DATE:  June 13, 1994
CASE NOS. 89-ERA-9
          89-ERA-10


IN THE MATTER OF

JOHN M. FUCHKO AND
GARY A. YUNKER,

          COMPLAINANTS,

     v.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                   ORDER

     I issued an order on February 22, 1994 in this case denying
the parties' motion for remand to the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) for the purpose of reviewing in camera a settlement
entered by the parties, returning the settlement to the parties
and submitting a recommended decision to the Secretary.  Since it
appeared the parties would not comply with the Secretary's Order
to Submit Settlement issued on March 23, 1989, the February 22
order remanded this case to the ALJ for further proceedings.
     The parties jointly moved on May 6, 1994 for clarification
of the February 22 order and attached a redacted copy of their
settlement.  In the interest of administrative economy and
because the parties have now partially complied with the 
March 23, 1989 order, I will review the settlement under
standards previously established in Secretaries' decisions.

     The settlement covers matters other than Complainants'
claims that they were discriminated against by Respondent under
the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988).  See
¶ 
[PAGE 2]
2(a).  For the reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel
Oil Co., Case No. 86-CAA-l, Sec. Order, November 2, 1987, slip
op.  at 2, I have limited my review of the Settlement Agreement to
determining whether its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement of Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated
the ERA.
     I also note that paragraph 2(a) of the agreement could be
construed as a waiver by Complainant of any causes of action he
may have which arise in the future.  As the Secretary has held in
prior cases, see Johnson v. Transco Products, Inc.,
Case No. 85-ERA-7, Secretary's Order Approving Settlement issued
August 8, 1985, such a provision must be interpreted as limited to the
right to sue in the future on claims or causes of action arising
out of facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the
agreement. See also Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415
U.S. 36, 51-52 (1974); Rogers v. General Electric Co., 781
F.2d 452, 454 (5th Cir. 1986). 
     The settlement also provides that its validity and any
questions of interpretation shall be resolved under Georgia law. 
See ¶ 9(a).  I interpret this provision as not limiting the
authority of the Secretary or the Federal courts under the
statute and the regulations.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(d).
(1988); see also 29 C.F.R. § 24.8(a) (1991); Phillips v.
Citizens Assoc. for Sound Energy, Case No. 91-ERA-25, Sec. Final Order
of Dismissal, Nov. 4, 1991, slip op. at 2.
     Both the amount of money paid to Complainants and the amount
paid to Complainants' attorneys for attorneys fees were redacted
from the copy of the settlement submitted with the joint motion. 
I cannot agree with the parties that the exact amount of money
paid is not a matter of public concern.  The Secretary has held
that unredacted copies of settlement agreements must be reviewed
because: 
          [t]he particular terms of the agreement[], such as the
          amount of money to be received by the Complainant,
          affect not only the individual whistleblower but impact
          the public interest as well.  Where such terms are not
          fair, adequate and reasonable, other employees may be
          discouraged from reporting safety violations."

Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Case No. 92-TSC-
7, Sec'y. Order Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 5.  Moreover, as the
Fifth Circuit held in Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923
F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1991), when the Secretary approves a
settlement, he is "entering into it" as a party to the agreement,
as provided in the ERA.  923 F.2d at 1154.  A party cannot enter
into an agreement all the terms of which he is not aware.  For
similar reasons, the amount of attorneys' fees may not be
redacted from 
[PAGE 3]
the settlement.
     Accordingly, I will retain jurisdiction of this matter for
thirty days to give the parties an opportunity to submit anunredacted copy of the settlement.  If they have not done so
within that time, this matter will be remanded to the ALJ for a
hearing on the merits.
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.