TIMOTHY O'SULLIVAN AND
DONALD W. DEL CORE, SR.,
COMPLAINANTS,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. 89-ERA-34
DONALD W. DEL CORE, SR.,
COMPLAINANT,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
A DIVISION OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. 90-ERA-5
DONALD W. DEL CORE,
COMPLAINANT,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NOS. 90-ERA-33 & 34
[Page 2]
DONALD W. DEL CORE, SR.,
COMPLAINANT,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. 91-ERA-51
DONALD W. DEL CORE, SR.,
COMPLAINANT,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. 92-ERA-3
DONALD W. DEL CORE, SR.,
COMPLAINANT,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
CASE NOS. 92-ERA-12, 17, 18
TIMOTHY O'SULLIVAN AND
DONALD W. DEL CORE, SR.,
COMPLAINANTS,
V.
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
[Page 3]
FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINTS
Before me for review are the several Recommended Decision(s)
and Order(s) (R.D. and 0.) of the Administrative Law Judges
(ALJs) in these consolidated cases arising under the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 5851 (1988). The parties' "Joint Stipulation for Dismissal of
Complaints with Prejudice and Approval of Settlement Agreement"
(joint Stipulations), dated March 13, 1992, is before me, along
with the fully executed Settlement Agreement and General Release
for each Complainant.
In response to my June 17, 1992, Order of Consolidation and
order to Submit Attachments, Respondent's counsel submitted as
requested, the March 3, 1992, letter referred to in Paragraph 4.2
of each settlement agreement. Neither party has objected to my
consideration of Case No. 91-ERA-51 pursuant to the Del Core
Settlement Agreement, Para. #1.1, and Joint Stipulation, see caption.
The parties' settlement agreements and attachments and the
general releases have been carefully reviewed. These settlement
agreements appear to encompass matters arising under various
laws, only one of which is the ERA. I have, therefore, limited
my review to determining whether the terms of these agreements
are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of Complainants'
allegations that Respondent violated the ERA.1See Poulos v.
Ambassador Fuel Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order,
Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, and cases cited therein.
1With respect to Paragraph 1.4 on
Recision, Respondent has
provided notice that all other necessary approvals of the
settlements have been received. Accordingly, any issue
concerning the possibility of recision under this provision
appears moot.