DATE:  August 8, 1994
CASE NO. 94-ERA-20


IN THE MATTER OF

TOM BRADISH,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

     This case is before me for review of the Recommended
Decision and Order Authorizing and Directing Withdrawal of
Complaint, dated June 3, 1994, issued by the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) under the employee protection provision of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851
(1988).  The ALJ recommends that the complaint be withdrawn and
that the initial determination of the Wage and Hour
Administration become final based on Complainant's request for
withdrawal and Respondent's statement of no opposition.  It is
well established, however, that in cases arising under the ERA,
requests for withdrawal of the complaint are treated as requests
for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and here, where the Respondent concurs in the
Complainant's request, the Secretary has applied Rule
41(a)(1)(ii).  See Blevins v. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Case No. 90-ERA-4, Sec. Ord., June 28, 1993, slip
op. at 2; Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, Case No. 91-
ERA-30, Sec. Ord., Aug. 30, 1991, slip op. at 1-2; Ryan v.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Case No. 87-ERA-32, Sec. Ord.,
Aug. 9, 1989, slip op. at 1-2. [1] 

[PAGE 2]
     Accordingly, Complainant's request, filed May 31, 1994,
together with Respondent's written agreement, dated June 2, 1994,
constitute a stipulation of dismissal by the parties, satisfying
the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(ii).  The complaint in this
case, therefore, IS DISMISSED without prejudice.
     SO ORDERED.  


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.




[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Rule 41 applies because there are no procedures for
voluntary dismissals contained in either the ERA, the
implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24, or the regulations
at 29 C.F.R. Part 18 (1993), which are generally applicable to
any adjudicatory proceeding brought before a Department of Labor
administrative law judge.  29 C.F.R. § 18.1(a)