U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-8002
DATE: OCT 9 1991
CASE NO. 91-SWD-0001
In the Matter of:
ERNEST A. OLIVER
Complainant
v.
HYDRO-VAC SERVICES, INC.
Respondent
NOTICE; ORDER DENYING MOTION
The parties are hereby notified that this proceeding has
been assigned to this administrative law judge for disposition.
As the parties are aware, Judge Musgrove passed away subsequent
to the evidentiary hearing conducted on January 23 and 24, 1991
in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in this proceeding.
In order to be certain that I have the complete record of
evidence and argument before me, the parties are requested to
confirm that the formal record in this proceeding now consists of
the following:
1. Transcript of hearing, pages 1 to 674, conducted on
January 23 and 24, 1991.
2. Complainant's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 10, and 12
through 22. Complainant's Exhibit No. 20 is a cassette
tape which Complainant describes as a duplicate copy of the
conversations of Tom Cochran, Andy Hall, and Ernest A.
Oliver. See letter dated March 8, 1991, filing that
cassette with Judge Musgrove and certifying that a copy was
furnished to counsel for Respondent. That Exhibit is
received into evidence pursuant to the discussions
appearing at Pages 348 and 413 of the hearing transcript.
3. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 4.
[Page 2]
4. Post-hearing Briefs filed by Complainant, dated May 28,
1991; and filed by Respondent, dated May 29, 1991.
By a Motion to Reopen Evidence, dated July 16, 1991,
Complainant seeks a reopening of the record for the purpose of
presenting additional evidence related to the prior testimony of
Guy Moose, Jr., Regional Field Office Manager, Tennessee Division
of Solid Waste Management at Chattanooga. In support of the
Motion, Complainant asserts that his review of the files of on-site inspections conducted by the
State of Tennessee between
September 20, 1990 and January 14, 1991 confirm his allegations
of violations of hazardous materials laws, and that the testimony
regarding these matters was either untrue or misleading.
Respondent argues that the Motion should be denied, for a variety
of reasons. Upon review of the matter in light of the entire
record, I am not persuaded that the additional evidence sought to
be introduced has sufficient relevance to warrant reopening of
the record. I am not persuaded that the additional evidence is
material to determining the actual reasons for Respondent's
termination of Complainant's employment on August 27, 1990.
Accordingly, the Complainant's Motion to Reopen Evidence,
dated July 16, 1991 to receive the above-described evidence is
denied.
In addition, on or before October 25, 1991, the parties
shall file (1) any objections or clarifications to the above-
stated itemization of the evidence and argument which constitute
the present formal record; and (2) any reasons why the record
should not now be deemed closed. In the absence of such filings,
the record of evidence and argument will be deemed closed, and
the matter submitted for a decision and order on the merits of
the complaint.
