McNeice v. Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., 95-ERA-18 (Sec'y Feb. 21, 1996)

May 9, 2009
DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
McNeice v. Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., 95-ERA-18 (Sec'y Feb. 21, 1996)
DATE:  February 21, 1996
CASE NOS. 95-ERA-18
          95-ERA-47


IN THE MATTER OF

ADAM MCNIECE

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. AND
BARTLETT NUCLEAR, INC.,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                   PRELIMINARY ORDER AND ORDER OF REMAND

     On December 12, 1995, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joel R.
Williams issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. and O.)
in this case arising under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
(ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (Supp. IV 1992), as amended by the
Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (CNEPA), Pub. L.
No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776, 3123.  ALJ Williams found in favor
of the Complainant but, because of his impending retirement, was
unable to make specific recommendations regarding the amount of
back pay, benefits and costs, including attorney fees, that the
Complainant is preliminarily entitled to under the CNEPA
amendments to the ERA.  Since the amended ERA requires that a
preliminary order awarding damages, except compensatory damages,
be issued when complainants prevail before an ALJ, I must remand
this matter to the Acting Chief ALJ so that a recommended
decision can be entered regarding back pay, benefits and costs, 
[PAGE 2]
including attorney fees.  Only then can a preliminary order be
issued regarding these damages.  Therefore, this matter is
REMANDED for the entry of a supplemental recommended decision as
set out above.
     In the meantime I can and hereby do issue a PRELIMINARY
ORDER enforcing that portion of the ALJ s R. D. And O. that can
be enforced at this time.  Therefore, Respondents are  
PRELIMINARILY ORDERED to:


     1) Correct Complainant s December 9, 1994 Performance
Evaluation to reflect a minimum rating of at least  3  in all
categories;
     2) Respondents shall not deny future employment to
Complainant because of his protected activities; and 
     3) Respondents shall not give a less than satisfactory
reference regarding Complainant or relate Complainant s protected
activities to any prospective employer of Complainant. 
     SO ORDERED.




                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D. C.