DATE:      NOVEMBER 23, 1994

CASE NO.:  93-ERA-14


In the Matter of 
                 
ROBERT H. MOODY  
          Complainant 
                      
     v.               
                      
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
          Respondent      


Before:  THOMAS M. BURKE

  RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
                  DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     Respondent, Tennessee Valley Authority, moves by Motion to
Dismiss dated August 23, 1993 that the complaint of Complainant,
Robert H. Moody, be dismissed under 29 C.F.R. §§18.29
and 24.5(e)(4) for failure to prosecute.

     This complaint was brought under the Reorganization Act of
1974 ("ERA"), 42 U.S.C. §5851 by letter dated October 8,
1992.  

     A hearing was scheduled on this complaint for February 2 and
3, 1993 in Knoxville, Tennessee.  The parties requested a
continuance of the hearing because they were in the process of
settlement.  Their request was granted and the hearing was
continued.  However, no proposed settlement was ever submitted. 
The parties were requested to submit a status report on or before
August 30, 1993.  Complainant did not respond to the request for
a status report.  Respondent responded to the request by filing
the motion to dismiss.

     Respondent, in its motion, contends that Complainant has
abandoned this complaint in that Complainant has failed to appear
for a deposition to which he had agreed; has requested that the
February 2 and 3, 1993 hearing be cancelled because he intended
to voluntarily dismiss this proceeding; and has repeatedly stated
that he intends to dismiss this proceeding.


[PAGE 2]
     A Rule to Show Cause was served on Complainant on September
10, 1993 ordering him to show cause why this complaint should not
be dismissed or found to be abandoned.  Complainant responded to
the Rule by letter dated September 28, 1993.  He asserted that he
needed additional time to retain counsel.  However, one year had
elapsed since Complainant had filed his complaint with the
Department of Labor, a period considered to be more than 


sufficient to allow for the retention of legal counsel. 
Nevertheless, Complainant was granted an additional thirty days
to retain counsel.  By Order dated October 5, 1993, Complainant
was informed that he was required to notify the undersigned
administrative law judge by November 5, 1993 that he had retained
counsel and desired to pursue this complaint or he would suffer
its dismissal.  Complainant has not so notified this court.

     Section 18.39(b) provides that a request for hearing may be
dismissed upon its abandonment ... by the party ... who filed it.

ORDER

     AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 1993, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint of October 8, 1992 by
Robert H. Moody be dismissed.



                                   _____________________________
                                   THOMAS M. BURKE
                                   Administrative Law Judge

TMB:mr


NOTICE:  This Recommended Order and the administrative file in
this matter will be forwarded for review by the Secretary of
Labor to the Office of Administrative Appeals, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.  The Office of Administrative
Appeals has the responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary
in the preparation and issuance of final decisions in employee
protection cases adjudicated under the regulations at 29 C.F.R.
Parts 24 and 1978.  See 55 Fed. Reg. 13250
(1990).