DATE: September 8, 1995

CASE NO. 95-TSC-2,

In the Matter of:

ROBERT PLUMILEE
     Complainant

v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,
ARCO ALASKA, INC.,
ARCTIC SLOPE INSPECTION SERVICES,
UDELHOVEN OIL SYSTEM SERVICES
     Respondents


Appearances:
Thad Guyer, Attorney
Billie Pimer Garde, Attorney
Thomas E. Carpenter, Attorney
     For Complainant

Robert E. Jordan, III, Attorney
     For Alyeska Pipeline Service
Richard B. Brown, Attorney
     For ARCO Alaska, Inc.
Gregory L. Youngmun, Attorney
     For Arctic Slope Inspection Services, Inc.
D.K. 'Kirby' Wright, Jr., Attorney
     For Udelhoven Oil System Services

Before: ALFRED LINDEMAN
        Administrative Law Judge

                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
                      APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
                                   AND
                           ORDER OF DISMISSAL



Procedural background

     This decision resolves the "failure to hire" elements of

[PAGE 2]
complainant's "First Amended Complaint," filed November 28, 1994,
under the Employee Protection Provisions of the Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976, 15 U. S. C. §2622, the Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U. S. C. §1367, the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, 42 U.S.C. §6971, and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
17622.  Pursuant to the parties' joint request, by Order dated
June 26, 1995, the complainant's allegations relating to
"blacklisting" were severed and consolidated with the
"blacklisting" elements of complaints filed by three other
complainants; the "blacklisting" case was thereafter styled
Richard Green, et al. v. Alyeska Pipcline Service Co., et
al, Case No. 95-TSC-13, and was assigned to the undersigned for
hearing and decision.  Complainant Robert Plumlee's "failure to
hire" allegations under Case No. 95-TSC-2 were also assigned to
the undersigned.  At the commencement of the hearings on August
10, 1995, counsel represented that both the "blacklisting" and
"failure to hire" elements of Robert Plumlee's complaint were
settled.  On August 28, 1995, the parties filed a "Joint Motion
to Approve Settlement Agreement and For Order of Dismissal," an
executed "Settlement Agreement, Release and Covenant Not to Sue,"
dated August 10 and 12, 1995, and two "side letters" (dated
August 21 and 23, 1995) from counsel for Alyeska to complainant's
attorney Garde.  See 29 C.F.R. §18.39(b).

The settlement

     Under the terms of the agreement, which is attached in its
entirety, the respondents agree to pay complainant and his
attorneys stated sums in consideration of covenants and releases
stated therein.  Having considered the proposed settlement in
light of the nature of the complaint, the disputed issues
presented by the pleadings and the uncontested statements of
facts regarding complainant's medical condition filed in
connection with pre-trial motions, I find that the terms of the
settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable, as asserted by the
parties in their joint motion, warranting dismissal of the
complaint with prejudice. 29 C.F.R. §§18.39(b),
24.6(b)(4); see Thompson v. U. S. Department of Labor, 885
F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1989).

  ORDER
                                    
1. The joint motion to approve settlement agreement is therefore
GRANTED.

2. It is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary approve the attached
settlement and is an order dismissing the "failure to hire" 
[PAGE 3]
elements of the instant complaint with prejudice.[1] 


ALFRED LINDEMAN
Administrative Law Judge



                               [ENDNOTES]

[1] The "blacklisting" elements of complainant's complaint are
covered in a separate "Recommended Decision and Order Approving
Settlement Agreement and Order of Dismissal" being issued in Case 
No. 95-TSC-13, Richard Green et al. v. Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company, et al.