|
|
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
 |
| September 24, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
|
USDOL/OALJ Reporter [Editor's Note: Page 5 of the slip op. referred to below is found at pages 5-6 of the Web Site version]
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Mercedes City Center 200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 605 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Date: SEP 04 1991 IN THE MATTER OF
LARRY D. HENDERSON
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
MICHAEL A. SMITH
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
DEWEY RAY SMITH
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
LARRY D. HENDERSON
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
MICHAEL A. SMITH
v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
[Page 2]
DEWEY RAY SMITH
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
BEFORE: GILES J. McCARTHY
A Recommended Decision and Order was issued in this case on August 27, 1991. On page five (5) a Notice of Appeal Rights paragraph was inadvertently added to the Recommended Decision. Since it will automatically be reviewed by the Secretary of Labor, an Appeal Rights paragraph is moot. Please substitute the attached and amended page five (5) for the original.
GILES J. McCARTHY GJM/dle
Accordingly, I find the complaints herein, based upon the prior decision in the MSPB case involving the same parties and issues, precluded further litigation thereto. Accordingly, I recommend that the cases 90-ERA-50 and 90-ERA-51 be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata; and that 90-ERA-50, 90-ERA-51 and 90-ERA-25 be dismissed as untimely. I note that complainants have, by telegram dated August 16, 1991 requested that the cases not be dismissed since their counsel has suddenly retired. However, I note that in the three cases where I have recommended dismissal, a Notice to Show Cause was issued and briefs were received from complainants' prior counsel. The remaining cases are not dismissed at this time.
It is recommended that case nos. 90-ERA-25, 90-ERA-50 and 90-ERA-51 be DISMISSED.
GILES J. McCARTHY
GJM/dle |
||||||||
| ||||||||
