, 90-ERA-25 (ALJ Sept. 4, 1991)
[Editor's Note: Page 5 of the slip op. referred to below
is found at pages 5-6 of the Web Site version]
U.S. Department of Labor
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
Mercedes City Center
200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 605
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Date: SEP 04 1991
IN THE MATTER OF
LARRY D. HENDERSON
Complainant,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Respondent,
Case No. 90-ERA-25
MICHAEL A. SMITH
Complainant,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Respondent,
Case No. 90-ERA-50
DEWEY RAY SMITH
Complainant
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Respondent,
Case No. 90-ERA-51
LARRY D. HENDERSON
Complainant
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Respondent,
Case No. 91-ERA-26
MICHAEL A. SMITH
Complainant
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Respondent,
Case No. 91-ERA-5
[Page 2]
DEWEY RAY SMITH
Complainant
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Respondent,
Case No. 91-ERA-6
BEFORE: GILES J. McCARTHY
Administrative Law Judge
AMENDED ORDER
A Recommended Decision and Order was issued in this case on
August 27, 1991.
On page five (5) a Notice of Appeal Rights paragraph was
inadvertently added to the Recommended Decision. Since it will
automatically be reviewed by the Secretary of Labor, an Appeal
Rights paragraph is moot.
Please substitute the attached and amended page five (5) for
the original.
GILES J. McCARTHY
Administrative Law Judge
GJM/dle
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
5
refusing to give preclusive effect to the
issues litigated in the CAB decision --- "
Accordingly, I find the complaints herein, based upon the
prior decision in the MSPB case involving the same parties and
issues, precluded further litigation thereto. Accordingly, I
recommend that the cases 90-ERA-50 and 90-ERA-51 be dismissed on
the grounds of res judicata; and that 90-ERA-50, 90-ERA-51 and
90-ERA-25 be dismissed as untimely.
I note that complainants have, by telegram dated August 16,
1991 requested that the cases not be dismissed since their
counsel has suddenly retired. However, I note that in the three
cases where I have recommended dismissal, a Notice to Show Cause
was issued and briefs were received from complainants' prior
counsel. The remaining cases are not dismissed at this time.
Recommended Decision
It is recommended that case nos. 90-ERA-25, 90-ERA-50 and
90-ERA-51 be DISMISSED.