DATE: MAR 6 1991

IN THE MATTER OF

ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
    Complainant

    v.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
    Respondent

CASE No.: 91-ERA-00001

IN THE MATTER OF

ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
    Complainant

    v.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
    Respondent

CASE No.: 91-ERA-11

   On February 25, this office issued an Order of Consolidation which, due to a word processing error, omitted two sentences intended to be included in the third paragraph. The Order has therefore been reissued in its corrected form and is attached to this Notice.

       JOHN M. VITTONE
        Deputy Chief Judge

Attachment
JMV/JF/mb 

DATE: FEB 25 1991

IN THE MATTER OF

ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
    Complainant

    v.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
    Respondent

CASE No.: 91-ERA-00001

IN THE MATTER OF

ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
    Complainant

    v.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
    Respondent

CASE No.: 91-ERA-11

   This matter arises under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982) and the regulations issued thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 24.

   The above-captioned cases were remanded to this office for evidentiary hearings, following my determination as to whether they should be consolidated. Case number 91-ERA-1 results from Complainant's appeal of the Wage and Hour Division's finding that Respondent's performance evaluation of Complainant and withdrawal of his company car was not discriminatory. Case number 91-ERA-11

results from Respondent's appeal of the finding that Respondent's act of banning Complainant from its plant, and its subsequent termination of employment, was discriminatory.

   Consolidation of cases is addressed at 29 C.F.R. § 24.5(b), which states:

When two or more hearings are to be held, and the same or substantially similar evidence is relevant and material to the matters at issue at each such hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge may, upon motion by any party or on his own motion, order a consolidated hearing be conducted.

   I find that these two cases are appropriate for consolidation. In both, the parties are identical. The parties' briefs indicate that both cases stem from the same period of employment following Complainant's alleged protected activity. Discovery conducted during an earlier related case, 90-ERA-58 (now dismissed), revealed the tape recordings which brought about the complaint in 91-ERA-11. As Respondent points out, these tapes are relevant to both cases, not only because they led to the employment activity of 91-ERA-11, but because they contain substantive evidence pertaining to 91-ERA-1.

   Accordingly, I hereby ORDER that 91-ERA-1 and 91-ERA-11 are CONSOLIDATED. These cases shall be immediately assigned for an evidentiary hearing.

       JOHN M. VITTONE
       Deputy Chief Judge

JMV/JF/mb