DATE: July 14, 1987
CASE NO. 86-STA-17

IN THE MATTER OF

VINCENT E. CONRAD,
    COMPLAINANT,

    v.

W.H. JOHNS, INCORPORATED,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

    On July 1, 1987, in response to my Order of June 8, 1987, the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, United States Department of Labor, notified me (through the office of Administrative Appeals) that he he had reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement entered into by the above-named parties and found them to be fair and equitable and not inconsistent with unemployment insurance and worker's compensation laws and policies.¹

    I, therefore, approve the settlement and accept the recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Daniel A. Sarno, Jr., that the above-captioned case be dismissed. See Decision and Recommendation issued April 14, 1987.

    Accordingly, the complaint in this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

    SO ORDERED.

       WILLIAM E. BROCK
       Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.

¹Inasmuch as the Assistant Secretary's communication was not served on the parties, a copy is attached to this order for purposes of such service.

JUL 1 1987

MEMORANDUM FOR: M. ELIZABETH CULBRETH
Director, Office of Administrative Appeals

FROM: JOHN A. PENDERGRASS
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health

SUBJECT: In the matter of Vincent E. Conrad v.
W.H. Johns, Inc., Case No. 86-STA-17

On June 9, 1987, your office forwarded to me the Secretary's order which required my review of a settlement agreement entered into between Vincent E. Conrad, Complainant, and W.H. Johns, Inc., Respondent, in the above-referenced case. Specifically, the Secretary's order of June 8, 1987, directed that my review should consider whether the terms of the agreement are "fair, equitable and reasonable and whether they are consistent with unemployment insurance and worker's compensation laws and policies."

After consultation with the OSH investigators who handled this matter and the Office of the Solicitor, I find that the terms of the agreement are fair and equitable and do not appear to be inconsistent with unemployment insurance and worker's compensation laws and policies. Therefore, I agree with the terms of the settlement as approved by the administrative law judge.