DATE:  June 29, 1994
CASE NO. 93-ERA-42A


IN THE MATTER OF

CHARLES A. WEBB

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

QUANTUM RESOURCES, INC.

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                   ORDER

     The parties in this case arising under the employee
protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988), entered into a
settlement and Complainant filed with the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) a Notice of Withdrawal with Prejudice of Respondent
Quantum Resources, Inc. [1]   (Complainant's Notice) 
Complainant's Notice stated that the parties had agreed to keep
the terms of the settlement and the settlement agreement
confidential and submitted a copy of the agreement to the ALJ for
in camera review.  In addition, Complainant's Notice
requested, on behalf of Respondent as well as Complainant, that
the settlement agreement be maintained in a restricted access
portion of the record.
     The ALJ submitted a Recommended Decision and Order Rejecting
Release and Settlement Agreement (R. D. and O.).  He noted that
he had "no reason to believe that the agreement is not fair,
adequate or reasonable," R. D. and O. at 2, but recommended
rejecting the agreement because it contained the above
confidentiality provision which he interpreted as being in
conflict with previous Secretary's decisions.  Under Macktal
v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1991), the
Secretary 
[PAGE 2]
may only approve a settlement as written or reject it.
     I agree with the ALJ that it is settled law that the Freedom
of Information Act applies to case records in ERA cases, but I do
not agree that the confidentiality provision of this settlement
agreement, paragraph 7, conflicts with prior decisions of the
Secretary.  Paragraph 7 provides "[t]he parties agree that the
settlement . . . is to remain confidential and neither party
shall make any reference to the case . . . the Release and
Settlement Agreement . . . or the contents of this Agreement to
anyone except the attorneys and accountants advising the
parties."  Paragraph 7 does not purport to bind the Secretary to
maintain the confidentiality of the agreement, nor does it
provide that if the Secretary denies the request to restrict
access to the settlement the agreement is void or voidable.  In
contrast, the settlement itself in DeBose v. Carolina Power &
Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14, Sec'y. Dec. Feb. 7, 1994, slip
op. at 2, provided that the settlement must be placed in a
restricted access portion of the record and that refusal of the
Secretary to grant the parties' request for confidentiality made
the agreement voidable.  Id. at 4.  For the reasons
discussed in DeBose and the cases cited therein,
id. at 2-4, the parties' request to restrict access to the
settlement is DENIED.
     Paragraph 10 of the settlement appears to cover matters
other the ERA.  For the reasons set forth in Poulos v.
Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Case No.
86-CAA-l, Sec. Order, November 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, I have
limited my review of the Settlement Agreement to determining
whether its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the ERA. 
The Settlement Agreement has been reviewed and I agree with the
ALJ that its terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of Complainant's claims against Respondent under the ERA. 
Accordingly, I approve the settlement and the complaint in this
case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Complainant originally filed a complaint against Quantum
Resources and Carolina Power & Light Co.  The ALJ severed that
case into two cases, one of which is this case, by order of
October 15, 1993.