DATE:  April 24, 1996
CASE NO. 92-TSC-11


IN THE MATTER OF 

WALTER CARTER,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ELECTRICAL DISTRICT NO. 2 OF PINAL COUNTY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                   ORDER

     This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988). 
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), upon consideration of the
Settlement Agreement reached between the parties and their Joint
Motion to Approve Settlement, issued a Recommended Order
Approving Settlement on April 1, 1996.    
     Since the request for approval is based on an agreement
entered into by the parties, the Secretary must review it to
determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A)
(1988).  Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150,
1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power
Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23,
1989, slip op. at 1-2.
     Although the Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 1, indicates the
total amount of the settlement including attorney's fees, there
is no indication in the record as to the actual amount of money 
to be paid to the Complainant.  An exhibit in the record 
[PAGE 2]
calculates an estimate of Complainant's back pay, but there is no
information with regard to the amount he will actually receive
pursuant to the proposed settlement.  The Secretary must know the
amount Complainant will receive in order to determine if the
settlement agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable.  This
amount affects not only the Complainant's individual interest,
but impacts on the public interest as well, because if the amount
is not fair, adequate and reasonable, other employees may be
discouraged from reporting safety violations.  See Plumlee v.
Aleyeska Pipeline Service Co., 92-TSC-7, Sec. Dec. and Order,
Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 5.
     Likewise, the record does not specify the amount of
attorney's fees to be paid.  As long as the parties are in
agreement as to the amount of the attorney's fees to be paid, it
is not necessary for the Secretary to review the amount with the
specificity usually required by the lodestar method.  Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).  If a dispute arises
between the parties with regard to the appropriateness of the
amount of attorney's fees, a subsequent order requiring an
itemization of such fees may be necessary.  
     In view of the Complainant's motion to expedite Secretarial
review of the ALJ's recommended order, the parties are required
to file a joint response to this Order within ten (10) days.  If
the parties cannot agree upon a joint response, Complainant's
counsel is to submit the required information within ten (10)
days from the issuance of this Order.  Respondent may submit a
response within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this Order.
     SO ORDERED.



                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                              Director, Office of 
                                Administrative Appeals[1] 

Washington, D.C.






[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   This Order is issued pursuant to Secretary's Order 3-90, 
55 Fed. Reg. 13,250 (Apr. 9, 1990).