October 4, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter Solnicka v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 1999-ERA-19 (ALJ Oct. 21, 1999)
DATE: October 21, 1999 CASE NO.: 1999-ERA-0019 IN THE MATTER OF
STEVEN J. SOLNICKA,
v.
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY
and DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE COMPLAINANT
This proceeding arises under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as amended, 42 United States Code section 5851. The Act prohibits a Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensee from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee who was engaged in activity protected by the provisions under the Act. On March 25, 1999, Mr. Solnicka filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor. On May 11, 1999, the Complainant was informed by the Regional Administrator that
[Page 2]
Several days later the Complainant filed an appeal with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U. S. Department of Labor. The case was subsequently assigned to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. The undersigned held a conference call with the parties and a hearing was scheduled for August 17, 1999 in Richland, Washington.
At the hearing, the parties submitted three joint exhibits1 :
As the Complainant was pro se in this case, certain issues were discussed at the
hearing. The Complainant was assured that settlement of this federal case would have no bearing on
issues raised at the state level. In addition, there was discussion of other issues raised in the conference
calls. These issues include certification in crane operation and in heating and air conditioning repair,
bonuses, insurance benefits, and rotating shift work.
The Complainant testified that the agreement covered all of the issues raised
under the Energy Reorganization Act. [TR 7].
McGlynn v. Pulsair, Inc., 1993-CAA-2 (Secretary's
decision issued on June 28, 1993), this agreement has been reviewed pursuant to Rule 41(a) (1) (ii) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The undersigned finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, adequate, and
reasonable. The Administrative Law Judge has signed the proposed decision and order [JX2]
submitted by the parties and all exhibits will be attached to this decision. Therefore, this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
RICHARD K.
MALAMPHY
RKM/ccb
NOTICE: This Recommended Decision and Order will automatically become the final
order of the Secretary unless pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.8, a petition for review is timely
filed with the Administrative Review Board, U. S. Department of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances
Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Such a petition for
review must be received by the Administrative Review Board within ten (10) business days of the
date of this Recommended Decision and Order, and shall be served on all parties and on the
Chief Administrative Law Judge. See 29 C.F.R. §§24.8 and 24.9, as
amended by 63 Fed. Reg. 6614(1998).
1 The following abbreviations will
be used as citations to the record:
|
||||||||
|