DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Merritt v. Mishawaka Municipal Utilities, 93-SDW-3 (Sec'y Feb. 22, 1994) |
DATE: February 22, 1994 CASE NO. 93-SDW-3 IN THE MATTER OF NORMAN D. MERRITT, COMPLAINANT, v. ISHAWAKA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES, THE CITY OF MISHAWAKA, RESPONDENTS. BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR ORDER OF REMAND The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R.D. and O.) on December 9, 1993. For the following reasons I am remanding the case to him for further proceedings consistent with this order. Complainant Norman D. Merritt submitted a letter on January 4, 1993, to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor alleging a violation of the employee protection provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j- 9(i) (1988). R.D. and O. at 6. The Wage and Hour Division determined that Mr. Merritt's complaint was untimely filed and Merritt requested a hearing from the Department of Labor's Office of ALJs. Id. at 1. Following a hearing limited to the question whether Merritt's complaint had been timely filed the ALJ issued a decision captioned "Recommended Decision and Order," determining that Merritt's complaint had been timely filed with the Wage and Hour Division. The ALJ stated: I note that this Decision and Order is merely a
[PAGE 2] recommended decision and is not final. However, considering the way in which the law contemplates the expeditious handling of these proceedings, I would urge the District Director, Wage and Hour Division to immediately commence an investigation of the merits of the complaint filed by Merritt on January 4, 1993. This investigation could be carried out while the Office of the Secretary is reviewing this Recommended Decision in preparation for the issuance of a final decision. R.D. and O. at 6. This case is not properly before me in its present state. Having determined that Merritt had not timely filed his complaint, the role of the Wage and Hour Division in this matter ceased. It became the responsibility of the ALJ, upon receipt of erritt's request for a hearing, to decide the jurisdictional issue presented, and then, if he determined that Merritt had filed his complaint in a timely manner to proceed with the case on the merits. Because the ALJ limited the scope of the initial hearing to the question whether Merritt's complaint was timely, a hearing before the ALJ and a recommended decision on the merits of the case is now in order. Following completion of the entire case, I will review both the ALJ's decision on the timeliness issue and his decision on the merits. ORDER For the foregoing reasons this case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. ROBERT B. REICH Secretary of Labor Washington, D.C.