DATE:  November 30, 1994

CASE NO.: 95-ERA-02

In the Matter of

GARY L. IRICK
            Complainant

       v.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY/
ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT,
            Respondent

Before:  JOEL R. WILLIAMS
           Administrative Law Judge

ORDER RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND
                DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

       This case arises under the employee protection provisions
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§5851 (ERA).  On October 12,1994, the Assistant District
Director, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration, Wage and Hour Division, notified the Complainant
that a fact-finding investigation, based on the information he had
furnished, did not support his allegation of discrimination.  The
Complainant timely requested a hearing and the same was scheduled
for November 15, 1994 in Phoenix, Arizona.     

       The parties appeared on the scheduled hearing date and advised
that during the previous evening they had reached a settlement on
all issues in this matter.   They were in the process of drafting
a settlement agreement and requested a recess until later that day. 
I advised the parties' representatives of the Secretary of Labor's
recent rulings regarding the Freedom of Information Act's impact on
settlement agreements under the ERA and they expressed awareness of
the same.

       Upon resumption of the hearing counsel for the Respondent
announced that the agreement had not been completed as they wanted
my views regarding a confidentiality provision.  I was advised at
that time as to the basic terms of the agreement including the 
[PAGE 2]
monetary consideration to be paid to the Complainant.  He was
present and expressed satisfaction with the terms.  As I saw no
purpose for any further hearing, the proceeding was adjourned with
the understanding that the written agreement would be forwarded to
me expeditiously.   

       A duly executed settlement agreement has now been submitted.
It is appended hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.

       
       Both parties to this proceeding have received independent
counsel.  The exhibits and arguments presented by the parties in
regard to the a previously denied motion for summary decision filed
by the Respondent indicate that there exists true justiciable
issues in this case which are neither frivolous or unsubstantial.

       Although the parties have agreed to certain confidentiality
regarding the agreement, they recognize the Department of Labor is
not restricted by such confidentiality agreement.  Furthermore, the
provision in the agreement that it shall be interpreted and
enforced under the laws of the State of Arizona is interpreted as
meaning that its intent is not to limit the authority of the
Secretary under any federal statute or regulation.  See, Brown
v. Holmes & Narver, Inc., Case No. 90-ERA-26, Order of the
Secretary Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, May 11,
1994.

       I find the agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and
I believe it is in the public interest to adopt the agreement as a
basis for the administrative disposition of this case. 
Accordingly, I recommend that the settlement be approved and that
the case be dismissed with prejudice.



                                     ____________________________
                                     JOEL R. WILLIAMS
                                     Administrative Law Judge


NOTICE:  This recommended Order and the Administrative file in this
matter will be forwarded for review by the Secretary of Labor to
the Office of Administrative Appeals, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room S-4309, Francis Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.  The Office of Administrative Appeals has
the responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary in the
preparation and issuance of final decisions in employee protection
cases adjudicated under the regulations at 29 C.F.R. Parts 24 and
1978. See 55 Fed. Reg. 13250 (1990).