Dated: AUG - 1 1992
Case No.: 92-WPC-1

In the Matter of:

GILLETTE BARTLETT,
    Complainant

    vs.

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
    Respondent

Appearances:

Mark Brooks, Esq.
United Paperworkers Int'l Union
P.O. Box 1475
Nashville, TN 37202
    For the Complainant

Gerard F. Gasperini, Esq.
International Paper Company
International Place
6400 Poplar Avenue
Room 01-115
Memphis, TN 38197
    For the Respondent

Before: DAVID W. DI NARDI
    Administrative Law Judge

   This case arises out of a complaint alleging discriminatory employment practices on the part of International Paper Company (Respondent) in violation of the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1367 (1988), et seq., (herein "the Act") and the implementing regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 24.

   Complainant Gillette Bartlett filed a complaint against his present employer, alleging retaliatory action precluded

by the Act and the implementing regulations. A fact-finding investigation was then conducted and Christopher S. Martin, Assistant District Director, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, O'Brien Federal Building, Albany, New York, by letter dated November 7, 1991, advised Complainant that his complaint was dismissed. Complainant thereupon timely requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The matter was assigned to this Administrative Law Judge and a hearing was first scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, 1992, thereby giving the parties sufficient time to file pre-hearing reports. Claimant's attorney, by letter dated February 5, 1992, advised this Administrative Law Judge that Claimant would be requesting withdrawal of his claim with prejudice and he requested that the hearing be postponed. The Respondent did not oppose the request. Claimant's attorney, by letter dated April 30, 1992, filed a Motion to Dismiss his charge with prejudice.

   This Administrative Law Judge, by Order dated May 7, 1992, gave the parties ten (10) days to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §24.5(e)(4)(B)(ii) no responses have been filed.

   In his Motion to Dismiss, Claimant's attorney has moved:

   "Complainant, Gillette Bartlett, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby moves to dismiss his charge in this matter with prejudice."

   "Complainant notes that this matter involved a one-week disciplinary suspension by Respondent, International Paper; that he continues to be employed by Respondent; that he has obtained the assistance of counsel in this matter; and that he voluntarily elects to dismiss this charge without further proceedings."

"Accordingly, Complainant hereby moves to dismiss this matter with prejudice."

   After a careful review of the record, including the parties' pleadings and applicable law, I conclude that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §24.5(e)(4)(B) (ii) .

   Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

      DAVID W. DI NARDI
      Administrative Law Judge

Boston, Massachusetts
DWD:aml