Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert G. Mahoney submitted
a Recommended Decision on Remand (R.D.R.) in this case arising
under the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization
Act, 42 U.S.C. SS 5851 (1982). The Secretary had remanded
the case to the ALJ for reconsideration in light of the Secretary's
decision in Pensyl v. Catalytic, Inc., 83-ERA-2 (Decision
issued Jan. 13, 1984). Pursuant to that remand order, the
ALJ held a second evidentiary hearing and issued the R.D.R.
After issuance of a briefing schedule by the Secretary, Complainant
[Page 2]
submitted a brief pro se urging reversal of the R.D.R. Respondent
submitted a Notice of Reliance on Previous Brief, that is,
its post-hearing brief of November 26, 1986.
The record in this case has been carefully reviewed.
Based on the entire record, I adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of the ALJ that Respondent fulfilled its obligation
under Pensyl v. Catalytic, Inc. to investigate and explain
to complainant why the perceived safety hazard was not a threat
to his health and safety. (A copy of the ALJ's R.D.R. is
attached to this decision.) Thereafter, Respondent had a
legitimate reason, Complainant's continued refusal to accept
his work assignment, to discharge Complainant.
Accordingly, the complaint in this case is DENIED.
