DATE:  August 8, 1995
Case Nos.  95-TSC-3/95-TSC-14[1] 


In the Matter of:

R. Glen Plumlee
     Complainant

     v.

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
ARCO Alaska, Inc.
Arctic Slope Inspections Services ( ASIS )
Udelhoven Oil System Services
Veco Engineering
     Respondents


             ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DECISION


     This matter is now scheduled for hearing in Anchorage, Alaska,
during the weeks of August 21 and 28, September 18 and 25, 1995. 
On July 13, 1995, pursuant to Pre-Hearing Order of April 7, 1995,
Complainant filed  Offers of Proof of Evidence  to establish a
prima facie case that each respondent was either an employer
or joint employer with which such Complainant applied for
employment.  Each respondent has filed a Response to the Offers of
Proof and Motions for Summary Decisions of Dismissal supported by
applicable exhibits and affidavits showing cause why,
notwithstanding the offers of proof, the complaints should be
dismissed.  29 C.F.R. §§18.40-18.41.

     This Administrative Law Judge, having reviewed the record as
perfected thus far by the parties, finds and concludes that
Complainant has carried his burden of establishing a prima
facie case in support of the complaints he has filed herein. 
It is well-settled that this Administrative Law Judge, in
determining the propriety of a Motion for Summary Decision,
must weigh and evaluate all of the evidence, resolving all doubts
in favor of the Complainant against whom summary judgment is
sought.


[PAGE 2]
     Complainant s case can be summarized as follows:

     Complainant submits that he has established his prima
facie case that the named Respondents in this action are all
properly named as parties.  An offer of proof has been made that
Complainant applied for employment from each of the named
respondents, either directly or as a joint employer.  All
respondents are expected to testify that they were aware of
Complainant s protected activity and of his extraordinary efforts
to alert them of his availability for work. Despite these efforts,
and in a lawfully discriminatory manner, Complainant was
blacklisted and, thereafter, limited in his opportunities for
employment.  Complainant further submits that the credible evidence
to be presented herein will support the conclusion that ARCO and
Udelhoven maintained blacklists that specified that Complainant was
not to be hired, thereby limiting his opportunities for employment.

     Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is determined that
the Motions for Summary Decision shall be, and the same
hereby are DENIED, that the hearing shall go forward as
scheduled, that Complainant and the Respondents shall have full
opportunity to present relevant and material evidence herein on the
issues presented by the parties herein, that the hearing in this
matter, as well as the complaints filed by Richard Green and James
Schooley shall be completed within the four week time period
delineated above, that an appropriate schedule shall be established
at the hearing for the filing of proposed findings of law,
conclusions of law and a proposed order, as well as briefs on the
pertinent precedents and that the parties shall have at least
thirty (30) days upon receipt of the hearing transcript to file
such pleadings.




                                   ___________________________
                                   DAVID W. DI NARDI
                                   Administrative Law Judge

Boston, Massachusetts

DWD:ln


[ENDNOTES]
              
[1] The parties are hereby advised that the companion Complaint
filed by Complainant with the Wage-Hour Division in Seattle has
been identified by the Office of Administrative Law Judges as 95-
TSC-14.  This matter is consolidated for hearing during the
above-identified time periods and the parties shall continue with
their pre-hearing discovery in the usual manner.