Date: JUL 24 1995

Case No.:95-CAA-19

In the Matter of:

BRENDA W. SHELTON,
Complainant

v.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY; LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.; MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION; MARTIN MARIETTA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DR. WILBUR D. SHULTS,
Respondents.

BEFORE: John M. Vittone
Acting Chief Judge

   On June 19, 1995, this Office received a letter of determination from the District Director, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, in which the Complainant was determined to be entitled to relief under the employee protection provisions of various nuclear and environmental statutes. This letter is dated June 14, 1995.

   On July 21, 1995, Jack Burgis, Esquire, telephoned this Office inquiring whether a case number had been assigned to this matter. The computerized case tracking system

did not show a record of any docketed case in this matter. Mr. Burgis was requested to fax a copy of the request for hearing, which he has done. The certificate of service on that document bears a date of service of June 16, 1995.

   Upon further investigation, it has been determined that this Office received a letter dated June 20, 1995 from the Complainant stating a "cross-appeal" of a portion of the Wage and Hour determination. That letter indicates the Complainant's belief that several of the Respondents had requested a hearing on June 16, 1995. Notations by this office's docket section, however, indicate that checks for a hearing request by the Respondents were made on June 21 and June 30, 1995 for the docketing of a request for hearing, but none had been received by those dates.

   An initial determination must be made whether a timely request for hearing was filed by any party in this matter. Accordingly,

   IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit to this Office no later than close of business on July 28, 1995, documentation¹ establishing the timely filing of any request for a hearing made in this matter. In view of the expedited nature of these proceedings, prior permission is hereby given to file responses to this order by facsimile. 29 C.F.R. § 18.3(f)(1). Failure to provide adequate documentation of a timely filing will result in a recommended order of dismissal.

At Washington, D.C.

       John M. Vittone
       Acting Chief Judge

¹The Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the office of Administrative Law Judges were amended in August 1994 to, inter alia, provide rules governing filing and service by fax. See 60 Fed. Reg. 26970 (May 19, 1995)(Final Rule); 59 Fed. Reg. 41876 (Aug. 15, 1994)(Interim Final Rule). It is noted in regard to proof of service that "[a] facsimile transmission report generated by the sender's facsimile equipment and which indicates that the transmission was successful shall be presumed adequate proof of filing or service." 29 C.F.R. § 18.3(f)(3).