Date: AUG 10 1992

In the matter of:

Case No. 92-TSC-7

R. GLEN PLUMLEE,
    Complainant,

    v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY,
    Respondent.

Case No. 92-TSC-10

ROBERT PLUMLEE,
    Complainant,

    v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,
    Respondent.

Case No. 92-WPC-6

JOE TRACANNA,
    Complainant,

    v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,
    Respondent.

Case No. 92-WPC-7

KENNETH HAYSON,
    Complainant,

    v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,
    Respondent.

Case No. 92-WPC-8

JAMES SCHOOLEY,
    Complainant,

    v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,
    Respondent.

    On July 8, 1992, the undersigned conducted an unrecorded conference call with counsel for the parties in the above- captioned cases in which the parties orally agreed to waive the applicable time constraints. Subsequently, complainants' counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate these matters pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.11 and 29 C.F.R. § 18.1 (b) arguing that, because of the substantial similarity of facts and law contained in each complaint, judicial economy would be served by consolidation.

    On August 4, 1992, the Respondent filed its Response to the motion to consolidate, opposing the motion on the grounds that it is premature. More specifically, Respondent states that it is not opposed to having these cases as assigned to one administrative law judge for purposes of coordinating pre-trial matters, but does not now agree that the matters alleged in each complaint are sufficiently similar that they should be consolidated for hearing.

    It appears that a ruling on the motion to Consolidate may be premature at this time. Accordingly, such ruling is deferred. In order to coordinate the pre-trial scheduling of these cases, these matters will be assigned to the Honorable Alfred Lindeman. All further correspondence should be directed to his attention at the Office of Administrative Law Judges, U.S. Department of Labor, 211 Main Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105.

       JOHN M. VITTONE
       Deputy Chief Judge