DATE:  August 7, 1995
CASE NO. 95-WPC-4


IN THE MATTER OF

DAVID MCDONALD,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

SAM'S CLUB,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
Approving Settlement Agreement issued July 6, 1995, by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case, under the employee
protection provision of the Water Pollution Control Act (WPC), 
33 U.S.C. § 1251 (1988).  The ALJ found the Settlement
Agreement  submitted by the parties to be fair, adequate and
reasonable. See Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co.,
Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.
The ALJ recommended that the agreement be approved and the case dismissed
with prejudice.
     Review of the agreement reveals that it encompasses the
settlement of matters under laws other than the WPC. 
See Settlement Agreement, Sections 2, 3 and
18.  As stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.,
Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op.
at 2:
     [The Secretary's] authority over settlement agreements is
     limited to such statutes as are within [the Secretary's]
     jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute.
     See 
[PAGE 2]
     Aurich v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case  
     No. [86-]CAA-2, Secretary's Order Approving Settlement, issued
     July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe County, N.C., Case 
     No. 85-SWD-4, Secretary's Order on Remand, issued 
     November 3, 1986.
I have therefore, limited my review of the agreement to
determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegation that the
Respondent violated the WPC.
     Section 9 contains language which provides that the
Complainant, his family, lawyers and/or accountants shall keep
the terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential.  I interpret
this language as not preventing the Complainant or any of the
named parties, either voluntarily or pursuant to an order or
subpoena, from communicating with, or providing information to,
State and Federal government agencies about suspected violations
of law involving the Respondent.  See Corder v. Bechtel Energy
Corp., Sec. Order, Feb. 9, 1994, slip op. at 6-8 (finding
void as contrary to public policy a settlement agreement
provision prohibiting the complainant from communicating with
federal or state agencies concerning possible violations of law).
     Section 16 provides that the agreement will be governed by
the laws of Indiana.  However, I construe this to except the
authority of the Secretary of Labor and any Federal court, which
shall be governed by the laws and regulations of the United
States.  See Phillips v. Citizens Ass'n for Sound Energy,
Case No. 91-ERA-25, Final Ord. of Dismissal, Nov. 4, 1991, slip
op. at 2.
     Upon review of the terms of the agreement signed by the
parties, and based on the record of this case, I find that the
agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable.  I therefore accept
the ALJ's recommendation that the agreement be approved.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Settlement
Agreement, Section 4.

     SO ORDERED.

                        ROBERT B. REICH      
                        Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.