ARB CASE NO. 07-012
ALJ CASE NO. 06-STA-021
DATE: November 30, 2006
In the Matter of:
CLARK TEWS,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
DAHLKE TRAILER SALES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL
DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
This case arises
under Section 405, the employee protection provision, of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982.[1]
On September 22, 2006, the parties submitted a Settlement Agreement and General
Release signed by the Complainant, Clark Tews, and the Respondent, Dahlke
Trailer Sales, Inc., (DTS), to a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ). Under the regulations implementing the STAA, the parties may
settle a case at any time after the filing of objections to the Assistant
Secretary’s preliminary findings “if the participating parties agree to a
settlement and such settlement is approved by the Administrative Review Board .
. . or the ALJ.”[2]
The regulations direct the parties to file a copy of the settlement “with the
ALJ or the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, as
the case may be.”[3]
When the parties
reached a settlement the case was pending before the ALJ. Therefore, the ALJ
appropriately reviewed the settlement agreement. On September 28, 2006, the
ALJ issued a Recommended Decision and Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing
Complaint. According to the STAA’s implementing regulations, the
[Page 2]
Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) issues the final decision and order
in this case.[4]
The Board issued a Notice of Review and Briefing Schedule apprising the
parties of their right to submit briefs supporting or opposing the ALJ’s
recommended decision on October 20, 2006.[5]
DTS replied to the Board’s notice on November 2, 2006, and the Complainant replied
November 6, 2006, both indicating that they would not file a brief with the
Board. We therefore deem the settlement unopposed under the terms of the Recommended
Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint.
Review of the
agreement reveals that it may encompass the settlement of matters under laws
other than the STAA[6]
and references cases other than ARB No. 07-012, 06-STA-021, the case currently
before the Board.[7]
The Board’s authority over settlement agreements is limited to the statutes
that are within the Board’s jurisdiction as defined by the applicable
statute. Furthermore, it is limited to cases over which we have
jurisdiction. Therefore, we approve only the terms of the agreement pertaining
to the Complainant’s STAA claim ARB No. 07-012, 06-STA-021.[8]
Additionally, the
agreement provides that the parties shall keep the terms of the settlement
confidential, with certain specified exceptions.[9]
The Board emphasizes that the parties’ submissions, including the
agreement, become part of the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 (West 1996). FOIA
requires Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless they are exempt
from disclosure under the Act.[10]
Department of Labor regulations provide specific procedures for
responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requestors from
denials of such requests, and for protecting the interests of submitters of
confidential commercial information.[11]
[Page 3]
Finally,
Paragraph 16 provides that the agreement shall be governed and construed under
the laws of the state of Minnesota. We construe this choice of law provision
as not limiting the authority of the Secretary of Labor and any Federal court,
which shall be governed in all respects by the laws and regulations of the United States.[12]
Therefore, we APPROVE the terms of the agreement pertaining to Tews’s
STAA claim, and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[1] 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 2006).
[2] 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2) (2006).
[3] Id.
[4] 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2); Monroe v.
Cumberland Transp. Corp., ARB No. 01-101, ALJ No. 00-STA-50 (ARB Sept. 26,
2001); Cook v. Shaffer Trucking Inc., ARB No. 01-051, ALJ No. 00-STA-17
(ARB May 30, 2001).
[5] 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2).
[6] Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release
para. 2.
[7] Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release
para. 8.
[8] Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No.
01-071, ALJ No. 00-STA-56, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003).
[9]
Confidential Settlement Agreement
and Release para. 5.
[10] Coffman v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. and
Arctic Slope Inspection Serv., ARB No. 96-141, ALJ Nos. 96-TSC-5, 6, slip
op. at 2 (ARB June 24, 1996).
[11] 29 C.F.R. § 70 et seq. (2006).
[12] See Phillips v. Citizens’ Ass’n for Sound
Energy, 1991-ERA-25, slip op. at 2 (Sec’y Nov. 4, 1991).
