DATE:  March 16, 1995
CASE NO. 94-ERA-21


IN THE MATTER OF

SYED HASAN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

BECHTEL CORPORATION,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
Approving Settlement issued January 25, 1995, by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case, under the employee
protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
(ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988) and the
regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (1993).  The ALJ recommended
approval of the settlement agreement, having found the agreement
fair, adequate and reasonable, following the Recommended Order of
the ALJ in Hasan v. Bechtel Corp, Case No. 93-ERA-40. 
See Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150,
1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor,
885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989); 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. 

     Review of the agreement reveals that it may encompass the
settlement of matters under laws other than those enumerated
above. See Settlement Agreement Sections 3, 5 and 10.  As
stated 
[PAGE 2]
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 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 Respondent
violated the above Act.
     I note that pursuant to Sections 4, 6 and 8, of the
Agreement that the parties agree that the terms of the agreement
will be kept confidential.  I have held in a number of cases with
respect to confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements
that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), "requires agencies to
disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from
disclosure . . . ."  Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Service
Co., Case Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-WPC-6, 7, 8, 10, Sec'y Final
Order Approving Settlements and Dismissing Cases with Prejudice, 
Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 6.  See also Davis v.
Valley View Ferry Authority, Case No. 93-WPC-1, Sec'y Final
Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, Jun. 28,
1993, slip op. at 2 n.1 (parties' submissions become part of
record and are subject to FOIA); Ratliff v. Airco Gases,
Case No. 93-STA-5, Sec'y Final Order Approving Settlement and
Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, Jun. 25, 1993, slip op. at 2
(same); Reid v. Tennessee Valley Auth., Case No. 91-ERA-
17, Sec'y Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint
with Prejudice, Aug. 31, 1992, slip op. at 3 n.1 (same); Daily
v. Portland Gen'l Elec. Co., Case No. 88-ERA-40, Sec'y Order
Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case, Mar. 1, 1990, slip op.
at 1 n.1 (same).  
     The case record in this case is an agency record which must
be made available for public inspection and copying under the
FOIA.  In the event a request for inspection or copying of the
record of this case is made by a member of the public, that
request must be responded to as provided in the FOIA.  If an
exemption is applicable to the record in this case or any
specific document in it, the Department of Labor would determine
at the time a request is made whether to exercise its discretion
to claim the exemption and withhold the document.  If no
exemption were applicable, the document would have to be
disclosed.  Since no FOIA request has been made, it would be
premature to determine whether any of the exemptions in FOIA 
[PAGE 3]
would be applicable and whether the Department of Labor would
exercise its authority to claim such an exemption and withhold
the requested information.  It would also be inappropriate to
decide such questions in this proceeding.  
     Department of Labor regulations provide specific procedures
for responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requestors from
denials of such requests, and for protecting the interests of
submitters of confidential commercial information.  See 29
C.F.R. Part 70 (1993).   
     As so construed, I find the terms of the agreement to be
fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore approve the
settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.  See Agreement at Section 3.
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.