Dated Issued: January 24, 1992

Case No. 92-TSC-2

In the Matter of

Robert Scott
    Complainant

    v.

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
    Respondent

    On December 10, 1991, I issued a Pre-Hearing Order in this case notifying the parties that a hearing would be scheduled for the week of May 18, 1992 in Anchorage, Alaska. That order further stated that:

Both the timeliness of the complaint and the substantive issues raised in complaint will be considered at the hearing.

    Respondent has moved for reconsideration of the Pre-Hearing Order, recommending that the hearing to be held in May concern only the timeliness issue. Although such bifurcation of the hearing obviously will save time and expense initially, the delay and added expense that will be engendered by bifurcation in the event the compliant in found to be timely is unacceptable. An the statute and regulations make clear, whistleblower cases are to be handled in an expedited manner, See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. Part 24. Birfurcating this case to consider only the issue of timeliness at an initial trial, to be followed by a subsequent trial in the event the complaint is hold to be timely, will delay a final decision anywhere from six months to over a year.

    Similarly, remanding the case to the Wage and Hour Division for a decision on the substantive issues of the complaint will produce unacceptable delay. At a minimum, it would require a continuance of the May hearing date. Since the hearing before me is a de novo hearing, an initial determination by the District Director of the Wage and Hour Division is not essential. Moreover, the parties have ample time prior to the scheduled hearing to develop the facts through discovery.

    Accordingly, the respondent's motion to reconsider the Hearing Order is denied.

       JEFFREY TURECK
       Administrative Law Judge