skip navigational links United States Department of Labor
May 9, 2009        
DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
DOL Home USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Wensil v. United States Dept. of Energy, 88-ERA-34 (Sec'y Mar. 1, 1989)


SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.

DATE: March 1, 1989
CASE NO. 88-ERA-34

IN THE MATTER OF

ROGER WENSIL,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY;
BLOUNT BROTHERS; AND B.F. SHAW COMPANY,     RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

    Before me for my review is the [Recommended] Order of Dismissal issued on July 20, 1988, by Administrative Law Judge Edward Terhune Miller in the above-captioned case, which arises under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1982). The ALJ's order granted the several motions of Respondents United States Department of Energy, du Pont, Blount Brothers, and B.F. Shaw Company to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

    The jurisdictional issue in this case is the same issue as is before me in Case No. 86-ERA-15, which involves the identical parties, and in Case No. 87-ERA-12, which involves a complaint filed by Joy P. Adams against the same Respondents. Those cases have been consolidated as to the issue of jurisdiction, and presently are pending before me.

    Accordingly, the parties are directed to show cause why I should not stay further proceedings in this case until the issue of jurisdiction in the consolidated cases, Case No. 87-ERA-15 and Case No. 87-ERA-12, is decided. Responses to this order should be filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.

    SO ORDERED.

       Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



Phone Numbers