IN THE MATTER OF               
                                                                        Date Issued: May 15, 1995
PATRICIA L. HAMLETT            
          Complainant                                          Case No. 95-ERA-12
                               
          v.                  
                               
BABCOCK AND WILCOX COMPANY     
          Respondent  

              RECOMMENDED ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT


     This matter arises under the provisions of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§5801
et seq. (1982) (the Act); Employee Protection §5851;
Implementing Regulations in 29 C.F.R. Part 24.

     Patricia L. Hamlett, Complainant, filed a complaint against
Babcock and Wilcox Company, Respondent, in which she alleged that
her employment was terminated for engaging activities protected
by the Act.  The Respondent denied the charge, and responded that
Ms. Hamlett was terminated for cause unrelated to activities
within the coverage of the Act.

     The case was tried on the merits on April 11, 1995, at
Lynchburg, Virginia.  Both parties presented evidence,
testimonial and documentary, and they were given the opportunity
to examine and cross examine witnesses.  Each side requested and
was given time within which to file briefs on the issues. 
However, at some point after the trial, they entered into
settlement negotiations.  On May 15, 1995, the parties filed a
settlement agreement, and they jointly moved for approval of
their agreement.

     It is my duty to examine the settlement agreement for
fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness, and recommend a course of
action to the Secretary of Labor, Unites States Department of
Labor.  I conducted my evaluation of the settlement from the
perspective of knowing and understanding the respective claims,
having heard and observed the respective witnesses, and their
demeanor.  In my view, the outcome of the litigation is far from
certain: there are equities on both sides of the case, and, as I
see it, both parties are at risk.  I believe that the parties 
[PAGE 2]
understand this, and were moved to settlement by the realities of
litigation.  On consideration of the contentions of the parties,
the evidence supporting their positions, and the applicable law,
I conclude that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.


     The parties agreed to mutual releases of all causes of
action arising out the facts in this case, but the agreement
expressly excludes rights or claims that may arise after the date
of the agreement.  See, Pace v. Kirshenbaum Investments,
92 CAA 8 (Sec'y Dec. 2, 1992).  While the agreement provides
for interpretation, and enforcement of the agreement in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
authority of the Secretary of Labor to seek, or grant appropriate
relief under the Act is not limited by the agreement.  See,
Pace,.

 Finally, in consideration of their agreement, the parties
request that the case be dismissed with prejudice.  I find this a
proper final disposition of the case.

                             RECOMMENDATION

     For the reasons stated, I recommend that the Secretary of
Labor approve the settlement agreement of the parties, and
dismiss this case with prejudice.



                                        GEORGE A. FATH
                                        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, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210.  The Office of the Administrative
Appeals has the responsiblity 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).