U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-8002
Date: AUG 10 1992
In the matter of:
Case No. 92-TSC-7
R. GLEN PLUMLEE, Complainant,
v.
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY, Respondent.
Case No. 92-TSC-10
ROBERT PLUMLEE, Complainant,
v.
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY, Respondent.
Case No. 92-WPC-6
JOE TRACANNA, Complainant,
v.
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY, Respondent.
Case No. 92-WPC-7
KENNETH HAYSON, Complainant,
v.
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY, Respondent.
Case No. 92-WPC-8
JAMES SCHOOLEY, Complainant,
v.
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY, Respondent.
ORDER
On July 8, 1992, the undersigned conducted an unrecorded
conference call with counsel for the parties in the above-
captioned cases in which the parties orally agreed to waive the
applicable time constraints. Subsequently, complainants' counsel
filed a Motion to Consolidate these matters pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 18.11 and 29 C.F.R. § 18.1 (b) arguing that, because of the
substantial similarity of facts and law contained in each
complaint, judicial economy would be served by consolidation.
On August 4, 1992, the Respondent filed its Response to the
motion to consolidate, opposing the motion on the grounds that it
is premature. More specifically, Respondent states that it is
not opposed to having these cases as assigned to one administrative
law judge for purposes of coordinating pre-trial matters, but
does not now agree that the matters alleged in each complaint are
sufficiently similar that they should be consolidated for
hearing.
It appears that a ruling on the motion to Consolidate may
be premature at this time. Accordingly, such ruling is deferred.
In order to coordinate the pre-trial scheduling of these cases,
these matters will be assigned to the Honorable Alfred Lindeman.
All further correspondence should be directed to his attention at
the Office of Administrative Law Judges, U.S. Department of
Labor, 211 Main Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105.