Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Alexander Karst submitted a
Decision and order Granting Summary Judgment in this case arising
under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851
(1982). The ALJ held that the ERA covers only employees, not
applicants for employment (including former employees). Because
complainant was not an employees of Respondent at the time of the
alleged discrimination, the ALJ held that the Department of Labor
did not have subject matter jurisdiction of this case. He
recommended that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment be
granted.1
1 The ALJ's decision is not entitled a
"Recommended Decision."
However, under the regulations implementing the ERA, 29 C.F.R.
Part 24 (1988), except in limited circumstances, see 29 C.F.R.
§ 24.5 (e) (4), an ALJ's decision is only a recommended decision.
Final orders are issued by the Secretary. 29 C.F.R. 24.6.
2 The Secretary, subject to judicial
review, interprets the
whistleblower statues and implementing regulations. It is
incumbent on ALJ's therefore, to familiarize themselves with
Secretarial decisions which are controlling to assure uniformity
in like cases and therefore fairness to litigants. See Lockert
v. Pullman Power Products Corp., 84-ERA-15, slip op. at 2-3,
Secretary's Decision and Order issued August 19, 1985.