DATE:  October 1, 1993
CASE NO. 93-ERA-18


IN THE MATTER OF 

JEAN DEVERAUX,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

WYOMING ASSOCIATION
OF RURAL WATER,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
(R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case
arising under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reoganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. §
5851 (1988).  The ALJ recommended dismissal of the complaint as
untimely, and alternatively, for failure to allege protected
activity under the ERA.  Each party has filed a brief before me.
     Complainant was terminated by Respondent on October 10,
1992, and proceeding pro se, filed a letter of
complaint with Senator Simpson on November 17, 1992, alleging
that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints to
management about inaccurate records, mismanagement and waste. 
None of her complaints are related to nuclear safety or
violations of the ERA, nor environmental safety or violations of
any of the other environmental statutes within my jurisdiction.  
     This case must be dismissed.  No timely whistleblower
complaint was ever filed by Complainant with the Wage and Hour
Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, as required under the 
[PAGE 2]
implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 24.3 (1992).  Even
if her letter to Senator Simpson could be treated as a complaint,
it was untimely filed pursuant to Section 24.3(b).  Finally,
there is no allegation by Complainant of a violation of the
employee protection provision of the ERA or any of the other
environmental whistleblower protection provisions implemented by
the regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24. 
     These statutory "whistleblower" provisions are designed to
protect employees from retaliation for protected activities such
as complaining, testifying, or commencing proceedings against an
employer for a violation of one of these federal statutes.  In
the present case there is no allegation that complainant engaged
in any protected activity under the ERA or any of the other
statutes enumerated in Section 24.1, and consequently, no
allegation that her termination by Respondent was in violation of
these whistleblower provisions. 
     Accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
     SO ORDERED. 


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.