IN THE MATTER OF:             
                              
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.       
     Complainant                          
                                           
          v.                                           Case Nos.: 93-ERA-26
                                                                          93-ERA-45
Arizona Public Service Co.    
Arizona Nuclear Power Project 
The Atlantic Group, Inc.      
     Respondents               


                  ORDER NO. 1 - ON REMAND OF CASES
                   93-ERA-26 AND 93-ERA-45 by the
                        SECRETARY OF LABOR


  On February 8, 1994 this Court issued its Recommended
Decision and Order in the above entitled cases which was submitted
to the Secretary.  On March 21, 1994 the Secretary issued his final
Decision and Order Approving the settlements and dismissing the
cases 92-ERA-30, 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45.  On April 21, 1994 Mr.
Saporito made a motion to the Secretary for a briefing schedule
regarding claims remaining against the Atlantic Group (TAG) or in
the alternative, for reconsideration of the Secretary's Decision
and Order of March 21, 1994.

     On May 19, 1994 the Secretary issued his order rescinding his
approval order of March 21, 1994 and remanded these cases to the
respective Administrative Law Judges for reconsideration and
clarification of the recommended orders approving the settlement
agreement of the parties.

     The Secretary directs that the Administrative Law Judge submit

[PAGE 2]
new recommended orders clarifying the scope of the settlement
agreement and extent to which any claims by complainant against any
of the respondents remain unresolved by that agreement.

     Keeping in mind the Secretary's directive I have reviewed the
files in cases 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45 and make the following
findings as the basis for this Order No. 1:

     1. The Settlement Agreement executed by the parties and
     submitted to me for recommended approval by the Secretary
     is entitled thus:

          Settlement Agreement
          (92-ERA-30, 93-ERA-26, 93-ERA-45;
          Claim filed with U.S. Department of Labor on
          October 23, 1993). 

     2. The cases over which I have jurisdiction and are
     assigned to me for determination and disposition are    
     93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45.

     3. The settlement agreement covers/includes 93-ERA-26 and
     93-ERA-45 and is between and signed only by Arizona
     Public Service Company (APS) and Mr. Saporito.

     4. Settlement Agreement
        In Case 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45
        a. APS Agrees to pay damages to Saporito.

        b. Saporito agrees to dismiss with prejudice
           1. any and all claims or actions he has
           against APS

           2. any and all claims or actions he has
           against TAG, relating in any way to 
           Saporito's employment with or wanting to
           obtain employment with TAG at APS's Palo
           Verde Nuclear Generating Station ("PVNGS")

        c. Saporito agrees to execute General Releases which
        are attached to the settlement agreement as 
        Appendices A & B.

        Appendix A - general release signed by Saporito and
        APS

        Appendix B - general release signed only by Saporito

[PAGE 3]
       wherein he releases TAG from any claim he has relating
       to his employment by TAG at PVNGS or failure to employ
       Saporito at PVNGS.
       This release is in consideration of the settlement
       agreement between Saporito and APS.

       - Appendix B contains the following caveat in paragraph
         "H" appearing on page 4

          "This release of claims against TAG does not
          limit or restrict Saporito from pursuing or
          filing any past, present or future claims of
          any nature whatsoever, whether based on tort,
          contract, or any other theory of recovery,
          against TAG for TAG's alleged failure to
          employ Saporito with employers other than APS,
          and/or at sites other than Palo Verde Nuclear
          Generating Station."

     It is quite clear that the basic intent of the settlement by
the parties to the agreement was to settle all issues and claims
between Saporito and APS.  At the same time, Saporito was allowed
to preserve the right to proceed against TAG in any claim not
related to Saporito's working for TAG at the APS facility
identified as the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.  However,
on reading paragraphs F and G of Appendix B I can construe that
Saporito intended to release TAG from all claims which arose prior
to the execution of the release on December 15, 1993.

     On January 10, 1994 I issued an "Order Following Conference
Call Hearing - Granting Continuance".  In this Order, paragraph 6
stated "The Court retains jurisdiction in Cases Number 93-ERA-00026
and 93-ERA-00045."  The retention of jurisdiction as stated in
paragraph 6 resulted from the representation to this Court by the
parties at that time that "the Complainant desires to file an
amended complaint necessitated by the proceedings in settlement as
Complainant intends to proceed against The Atlantic Group alone in
both cases 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45.  Such amended complaint was to
be filed promptly in each case.

     Complainant never did file the amended complaint.  It appears
that he has been pursuing his complaint against TAG et al. dated
October 23, 1993 and a complaint against TAG alone dated February
26, 1994, as indicated to this Court by copies of correspondence
received from the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration wherein the District Director states he has been
asked to investigate those two claims under the Nuclear Regulatory 
[PAGE 4]
Act.[1] 

                               ORDER

     From the above findings this Court makes the following
conclusions and issues this Order:

     1.  This Court has no jurisdiction which extends beyond
     the date of this Court's Decision and Order recommended
     to the Secretary in cases 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45, and
     issued on February 8, 1994.

     2. This Court rescinds its retention of jurisdiction
     expressed in paragraph 6 of its Order Following
     Conference Call - Hearing - Granting Continuance, which
     Order is dated January 10, 1994 wherein paragraph 6
     states "the Court retains jurisdiction in cases number
     93-ERA-00026 and 93-ERA-00045."

     3. All parties and counsel are directed to submit a
     response to this Order indicating their agreement with
     the findings expressed herein above or stating any
     alternative position which will assist this Court in
     complying with the directive of the Secretary.

     4. Saporito and his counsel are directed to state to this
     Court the Complainant's present position as to the scope
     of the settlement agreement and the extent to which any
     claims by Complainant against any of the respondents
     remain unresolved by the settlement agreement.

     5. Complainant Saporito and his counsel are directed to
     state to this Court the extent, if any, or to which the
     claims dated October 23, 1993 and February 26, 1994
     relate to 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45 and/or to the
     settlement agreement.

     6. All responses by the parties and their counsel are to
     be submitted to this Court on or before August 15, 1994
     with copies sent to opposing counsel.

     7. After all responses have been reviewed by this Court,
     I will then determine whether a phone conference should
     be scheduled for necessary discussion for clarification
     of the recommended decision prior to submission to the
     Secretary by this Court in cases 93-ERA-26 and 93-ERA-45.



[PAGE 5]


                                                         
                              CLEMENT J. KICHUK
                              Administrative Law Judge

Dated:
Boston, Massachusetts
CJK:dr



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] Correspondence was received by this office from District
Director William T. Marucca on June 27 and 28, 1994.