DATE:  September 8, 1992
CASE NO.  90-ERA-52


IN THE MATTER OF

WILLIE L. GRIZZARD,

          COMPLAINANT,

          v.                 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                            FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision on Remand
(R.D. and O.), issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on
March 19, 1992, in this case arising under the employee protection
provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended
(ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988).  The case was before the ALJ
on remand from the Secretary, pursuant to the Final Decision and
Order of Remand issued on September 26, 1991.
     On remand, the ALJ further considered Complainant's allegation
that Respondent had delayed implementation of a March 1989 Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) order of relief in
Complainant's favor.  In accordance with the Secretary's decision,
the ALJ issued an order on December 26, 1991, directing the parties
to advise him within 30 days as to whether TVA had complied with
the EEOC decision.   Respondent
submitted a letter with supporting exhibits attached, indicating
compliance with the EEOC decision:  Complainant was reinstated and
awarded backpay and interest. [1]  Complainant did not
respond to the ALJ's order.  Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that
Complainant's allegation concerning his EEOC relief was moot, and
recommended dismissal of the complaint.
     On review of the record in this case, including the
submissions on remand, I fully agree with the ALJ's R.D. and O.
Accordingly, I adopt and append the ALJ's recommended decision and
this complaint is DISMISSED.

[PAGE 2]
    SO ORDERED.

                                   Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.




[ENDNOTES]

[1] I note that Respondent's counsel also raises
objections to the Secretary's Final Decision and Order of
Remand.  In light of the disposition of this complaint,
however, these issues need not be addressed herein.
                 Office of Administrative Law Judges
                      525 Vine Street, Suite 900
                        Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

DATE ISSUED   March 13, 1992

CASE NO:  90-ERA-52



IN THE MATTER OF

WILLIE L. GRIZZARD,

          Complainant,

        v.


TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          Respondent.


BEFORE:  DONALD W. MOSSER
         Administrative Law Judge

                    RECOMMENDED DECISION ON REMAND

     I issued a Recommended Decision and Order in this case on
November 29, 1990.  I initially concluded in that recommended
decision that Mr. Grizzard's request for hearing was timely. 
[PAGE 3]
However, I concluded that his complaint concerning his termination
was untimely as were his complaints regarding other general
allegations of discriminatory acts occurring outside the 30-day
period preceding the filing of his complaint.  I also concluded
that Mr. Grizzard's allegations regarding the denial and delay of
his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ~EEOC~ relief were
outside the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA)
proceedings.  I therefore recommended to the Secretary of Labor
that the motion for summary judgment of Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) be granted and that the case be dismissed.

     The Secretary of Labor, in her Final Decision and Order on
Remand dated September 26, 1991, affirmed all but one of my
recommendations.  She concluded that I should further consider Mr.
Grizzard's allegations that the respondent has delayed imple-
mentation of a March 1989 EEOC Order issued in his favor.  She
explains that Mr. Grizzard's allegation that the respondent
"withheld a condition or privilege of his employment -- his EEO
relief -- because he participated in an ERA proceeding" is not
beyond the purview of ERA.  The Secretary of Labor directed that I
consider the timeliness of this particular claim on remand unless
I determine that it is now moot.  In this regard, she instructed:
     I recognize, however, that the allegations of retaliatory
     delay in implementing the ordered EEOC relief may be moot. 
     TVA may have complied with the agency's August 24, 1990,
     decision on Complainant's EEO complaint, and it appears that
     implementation of the decision may be the only relief that
     Complainant seeks with respect to the claim of retaliatory
     delay. ... Consequently, on remand, the ALJ should first
     inquire of the parties whether this claim is moot and then if
     necessary, consider whether the claim is timely.

     Pursuant to the instructions of the Secretary of Labor, I
issued an order on December 26, 1991, in which I directed the
parties to advise me within 30 days as to whether TVA had complied
with the EEOC decision dated August 24, 1990. I also instructed Mr.
Grizzard to advise me by that date if he is satisfied with the
action of TVA regarding his EEOC relief and wishes to withdraw the
complaint under ERA.

     TVA complied with the order and advises by letter of counsel,
Justin W. Schwamm, Sr., dated January 24, 1992 that the respondent
had fully complied with the EEOC decision dated August 24, 1990. 
Counsel explains that Mr. Grizzard was reinstated to his position
with TVA and was paid backpay and interest amounting to $111,219.27
and $22,977.23, respectively.  He goes on to explain that the
backpay included a credit for overtime and for a temporary 
[PAGE 4]
promotion to a higher grade level because the complainant's peers
received similar temporary promotions during Mr. Grizzard's
absence.  In support of his position that this matter is now moot,
counsel submitted copies of documents relating to the payment of
amounts owed the complainant together with an affidavit of one of
the custodians of TVA's records pertaining to Mr. Grizzard and the
complaint involved in this proceeding.

     TVA's counsel raises other questions in his letter.  Among
other things, he argues that this proceeding could not possibly
relate to the assertions that TVA withheld his EEOC relief because
of his ERA complaint.  He notes that the complaint involved in this
proceeding was filed on October 17, 1989 and that Mr. Grizzard
requested a hearing in this case on June 23, 1990.  He therefore
explains that the complainant's assertions that TVA delayed
implementing his EEOC relief is essentially meritless because the
decision ordering the relief was not issued until August 24, 1990.

     Willie Grizzard did not respond to the order of December 26,
1991.  However, the returned certified mail receipt from the postal
service, which is a part of this record, proves he received the
order on December 31, 1991.
                            CONCLUSIONS


     Based on the response of TVA to the order of December 26, 1991
and Mr. Grizzard's failure to respond, I find that any allegations
of retaliatory delay by TVA in implementing the ordered EEOC relief
is moot.  The evidence submitted by the respondent establishes
compliance with that August 24, 1990 decision.  Moreover, the
complainant has not shown that TVA has not complied with that
decision or that he is not satisfied with the relief.  I therefore
recommend the dismissal of the complaint involved in this
proceeding.

     The additional arguments raised by TVA in the letter of
counsel dated January 24, 1992 appear to have merit.  However, such
matters are beyond the scope of the remand order of the Secretary
of Labor.  Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to address
them in this decision.

                               ORDER


     It is hereby recommended in accordance with 29 C.F.R. Section
24.6 that the complaint of Willie Grizzard dated October 17, 1989 
[PAGE 5]
be dismissed.





                                       DONALD W. MOSSER
                                       Administrative Law Judge