U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
1111 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
DATE: MAR 6 1991
IN THE MATTER OF
ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
Complainant
v.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
Respondent
CASE No.: 91-ERA-00001
IN THE MATTER OF
ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
Complainant
v.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
Respondent
CASE No.: 91-ERA-11
NOTICE
On February 25, this office issued an Order of
Consolidation which, due to a word processing error, omitted two
sentences intended to be included in the third paragraph. The
Order has therefore been reissued in its corrected form and is
attached to this Notice.
JOHN M. VITTONE
Deputy Chief Judge
Attachment
JMV/JF/mb
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
1111 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
DATE: FEB 25 1991
IN THE MATTER OF
ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
Complainant
v.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
Respondent
CASE No.: 91-ERA-00001
IN THE MATTER OF
ALLEN L. MOSBAUGH,
Complainant
v.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
Respondent
CASE No.: 91-ERA-11
ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION
This matter arises under Section 210 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851
(1982) and the regulations issued thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part
24.
The above-captioned cases were remanded to this office for
evidentiary hearings, following my determination as to whether
they should be consolidated. Case number 91-ERA-1 results from
Complainant's appeal of the Wage and Hour Division's finding that
Respondent's performance evaluation of Complainant and withdrawal
of his company car was not discriminatory. Case number 91-ERA-11
[Page 2]
results from Respondent's appeal of the finding that Respondent's
act of banning Complainant from its plant, and its subsequent
termination of employment, was discriminatory.
Consolidation of cases is addressed at 29 C.F.R. § 24.5(b),
which states:
When two or more hearings are to be held, and the same or
substantially similar evidence is relevant and material to
the matters at issue at each such hearing, the Chief
Administrative Law Judge may, upon motion by any party or
on his own motion, order a consolidated hearing be
conducted.
I find that these two cases are appropriate for
consolidation. In both, the parties are identical. The parties'
briefs indicate that both cases stem from the same period of
employment following Complainant's alleged protected activity.
Discovery conducted during an earlier related case, 90-ERA-58
(now dismissed), revealed the tape recordings which brought about
the complaint in 91-ERA-11. As Respondent points out, these
tapes are relevant to both cases, not only because they led to
the employment activity of 91-ERA-11, but because they contain
substantive evidence pertaining to 91-ERA-1.
Accordingly, I hereby ORDER that 91-ERA-1 and 91-ERA-11 are
CONSOLIDATED. These cases shall be immediately assigned for an
evidentiary hearing.