skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
September 24, 2008         DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Gibson v. Arizona Public Service Co., 90-ERA-22 (ALJ July 10, 1990)


U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
1111 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Case No: 90-ERA-22
90-ERA-29
90-ERA-46

Date: July 10, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF

CURTIS GIBSON
    Complainant

    v.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE and PALO
VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
    Respondent

ORDER DENYING MOTION

   In a letter dated July 2, 1990, Complainant moves to vacate the recent undated Wage and Hour Division's response to the January 16, 1990 complaint. Complainant alleged that the Wage and Hour Division was without jurisdiction to issue this response, based on Complainant's belief that the April 9, 1990 determination by the wage and Hour Division resolved the issues set forth in the January 16, 1990 complaint. Complainant concludes that the appeal of the April 4, 1990 determination is before the Office of Administrative Law Judges and not the Wage and Hour Division. Complainant's motion is denied.

   The appeal of the recent undated Wage and Hour Division's determination, inadvertently designated as 90-ERA-53, is the Wage and Hour Division's response to the March 16, 1990 remand of 90-ERA-22 from this Office. As such, it should still be designated as 90-ERA-22 for purposes of the consolidated complaints in this case. Thus, the complaints consolidated in this case include 90-ERA-22, 90-ERA-29, and 90-ERA-46.

   The April 9, 1990 determination by the Wage and Hour Division did not expressly resolve the complaint designated 90-ERA-22, as Complainant alleges. The April 9, 1990


[Page 2]

determination involves the second complaint filed by Complainant in March of 1990, designated as 90-ERA-29 by this office. The Wage and Hour Division's determination dated May 24, 1990, involved the third complainant filed by Complainant, filed April 24, 1990, and labelled 90-ERA-46 by this Office.

   Complainant's other motion concerning the alleged impropriety in the drafting of the recent undated Wage and Hour Division's determination in 90-ERA-22 is not supported by the record and is not within this Office's scope of review.

ORDER

   Complainant's motion to vacate the undated determination of the Wage and Hour Division concerning the January 16, 1990 complaint is hereby DENIED. The appeal of this undated determination by the Wage and Hour Division is hereby designated as 90-ERA-22 and is hereby included in this consolidated action, as it relates to the January 16, 1990 complaint previously remanded to the Wage and Hour Division.

       JOHN M. VITTONE
       Deputy Chief Judge

JMV/jds



Phone Numbers