RICHARD COUTY,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT CO.,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

    Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James W. Kerr submitted a Recommend Decision and Order (R.D. and O.) to me on November 16, 1987, in this case arising under the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982).

    The record in this case, including the briefs of the parties, has been reviewed, and I agree with the ALJ's conclusion that Respondent did not violate the Act when it Complainant in October, 1986, and that there is no evidence which supports Complainant's allegation that he has been blacklisted by Respondent. The ALJ made his findings and reached his conclusions based on his evaluation of the evidence presented and his judgment of the credibility of the witnesses who testified before him. The record supports these conclusions¹ of the ALJ on the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. I adopt the ALJ's recommended decision and order that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case and that the complaint in this case should be dismissed.

    Accordingly, the Complaint in this case IS DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

      ANN MCLAUGHLIN
       Secretary of Labor

Washington, D. C.

¹ Although finding that Complainant had failed to make a prima facie case on the retaliatory discharge issue, the ALJ also discussed whether the evidence would have the same result (dismissal) if a prima facie case had been established. R.D. and O. at 11-13. While I agree that the record fully supports the ALJ's factual analysis here, his legal analysis of the shifts in burden of proof is not entirely consistent with the decision in Dartey v. Zack, 82-ERA-2, Secretary's decision issued April 25, 1983, slip op. at 6-9. This discussion, by the ALJ, however, is dicta and is not necessary to the decision in this case.