DATE:  March 21, 1994
CASE NOS. 92-ERA-30
          93-ERA-26
          93-ERA-45


IN THE MATTERS OF

THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT,
THE ATLANTIC GROUP, INC.

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                    FINAL DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING
                      SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASES

     Complainant in these cases arising under the employee
protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988), filed three
complaints against Respondent. [1]   The Administrative Law
Judges (ALJ) submitted Recommended Orders of Dismissal based on a
combined Settlement and General Releases in the above cases on
February 7, 1994 in Case No. 92-ERA-30, and on February 8, 1994
in Case Nos. 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45.
     Paragraph F of the General Release, Appendix A to the
Settlement, encompasses matters arising under various laws only
one of which is the ERA.  My authority over settlements is
limited to such statutes as are within my jurisdiction.
See Goese v. EBASCO Services, Inc., Case No. 88-
ERA-25, Sec. Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case, Dec.
8, 1988, slip op. at 1;  Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co..,
Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order Nov. 2, 1987, and cases
cited therein, slip op. at 
[PAGE 2]
2.  Accordingly, I have limited my review of the Settlement
Agreement and General Releases to determining whether their
conditions are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of
Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the ERA.  In
addition, Paragraph F of the General Release, Appendix A, could
be interpreted to release Respondent from any claims which may
accrue to Complainant after the date of execution of the release. 
I interpret that paragraph to release only Complainant's claims
arising under the ERA before the date of the settlement and
general releases, and my approval of the settlement and general
releases is so limited.
     Finally, I note that Respondent Arizona Public Service Co.,
by its attorneys, notified the administrative law judges that it
requested notification under 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 of any
requests under the Freedom of Information Act for inspection or
copying of the settlement agreement.  As custodian of the
documents, the Office of Administrative Law Judges is directed to
place a notice prominently displayed in the record of each case
referring to Respondent's request and directing that the
procedures in 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 be followed if an FOIA
request is received for the settlement in these cases.
     Upon review, I find the terms of the Settlement Agreement
and General Releases within the scope of my authority and as
interpreted herein, to be fair, adequate and reasonable and I
approve them.  Accordingly, the complaints in these cases are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Settlement Agreement, paragraph 1.1.
     SO ORDERED.

                                   ROBERT B. REICH
                                   Secretary of Labor


Washington, D.C.







[ENDNOTES]
              
[1]   Respondent's Request for Order Approving Settlement
Agreement and Dismissal With Prejudice to Secretary of Labor
refers to another complaint filed with the Wage and Hour Division
of the Department of Labor on October 23, 1993 and requests
dismissal of that complaint as well.  Respondent's Request did
not state that the Wage and Hour Administrator had issued a
determination under 29 C.F.R. § 24.4(d) (1993), that either
party had requested a hearing under that section, or that an
administrative law judge had issued a recommended decision under
29 C.F.R. § 24.6(a).  Matters raised in Complainant's
October 23, 1993 complaint therefore are not before me and are
not covered by this order.