DATE: December 13, 1995
CASE NO. 93-ERA-44


IN THE MATTER OF

DOUGLAS HARRISON,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                    ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR STAY

     On August 22, 1995, I issued a Decision and Order in this
case arising under section 211 (employee protection provision) of
the Energy Reorganization Act, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988 & Supp. V 1993).  In the Decision, I found that
Complainant had been demoted, in part, because of his
participation in a protected safety complaint and that Respondent
had failed to demonstrate that it would have demoted him even if
he had not engaged in that activity.  I also awarded Complainant
backpay and costs and expenses, including attorney fees,
reasonably incurred in bringing the complaint.  Complainant
subsequently petitioned for costs and expenses.  Respondent has
not yet responded.  It has, however, applied for a stay of the
decision pending judicial review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.       An agency may postpone the effective date of its orders
pending judicial review upon finding "that justice so requires 
. . . ."  5 U.S.C. § 705 (1988); WMATC v. Holiday Tours,
Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977).  Whether a stay is
warranted 
[PAGE 2]
turns on balancing four factors:  (1) the likelihood that the
movant will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the
likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm absent a
stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the agency
order is stayed; and (4) the public interest in granting a stay. 
State of Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. NRC, 812 F.2d 288,
290-292 (6th Cir. 1987); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v.
Federal Power Comm'n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958).  A
movant is required to address each factor as it pertains to the
circumstances of the case regardless of how compelling the factor
may be in support of a stay, and must provide facts and
affidavits supporting its assertions so that the record contains
evidence upon which to base specific findings.  State of Ohio
ex. rel. Celebrezze v. NRC, 812 F.2d at 290-291.  
     Respondent, which bases its application on administrative
efficiency, lack of prejudice to Complainant, and the presence of
"significant" issues, simply has not demonstrated the necessity
for granting a stay.  Accordingly, the application IS DENIED.
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.