. Mr. Nielsen said O.K. Safety was not discussed (T-313).

   Approximately 9:40 a.m. Mr. Hamilton appeared and had the termination slip in his hand, Ellingwood signed it. Mr. Nielsen initialed it (T-314). He never told Mr. Sartain of his second conversation with Mr. Kerr. Ellingwood felt Sartain expressed a legitimate concern with respect to safety but not contaminated water. It was the first time he raised it (T 322-323).

   Bruce Tentinger, testified: that when he went in for the inspection on Saturday he was concerned that the water might be "crapped up". He was wet from knees to chest; he felt terrible at the end of the one hour inspection, sick to his stomach, approaching heat exhaustion (T-282-285). No detectable levels of contamination were found when he was frisked (T- 287). He did not tell Sartain he got a clean bill of health (T-292). If Sartain had a genuine safety or health problem he should have discussed it with him (Tentinger) (T-204).

   Leon Hamilton, testified: that he frisked himself after the inspection and noticed a meter "flicker" on his left knee. Checked with HP who found no contamination (T-330). In a Monday meeting low voltage lights, fresh air and planking for welders were agreed on. An order was put in on Monday with carpenters to get planking done, but it was not done on Tuesday or Wednesday (T-332, 333).

   He went about jobs to be done on Wednesday, his first stop was the condenser. Job had been put on hold, according to Mr. Benson, by the health physics. HP said they could not weld without putting down planks. Hamilton said they were going to put down planks (T-335). Ellingwood and he (Hamilton) then went to Kevin Konzem's office. Konzem didn't know why the work was on hold (T-336).

   Keith Ellingwood and he went back and were talking to Paul Benson about what they were going to do, no welding was to be done in the water. At that point Duane came in and in a loud voice said, he had this job shutdown because of safety (T-337). He (Hamilton) tried to explain to Sartain what had been done in the area. They went to see Dave Kerr and explained what was going to be done.

   Keith Ellingwood told him (Hamilton) to give Sartain instructions to go on the job (T-338, 339). He had explained the condition to Mr. Sartain, having lights, fresh air, etc. (T-341).

   Hamilton at first felt there was a legitimate concern about safety, but at the time of confrontation the only complaint was going into the water (contamination). Hamilton gave Sartain the slip of termination; he called NRC from the pay phone outside the building (T-345-348).

   In a deposition of October 2, 1987, Gerald R. Nielsen, project superintendent, the senior Bechtel representative on the site, testified: Ellingwood was visibly upset by his confrontation with Sartain when Nielsen saw him at the 9:00 a.m. meeting, May 20. Ellingwood assured Nielsen they had resolved the safety issue and that there was no reason that the men shouldn't go to work as directed (Dep- 14, 15). He initialed a termination slip for Sartain at approximately 10:00 a.m. (Dep- 19, 20). On cross-examination, Mr. Nielsen stated that Bechtel tries to take care of problems internally; it can then go to the Iowa Electric people. He denied retaliation against employees who go directly to Iowa Electric (Dep- 34).

Claimant did state his desire to complain to the NRC of a safety violation. Employer questions, however, both Claimant's motives and timing. With respect to the latter, Employer, disingenously contends that the determination to terminate Claimant was made before he expressed his desire to complain to the NRC. Employer in effect is, on the one hand, stating Claimant should first make his complaints internally, but on the other hand, asking the Court to sanction a "fast termination" before Claimant took his complaint up the chain of command in an attempt to resolve the problem without calling on NRC. Moreover, had Claimant acted precipitously and gone to NRC before attempting to resolve the problem, he would have violated his duty as an employee in not permitting Employer time to solve its own problems. In short he utilized the internal complaint procedure specified by Employer. So far as motivation is concerned, absent a finding of a frivolous complaint, the motivation of an employee in reporting a safety violation need not be 100% pure, and is basically irrelevant.

   I, also, find Mr. Sartain reported a legitimate safety violation, and that his termination was not solely for a deliberate confrontation and clear and direct challenge to the authority of his supervisors as contended by Employer. With respect to Claimant's underlying reasons and state of mind at time of termination, Employer in its post-hearing brief contends (pp. 18-20):

"The nub of the question of what was in Mr. Sartain's mind is contained in the administrative law judge's single question to Mr. Sartain whether his safety complaints were a "coincidence". (Tr. 98:9-11). Sartain was aware that the job would last, at most, ten days. (Tr. 98:2-5). Even if it had not been at a nuclear facility, the work was unpleasant in the condenser and, all things equal, Sartain would have preferred not to perform that work. Moreover, Sartain clearly knew of the number of levels of regulation of anything involved in the nuclear power industry and the extremely close scrutiny focused upon owners and contractors in the industry. Sartain's past experience clearly suggests he would have been and was aware of the heavy regulation of the industry."

   Employer eloquently proceeded to point out Claimant's past legal actions, his switching from the issue of safety to contamination and his use of the NRC issue at the appropriate time.

   While I find Employer's position to have merit, and based upon my observation of Claimant, his past history and all circumstances of the case, probably a valid explanation of Claimant's primary underlying motivation, nevertheless, Employer's comments concerning Claimant's actual state of mind are speculative.

   On the other hand, two of Claimant's fellow workers, Joe Bowen and Roger Hassebroek felt they were making formal complaints to Mr. Sartain; in turn it was his duty as safety marshall to investigate the situation and relay the concerns up the chain of authority. Paul Benson felt the concern was legitimate and even Employer's witness Mr. Ellingwood felt, at least in part, Sartain's complaint concerning welding was a legitimate concern.

   Moreover, Employer was not without fault so far as the "confrontation" was concerned. The "hold" established on Wednesday morning at 8:00 a.m. was obviously of immediate concern to Mr. Ellingwood and Hamilton since it delayed start of work. After one confrontation at approximately 8:30 a.m. between Ellingwood and Sartain, Ellingwood obtained the termination slip and then "set-up" Claimant's discharge by asking him to go into the condenser area. While Claimant may have "switched" between expressing concern over the safety factor of welding and "contaminated" water, the testimony is clear that both concerns had been consistently voiced by him. Crucially, Employer had already decided to terminate Claimant before the safety problems and proposed solutions were adequately presented to Claimant. Moreover, while the evidence is not clear, Mr. Benson's testimony might indicate that Sartain already knew the company intended to get him terminated when he confronted Ellingwood on May 20 and may partially explain, if not excuse, his belligerence at that time. A motivation is not difficult to find, since Sartain had taken his case directly to Bechtel's contractor, Iowa Electric, thus bypassing and potentially embarassing Bechtel.

   I further find that Claimant was clearly discharged for reporting a safety violation. While Employer's allegation of insubordination in its own mind and that of its agent may be correct, there is little question that it involved an alleged safety violation. It is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss "dual

motive".

   In Pensyl v. Catalytic, Inc." 83-ERA-2 (1984), the Court stated: "A worker has a right to refuse work when he has a good faith, reasonable belief that working conditions are unsafe or unhealthful. Whether the belief is reasonable depends on the knowledge available to a reasonable man in the circumstances with the Employee's training and experience." This principle was force- fully restated in David H. Smith v. Catalytic, Inc., 86-ERA-12 (Decision and Remand Order, May 28, 1986): "It is clear from the record that Mr. Smith was fired for refusing to work in what he believed was an unsafe area. if that belief was reasonable in the circumstances, Mr. Smith was engaged in a protected activity and discharging him for it violated the Act."

   The facts of this case present a very close question as to whether Sartain had a reasonable belief of unsafe working condition. As an 18 year boilermaker who had worked on many nuclear plants and in construction, Sartain was aware of the dangers of electrical welding in water as well as of contamination from water in nuclear facilities. He, also, should have been aware of the numerous precautions required and taken at such facilities. That Sartain was subject to emotional outbursts appears certain; that he could have more cautiously discovered the precautions taken by Employer would not seem unreasonable. His approach to Ellingwood seemed, at a bare minimum, to have been unwarranted and disrespectful, if not confrontational. Nevertheless, crucially, Claimant had a legitimate safety concern that had not been remedied and which he had not been given full and adequate knowledge was being addressed. While Employer followed up through Mr. Hamilton and Ellingwood on both the welding and contaminated water problems, the information as to what was to be done was not conveyed back to Mr. Sartain before the confrontation. At that time, both Mr. Ellingwood and Mr. Sartain were in an emotional confrontational state and may not have focused on accurately and reasonably communicating information. Mr. Kerr, in particular, had not conveyed the fact that the carpenters were to put in scaffolding for the welders. While Employer operated a safe plant, in this instance they did not communicate in a reasonable manner, that all safety precautions were being taken.

   The ordering of Mr. Sartain into the condenser was a very thinly guarded attempt to have him discharged. At the time Hamilton already had his discharge slip in hand, "proof in the

pudding." This action itself may have been discriminatory, in that Claimant was required to do a different job because of his report of a safety violation.

   Mr. Sartain's position on potentially contaminated water is much more tenuous. Having worked several months on the project he should have known of the several permits and daily monitoring required in order for work to proceed. Mr. Sartain apparently made little attempt to further inquire as to whether the other workers had experienced any contamination difficulties. On the other hand, it could be argued that since the water was leaking our of valves and the area was potentially contaminated, efforts should have been made to keep all water out of the area. The evidence was contradictory and inconclusive as to the feasability of removing the water.

   A concern was, also, expressed by Mr. Benson that even the grinding preparatory to welding was unsafe under the circumstances. The matter was not adequately addressed at the hearing. Mr. Sartain apparently did not discuss this with Mr. Kerr or anyone else.

frustrated.

   The remedy here fits the circumstances. Claimant knew the job would last only one or two weeks longer; he would have other jobs through his union. The statutory scheme of section 5851 is to make an employee whole. Under other labor statutes, back pay liability is cut off as of the date the employee's job would have been terminated. Archchumbault v. United Computing Systems, Inc., 786 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1986); Foreman v. Fathers Union, 557 F.2d 988 (2nd Cir. 1977). I find an award of 1 1/2 weeks pay is appropriate. Neither the law nor equity demands more.

   Claimant's attorney has requested attorney fees for 100 hours at $120.00 per hour, for a total of $12,000.00 but has not documented the hourly work. Employer has requested the hours of work be specifically stated by affidavit. (Posthearing brief, footnote 12). Attorney fee awards are based on the competence of counsel, the complexity of the case and the amount of the award. Claimant's counsel demonstrated a high degree of professional competence, requiring marshalling of substantial evidence; however, the award is not substantial. The requirement of expenditure of attorney time may have been caused either by Employer's or Claimant's intransigence. Nevertheless, an award cannot be granted without submission of detailed time records. Claimant's counsel is requested to forward a detailed list of hours expended and for the purpose of each so that a supplemental decision and order can

1. Employer, Bechtel Construction Corporation shall pay Claimant, Duane Sartain, for one and one half weeks wages as compensation for their discrimatory discharge of Mr. Sartain.

2. Bechtel shall review their determination of "not eligible for rehire" of Mr. Sartain in light of all the circumstances of this matter, as indicated in this Decision and Order.

       JOHN C. HOLMES
       Administrative Law Judge