DATE:  May 11, 1994
CASE NO. 90-ERA-11


IN THE MATTER OF

PAUL M. BLANCH,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                   ORDER

     Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) George A. Fath submitted a
Decision Recommending Acceptance of Settlement in this case
arising under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988) on February 28, 1990.  The ALJ recommended that the
Secretary incorporate the settlement agreement and a joint
stipulation between the parties, signed Jan. 31, 1990 and 
Feb. 20, 1990, respectively, in an order approving their terms
and dismissing this case with prejudice.
    The terms of the settlement agreement and stipulation have
been reviewed.  The provisions of ¶ 5 of the settlement
appear to encompass the settlement of matters arising under
various laws, only one of which is the ERA.  As stated in
Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No.
86-CAA-1, Secretary's Order Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2:
          The Secretary's] authority over settlement
          agreements is limited to such statutes as are
          within the [Secretary's] jurisdiction and is 
[PAGE 2]
          defined by the applicable statute.  See Aurich v.
          Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No.
          CAA-2, Secretary's Order Approving Settlement, issued July 29,
          1987; Chase v. Buncombe County. N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4,
          Secretary's Decision and Order on Remand, issued November 3,
          1986. 

I have, therefore, limited my review of the agreement and
stipulation to determining whether the terms thereof are a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegation
that Respondent violated the ERA. 
     In addition, ¶ 2 of the agreement provides that
Complainant will request the ALJ to put the agreement under seal
or take other steps to ensure that the agreement and its terms
will not be disclosed to the public.  Complainant made that
request in a letter to the ALJ on February 1, 1990.  The ALJ,
however, did not make a specific recommendation on that request. 

     Disclosure of agency records pursuant to a request from the
public is governed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 
5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988).  As the Secretary has held numerous
times, the settlement agreement and stipulation here are part of
the record in this case and as such are "agency records" and must
be made available for public inspection and copying as provided
in the Freedom of Information Act unless they are exempt from
disclosure.  Debose v. Carolina Power and Light Co., Case
No. 92-ERA-14, Sec'y. Order Feb. 7, 1994, slip op. at 2-4; Plumlee
v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Case Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-
WPC-6, 7, 8, 10, Sec'y. Final Order Approving Settlements and
Dismissing Cases with Prejudice, Aug. 6, 1993, slip. op at 6. 
See also Mitchell v. Arizona Public Service Co.,
Case Nos. 92-ERA-28, 29, 35, 55, Sec'y. Final Order Approving
Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Cases, Jun. 28, 1993, slip
op. at 2 (request to place settlement agreement under seal
denied); Davis v. Valley View Ferry Authority, Case No.
93-WPC-1, Sec'y. Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing
Complaint, Jun. 28, 1993, slip op. at 2 n.1 (parties' submissions
become part of record and are subject to FOIA); Ratliff v.
Airco Gases, Case No. 93-STA-00005, Sec'y. Final Order
Approving Settlement Agreement Jun. 25, 1993, slip op. at 2
(same); Daily v. Portland General Elec. Co., Case No. 88-
ERA-40, Sec'y. Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case
Mar. 1, 1990, slip op. at 1. n.1; 29 C.F.R. Part 70 (1992). 
Complainant's request that the agreement be placed under seal is
denied.  
     On March 1, 1991, over a year after entering into the
settlement, counsel for Complainant wrote to the Secretary
requesting that she reject the settlement because Complainant
believed Respondent had violated "the spirit and the intent" of
the agreement." [1]   Respondent's counsel answered that letter
on 
[PAGE 3]
April 18, 1991, denying that Respondent had violated the spirit,
intent or letter of the agreement.  On April 29, 1991,
Complainant's counsel replied to Respondent's counsel's letter,
providing some detail of the alleged violation of the settlement.
     The Fifth Circuit has held that when the parties in an ERA
case reach a settlement, the Secretary may either approve it or
disapprove it as written.  Macktal v. Secretary of Labor,
923 F.2d 1150, 1156 (5th Cir. 1991).  Violation of a settlement
may constitute a separate, independent violation of the ERA, [2] 
but the Secretary must address a settlement recommended for
approval by the ALJ on the record presented to the ALJ.  In
accordance with the discussion above, therefore, I find the
agreement fair, adequate and reasonable and I approve it and this
case is dismissed with prejudice.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
  Complainant's counsel also asserted that Complainant was forced
to withdraw his complaint and enter into the settlement "as a
result of the extreme financial burden imposed upon him 
by Northeast Utilities contract lawyers . . . ."  It does not
appear, however, that Complainant urges the Secretary to reject
the settlement for that reason.  Cf. Macktal v. Brown &
Root, Inc., Case No. 86-ERA-23, Sec. Order Nov. 14, 1989,
slip op. at 8-10, aff'd in part and rev'd in part and remanded
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir.
1992).

[2] 
  I will refer the relevant documents to the Wage Hour Division
for investigation of whether the settlement in this case has been
violated.  Complainant's attorney's letter of March 1, 1991 shall
be considered a complaint for purposes of the time limits in the
ERA.