DATE:  June 28, 1993
CASE NO. 90-ERA-19


IN THE MATTER OF

ROBERT D. BROCK
FRANK C. SMITH, JR.
JAMES A. THOMPSON, AND
WALTER H. WALLACE,

          COMPLAINANTS,

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

     Before me for review is the Administrative Law Judge's
(ALJ's) Recommended Order of Dismissal (R.O.D.) of March 14,
1990, under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988).  The R.O.D. was predicated upon Complainants' filing
a Notice of Dismissal "[p]ursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i), Fed. R.
Civ. P., and 29 C.F.R. § 18.1(a) . . . [wherein]
complainants . . . hereby dismiss this proceeding with
prejudice", submitted by Respondent as an attachment to its
letter to the ALJ expressing no objections to the dismissal.
     Although the parties and the ALJ are correct in asserting
that FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(i) is the proper basis for
dismissal in this case, I disagree with Respondent's April 6,
1990, filing with the Secretary stating that the dismissal "was
effective upon its filing . . . . The proceeding . . . ended at
the time the notice of dismissal was filed . . . ."  Although
this is not a case involving the Secretary's jurisdiction to 
[PAGE 2]
approve or disapprove settlements under the ERA, disposition of
ERA complaints, including Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissals, can be
effected only by final order of the Secretary.  29 C.F.R. §
24.6  (1992); Cable v. Arizona Public Service Co., Case
No. 90-ERA-19, Sec. Fin. Dec. and Ord., Nov. 13, 1992.
                               ORDER
     I dismiss this case with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.


                             ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor


Washington, D.C.