U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
DATE: July 26, 1988
CASE NO. 84-ERA-6
IN THE MATTER OF
CHARLES STOKES,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO./
BECHTEL POWER CORP.,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before me for review is the [recommended] Dismissal Order
on Remand issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Alfred
Lindeman on April 27, 1987, in this case which arises under th
employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. SS 5851(a) (1982), and implementing
regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (1987).
By the Secretary's February 19, 1987, Order of Remand, the
case was returned to the ALJ who initially had recommended that
it be dismissed as untimely filed in a ruling dated July 27,
1984.
[Page 2]
The issue on remand was Complainant's request of July,
1984, to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. Since
Respondents did not oppose the request for a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice, the only question was what conditions, if
any, would attach to dismissal under the guidelines set forth by
the Secretary's remand decision in Nolder v. Raymond Kaiser
Engineers, Inc., Case No. 84-ERA-5, issued June 28, 1985. See
ALJ's order to show Cause, issued March 13, 1987. After
receiving written responses from both parties, the ALJ granted
Complainant's request for dismissal without prejudice and
without conditions and the case was forwarded for my final
review.1
1 At several points in his
[recommended] Dismissal order on
Remand the ALJ refers to the post-hearing, Secretarial review
phase of these proceedings as an "appeal." Proceedings under
Section 5851 of the ERA are governed by 29 C.F.R. Part 24, which
authorizes Administrative Law Judges to issue recommended
decisions after the termination of hearing proceedings. Section
24.6(b) of 29 C.F.R. requires that the final order be issued by
the Secretary of Labor upon review of the case record and the
recommended decision of the ALJ. Since every ALJ recommended
decision under the ERA is automatically reviewed, there are,
technically speaking, no appeals from such decisions.
2See, McLaughlin v.
Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir.
1982) (Cited in Nolder at 17), which holds that harm is not
suffered where expenses are incurred by the non-moving party for
work which is of use in continuing litigation in another forum.