DATE:  November 28, 1994
CASE NOS. 94-WPC-1
          94-WPC-2
          94-WPC-3 

IN THE MATTER OF

EDWARD P. MARTHIN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

TAD TECHNICAL SERVICES 

     and

THE DIAL CORPORATION,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Order Approving
Consent Agreement and Dismissing Complaint (R.O.) of the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in these cases arising under the
employee protection provision of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (WPC), 33 U.S.C. §1367 (1988).  The ALJ reviewed
the settlement agreement submitted by the parties.  Finding that
it fairly, reasonably and adequately disposed of the allegations
raised by Complainant, the ALJ recommended that the settlement
agreement be approved and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.
     This agreement encompasses the settlement of matters arising
under various laws only one of which is the WPC.  See
¶ 3, ¶ 4, 
¶ 11.  For the reasons discussed in Poulos v. Ambassador
Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., Nov. 2,
1987, slip op. 
[PAGE 2]
at 2, I have limited my review of the Settlement Agreement to
determining whether its terms are fair, adequate and reasonable
to settle Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the
WPC.  
     I note that Paragraph 16 provides that,
     This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and
     interpreted according to the laws of the State of
     Missouri without reference to conflicts of law
     principles.  Any action to interpret, construe or
     enforce this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in
     the State of Missouri, and the Marthin parties hereby
     waive all objections to venue and/or jurisdiction.
Settlement at p. 11.  I interpret this statement as not limiting
the authority of the Secretary of Labor or any Federal court
under the WPC and implementing regulations.  See
Phillips v. Citizens Ass'n for Sound Energy, Case No. 91-
ERA-25, Fin. Ord. of Dismissal, Nov. 4, 1991, slip op. at 2.  
     I find that the terms of the Agreement as here construed,
are fair, adequate and reasonable to settle Complainant's
allegations that Respondent violated the WPC.  Accordingly, the
settlement is approved and the complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.  ¶ 3.

     SO ORDERED.

          ROBERT B. REICH
          Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.