DATE:  August 8, 1995
Case Nos.  94-TSC-9/95-TSC-1


In the Matter of:

Richard Green
     Complainant

     v.

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
ARCO Alaska, Inc.
Arctic Slope Inspections Services ( ASIS )
Udelhoven Oil System Services
     Respondents


             ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DECISION


     This matter is now scheduled for hearing in Anchorage,
Alaska, during the weeks of August 21 and 28, September 18 and 25, 1995. 
On July 13, 1995, pursuant to Pre-Hearing Order of April 7, 1995,
Complainant filed  Offers of Proof of Evidence  to establish a
prima facie case that each respondent was either an
employer or joint employer with which such Complainant applied for
employment.  Each respondent has filed a Response to the Offers
of Proof and Motions for Summary Decisions of Dismissal supported by
applicable exhibits and affidavits showing cause why,
notwithstanding the offers of proof, the complaints should be
dismissed.  29 C.F.R. §§18.40-18.41.

     This Administrative Law Judge, having reviewed the record as
perfected thus far by the parties, finds and concludes that
Complainant has carried his burden of establishing a prima
facie case in support of the complaints he has filed herein. 
It is well-settled that this Administrative Law Judge, in
determining the propriety of a Motion for Summary
Decision, must weigh and evaluate all of the evidence, resolving all doubts
in favor of the Complainant against whom summary judgment is
sought.

     Complainant s case can be summarized as follows:

[PAGE 2]

     Complainant submits that he has clearly established his
prima facie case that the named Respondents in this action
are all properly defined as  employers  under the Acts. 
Respondents ASIS, Alyeska and Udelhoven were clearly all
potential employers with available positions for which Complainant Green
was clearly the best qualified candidate.  All respondents are
expected to testify that they were aware of Complainant Green s protected
activity and of his extraordinary efforts to alert them of his
availability for work. Despite these efforts, and in clear
discriminatory manner, these respondents repeatedly passed over
Complainant for available work because of his prior protected
activities under the Act--including his direct support for four
other complainants who invoked the employee protection provisions
of the Acts, and his testimony before Congress and to various
managers and governmental officials.  According to Complainant,
the expected testimony will show that ARCO and Udelhoven both
maintained a blacklist which, although it did not contain
Complainant Richard Green s name, clearly included him by
implication because of the inclusion of the other complainants
whom Green supported in their complaints of discrimination.  Further,
the expected evidence will reflect that Green directly sought
employment with both ARCO and Udelhoven, to no avail.

     Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is determined that
the Motions for Summary Decision shall be, and the same
hereby are DENIED, that the hearing shall go forward as
scheduled, that Complainant and the Respondents shall have full
opportunity to present relevant and material evidence on the
issues presented by the parties herein, that the hearing in this matter,
as well as the complaints filed by R. Glen Plumlee and James
Schooley shall be completed within the four week time period
delineated above, that an appropriate schedule shall be
established at the hearing for the filing of proposed findings of law,
conclusions of law and a proposed order, as well as briefs on the
pertinent precedents and that the parties shall have at least
thirty (30) days upon receipt of the hearing transcript to file
such pleadings.




                                   ___________________________
                                   DAVID W. DI NARDI
                                   Administrative Law Judge

Boston, Massachusetts

DWD:ln