DATE:  June 8, 1994
CASE NOS. 94-WPC-1
          94-WPC-2
          94-WPC-3


IN THE MATTER OF

EDWARD P. MARTHIN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TAD TECHNICAL SERVICES CORPORATION,

     and

THE DIAL CORPORATION,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                    FINAL ORDER DISAPPROVING SETTLEMENT
                            AND REMANDING CASES

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
Disapproving Settlement Agreement (R.D. and O.) of the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in these cases arising under the
employee protection provision of the Water Pollution Control Act
(WPC), 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988).  The ALJ reviewed the
Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (Settlement)
submitted by the parties and found that it contained provisions
which are contrary to public policy.  These provisions attempt to
prohibit Complainant from contacting government agencies or
officials, and from participating in any proceedings against
Respondents.  Finding that these provisions could restrict the
free flow of information which protects the public from health
and safety 
[PAGE 2]
hazards, the ALJ recommended that I disapprove the settlement and
remand the case for further consideration or amendment of the
settlement agreement.
     Upon careful review of the ALJ's R.D. and O., the terms of
the Settlement and the complete record before me, I adopt and
append the ALJ's R.D. and O. as it is in accordance with my prior
decisions on the issue of similar settlement provisions deemed
unenforceable as contrary to public policy.  See Porter
v. Brown & Root, Inc., Case No. 91-ERA-4, Sec. Final Ord.
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 25, 1994, slip
op. at 10-11; Corder v. Bechtel Energy Corp., Case
No. 88-ERA-9, Sec. Ord., Feb. 9, 1994, slip op. at 5-8.  Under
the language of Paragraphs 6, 7 and 10, Complainant could be
prohibited, among other things, from providing information
to, or assisting or cooperating with, the Department of Labor in
investigations of complaints against Respondents, or involving
Respondents, under the WPC or any other environmental
whistleblower protection statute. [1]   I find that these
provisions could have the effect of drying up channels of
information for the Department of Labor as well as for other
agencies in carrying out their responsibilities, and therefore, I
cannot approve a settlement agreement containing such terms.
     As the parties specifically agreed that none of the terms of
their agreement could be "changed, waived or added to" except by
writing signed by all parties, these cases must be remanded for
further consideration consistent with this opinion.  Settlement
at Para. 18.  Macktal v. Brown & Root, Inc., Case No. 86-
ERA-23, Sec. Ord. Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case,
Oct. 13, 1993, slip op. at 2-3; Corder, at 8.
     SO ORDERED.



                    ROBERT B. REICH                              
                    Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]  In addition, Complainant may be prohibited from voluntarily
testifying or providing information to the Environmental
Protection Agency or other federal or state agencies in the
investigation or prosecution of any charge of violation of any
federal or state law, rule or regulation.