DATE: July 29, 1992
CASE NO. 88-ERA-3


IN THE MATTER OF

JAMES R. BARNETT,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                      FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
                                        
    Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order (R.D.
and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this proceeding
under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988).  The ALJ recommended that the complaint
be dismissed, finding that Complainant failed to establish that he
was subjected to discrimination during his temporary employment
(July 1, 1987 through September 1, 1987) as a boilermaker-welder
with the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Modifications Group at
the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant [1] by reason of filing any
past safety complaint with the Nuclear


Regulatory Commission (NRC).  Complainant proceeded pro
se throughout the proceedings.
    The record, including the parties' briefs, stipulations,
exhibits and hearing transcript, has been reviewed closely, and it
fully supports the ALJ's comprehensive and detailed findings set
forth in his nineteen-page, single-spaced R.D. and O. (copy 
[PAGE 2]
appended), which I adopt in full.  Billings v. TVA, Case No.
87ERA-5, Sec. Final Dec. and Ord., Sept. 25, 1990, slip op. at 3.
Accordingly, I agree with the ALJ that TVA did not discriminate
against Complainant in 1987 because of his 1982 safety complaint to
the NRC or his 1986 harassment and intimidation complaint to the
United States Department of Labor, R.D. and O. at 2, 5-6, when,
inter alia,

     1.   He was first given and failed a "plate" welding test,
          rather than the usual "pipe" test normally used in his
          employment unit for qualification purposes since the
          disparity was bona fide and
          business-related and testing was needed beyond
          Complainant's known testing credentials.  The various
          managers and others involved in testing Complainant were
          not aware of his past with the Browns Ferry plant nor his
          prior complaint to the NRC.  R.D. and O. at 9-11, 17.
          [2]  Moreover, TVA personnel readily complied with
          Complainant's request to be retested with the "pipe"
          test, which he passed. R.D. and O. at 11, 17.

     2    He was subject to three layoffs.  R.D. and O. at 4-5,
          11-13, 17-19.  His first layoff was caused by the early
          return of the injured employee whom he temporarily
          replaced.  Further, upon consideration of his concerns,
          additional work was found for Complainant and the first
          layoff was cancelled.  R.D. and O. at 4, 12-13.
          Complainant was not guaranteed a specified length of
          employment by reason of his Appointment Affidavit and
          Conditions contract, TVA Exh. 2, providing for a
          temporary appointment "not to extend past 88/06/23 [11
          months and 29 days]," since the period specified therein
          merely established a maximum employment period. R.D. and
          O. at 17-18.  His final termination occurred
          simultaneously with and was no different from that of the
          other two boilermakers in his unit when their work was
          completed.  R.D. and O. at 5, 13-14, 18.  Moreover,
          Complainant's discrimination argument is belied by his
          rapid reemployment at TVA's Colbert plant.  See
          n.1. Further, as in this case, "where a significant
          period of 
[PAGE 3]
         time elapses between the protected activity [Complainant's 1982
         safety complaint to the NRC] and the adverse action[s], the absence
         of a causal connection between the protected activity and the
         adverse action[s] may be sufficiently established." Shusterman
         v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Case No. 87-ERA-27, Sec. Final Dec.
         and Ord., Jan. 6, 1992, slip op. at 7-8.
Complainant has not proved that the challenged actions were
motivated by protected activity in contravention of ERA
nondiscrimination requirements.  See Guttman v. Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Case No. 85-WPC-2, Sec. Final
Dec. and Ord., Mar. 13, 1992, slip op. at 9-10, 16-18, appeal
docketed. Case No. 92-3261 (3d Cir. 1992); Shusterman v.
Ebasco Services Inc., slip op. at 5-9, 11; Billings
v. TVA, slip op. at 1-3.  Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

                                   LYNN MARTIN
                                   Secretary of Labor

Washington, DC

[ENDNOTES]

[1] Complainant offered no explanantion for the incongruity of
his discrimination allegations vis-a-vis his almost immediate rehire
at TVA's Colbert Fossil Plant.  Hearing Transcript (T.), Nov. 24,
1987, at 14, 18; R.D. and O. at 14.

[2] See Wagoner v. Technical Products, Inc.,
Case No. 87-TSC-4, Sec. Final Dec. and Ord., Nov. 20, 1990, slip
op. at 13-15, 17 (participants in discharge decision unaware of
complainant's prior safety complaints).