DATE: August 5, 1992
CASE NO.  90-ERA-25


IN THE MATTER OF

LARRY D. HENDERSON,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO.  90-ERA-50

MICHAEL A. SMITH,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO. 90-ERA-51

DEWEY RAY SMITH,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.
CASE NO.  91-ERA-26

LARRY D. HENDERSON,


[PAGE 2]
          COMPLAINANT,

        v.   

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO.  91-ERA-5

MICHAEL A. SMITH,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO.  91-ERA-6

DEWEY RAY SMITH,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO.  91-ERA-43

MICHAEL A. SMITH,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.

[PAGE 3]
CASE NO. 91-ERA-44

DEWEY RAY SMITH, JR.,

          COMPLAINANT,

        v. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                      ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND
                    DISMISSING COMPLAINTS WITH PREJUDICE
     Review of the records in the above-captioned cases, which arise
under the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988),
indicates they were consolidated for review before the Office of
Administrative Law Judges (OALJ).  By Order of Consolidation, dated
March 8, 1991, Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge John M.
Vittone, granted a motion to consolidate Case No. 91-ERA-26, with
Case Nos. 90-ERA-25, 90-ERA-50, 90-ERA-51, 91-ERA-5, and 91-ERA-6,
which were pending before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) McCarthy.
     On August 27, 1991, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision for
Summary Judgment and Order Dismissing Case Nos. 90-ERA-25,
90-ERA-50, and 90-ERA-51 (R.D. and 0.), recommending dismissal based
on res judicata and untimeliness. 1/  The ALJ specifically
stated that the remaining cases were not dismissed at this time, but
did not sever those consolidated cases over which OALJ retained
jurisdiction, i.e. Case Nos. 91-ERA-5, 6, and 26.  R.D. and
O. at 5.  On August 30, 1991, ALJ Vittone issued another Order of
Consolidation granting a motion to consolidate Case Nos. 91-ERA-43
and 91-ERA-44 with the six previously consolidated cases.

[PAGE 4]
     The ALJ's R.D. and O. issued in the above-captioned cases on
August 27, is now before me for review.  29 C.F.R. § 24.6(b)
(1991).  By letter dated May 8, 1992, Complainant's counsel
submitted a Joint Motion for Dismissal with an attached Memorandum
of Understanding and Agreement, dated April 30, 1992, indicating
that Complainant Larry D. Henderson agreed to a settlement of his
complaints against TVA, and that the parties jointly requested
dismissal of his complaints with prejudice.[2]  The cases settled by
this agreement are Case Nos. 90-ERA-25 and 91-ERA-26.
     On June 25, 1992, Complainant's counsel submitted another Joint
Motion for Dismissal, dated June 25, l992, with two Memorandums of
Understanding and Agreement attached, each dated June 24, 1992, for
Complainants Dewey Ray Smith and Michael A. Smith respectively.
[3]  See Exhibits 1, 2 attached to June 25
Motion for Dismissal.  Additionally, a signed and dated copy of
Complainant Henderson's Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement is
attached to the June 25 Motion for Dismissal.  See Exhibit 3.
     Both of the Joint Motions request dismissal with prejudice of the
complaints in these consolidated cases, based on the fully executed
settlement agreements entered into between Respondent and each
Complainant, and submitted before me for review.  Although the ALJ has
not yet issued recommended decisions in Case Nos. 91-ERA-26, 91 ERA-5,
91-ERA-6, 91-ERA-43 and 91-ERA-44, I will not remand these consolidated
cases to the OALJ in light of the particular circumstances herein.  In
the interest of expediency and administrative economy, I will review the
settlement agreements and joint motions for dismissal submitted before me
in each of these cases.
     Because these requests for dismissal are based on settlement
agreements entered into by the parties, I must review each of the
agreements to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of these ERA complaints.  42 U.S.C.
§ 5851 (b)(2)(A); Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d
1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. United States Department of
Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker
v.

[PAGE 5]
Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-lO, Sec.
Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.
     These settlement agreements may encompass matters arising
under various laws only one of which is the ERA.  As my authority
over settlement agreements is limited to such statutes as are
within my jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute,
see Goese v. Ebasco Services. Inc., Case No.
88-ERA-25, Sec. Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case,
Dec. 8, 1988,; Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case
No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, and cases cited therein, I
have limited my review to determining whether the terms of the
agreements are fair, adequate and reasonable to settle
Complainants' allegations that Respondent violated the ERA.
     Upon review of the terms of each agreement and the record of
each case, I find that the agreements are fair, adequate and
reasonable, and therefore, I approve the agreements. [4]
     Accordingly, the captioned cases are DISMISSED with prejudice,
as requested in the Joint Motions for Dismissal.
     SO ORDERED.


[PAGE 6]
                              LYNN MARTIN
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.

[ENDNOTES]

1/ The R.D. and O. stated that appropriate orders of
consolidation had been issued for the captioned consolidated cases,
including Nos. 90-ERA-25, 90-ERA-50, 90-ERA-51, 91-ERA-26, 91-ERA-5,
91-ERA-6.  The Order to consolidate Case Nos. 91-ERA-43 and
91-ERA-44 had not yet been issued.

2/ The copy of the Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement
submitted with the May 8 letter was not signed by Complainant, but
only by the parties' respective counsel.

3/ I note that the cover letter and Joint Motion of June 25,
include Case Nos. 92-ERA-23 and 92-ERA-24 in the caption,
indicating that these complaints are purportedly settled by the
attached Memorandums of Understanding and Agreement for
Complainants' Dewey Smith and Michael Smith.  However, the records
in these cases are not before me and I have received no other
indication that these complaints are before the OALJ.  Accordingly,
this order is limited to the captioned consolidated cases herein
discussed.

4/ Review of each agreement reveals that Paragraph 11 of
Exhibit 1, Paragraph 10 of Exhibit 2, and Paragraph 5 of Exhibit 3,
provide for confidentiality of the terms of Complainants' awards in
each settlement agreement, except with family, attorneys, financial
advisers and as required by legal process.  I note that the
parties' submissions become part of the record in each case and
that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988),
requires federal agencies to disclose requested records unless they
are exempt from disclosure under the Act.  See Hamka v.
The Detroit Edison Co., Case No. 88-ERA-26, Sec. Order to Submit
Attachments, Dec. 9, l991, slip op. at 2, n.1.