By letter dated June 15, 1987, Respondent requests a remand
of this case which arises under the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982). Respondent asserts
that, during the investigatory phase of Complainant's complaint,
Respondent was not informed of the specific allegations nor
had the opportunity to rebut any of Complainant's allegations
"until a decision was issued," and that this decision "merely
recited the allegations raised by Complainant." Respondent
further states that a hearing on the complaint is scheduled
before an administrative law judge for the week of July 6,
1987. Respondent, therefore, requests immediate remand to
the U.S. Department of Labor's New York area office for the
purpose of an "impartial evaluation" of Complainant's allegations.
It appears from Respondent's communication that the
"decision"
it refers to is the notice of determination of the Wage and
Hour Administrator which is provided for in section 24.4 of
the regulations implementing the ERA. See 29 C.F.R. Part 24
(1986). This notice of determination becomes a final order
only if a timely request for a hearing is not filed with the
Chief Administrative Law Judge. See 29 C.F.R. § 24.4 (d)(2)(i)
and (3)(i). Since a hearing already has been scheduled in
[Page 2]
this case, it must be assumed, in the absence of any assertion
to the contrary, that a proper request for a hearing was filed.
That being the case, the determination of the Wage and Hour
Administrator is not a final order. Respondent's request for
a remand to the Wage and Hour Administrator must, therefore,
be viewed as an interlocutory appeal.
The Part 24 regulations contain no provision for interlocutory
appeals and such appeals are disfavored because they result
in piecemeal consideration of cases and tend to protract the
process. Respondent's request is denied as interlocutory.
Cf. Malpass and Lewis v. General Electric Co., Nos. 85-ERA-38,
85-ERA-39, Order Denying Request for Stay Pending Appeal,
issued December 20, 1985.
