DATE:  January 9, 1992
CASE NOS. 89-ERA-16
          89-ERA-25
          90-ERA-2
          90-ERA-8
          90-ERA-18


IN THE MATTER OF

DOUGLAS E. BILLINGS,

          PLAINTIFF,

v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                              ORDER OF REMAND
                                      
             These matters are before me pursuant to the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C.  5851
(1988), and regulatioms at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (1991).  The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and
Order (R.D. and O.) in each of the above cases, proposing that the complaints
be dismissed for failure to comply with hls orders

[PAGE 2]
and failure to prosecute. [1] 

         After allowing several continuances for Plaintiff
to submit his prehearing statement, by orders dated August
9, 1990, the ALJ granted "one last extension" for Plaintiff
to comply with the prehearing order.  Each order provided
that "[f]ailure to timely comply with this Order without
good cause will result in the DI8hI88A1 of the proceeding or
the imposition of other appropriate sanctions."  Plaintiff
did not submit the prehearing statement, but reiterated his
view that he was able to compile the evidence and witness
list for only one hearing at a time. The ALJ recommended
dismissing these cases based on 29 C.F.R.  18.6 and 18.29.
    While these regulations might otherwise authorize dismissing
the complaints if Plaintiff's actions contravened their
provisions, the regulations implenenting the ERA have a section
which governs dismissals for cause and takes precedence over the
general rules of practice and procedure in 29 C.F.R. Part 18.
See 29 C.F.R. s 24.5(e)(4).  That section provides that,
where a dismissal is contemplated, the ALJ "shall issue an order
to show cause why the dismissal should not be granted and afford
all parties a reasonable time to respond to such order." 
29 C.F.R.  24.5(e)(4)(ii).  Although the ALJ's August 9, 1990,
orders warned that a dismissal was possible if Plaintiff failed to
comply without good cause, they neither ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why dismissal was not warranted nor provided him an
opportunity to address the good cause issue.  Because dismissal is
a drastic sanction, strict compliance with the applicable
regulation is required.  Accordingly, these cases are
remanded for the ALJ to follow the procedures outlined
in 29 C.F.R.  24.5(e)(4).
                                                               
        SO ORDERED.

                                    LYNN MARTIN                      
                                    Secretary of Labor                  
  

Washington, D.C.

[ENDNOTES]

[1]  In Case Nos. 90-ERA-2 and 90-ERA-8, the ALJ alternatively
proposed that summary judgment be qranted to Respondent.