Date: May 9, 1997

Case Nos.: 97-STA-1 and 97-STA-3

In the Matter of

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
    Prosecuting Party

    and

JAMES E. FORRESTER
    and

ROBERT H. SPEARMAN
    Complainants

    v.

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.
    Respondent

BEFORE: RUDOLF L. JANSEN
    Administrative Law Judge

    This proceeding arises under Section 31105 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (49 U.S.C. § 31101) and the regulations promulgated thereunder [29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (1989)]. The parties, on May 2, 1997, filed a Settlement Agreement and Release in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2). The settlement agreement resolves the parties' controversy arising from the complaints of James E. Forrester and Robert H. Spearman under the pertinent statute. The Settlement Agreement and Release is signed by the complainants, counsel for the prosecuting party, and respondent's counsel. These cases were consolidated for hearing by Order dated December 13, 1996.

    Under the STAA and implementing regulations, a proceeding may be terminated on the basis of a settlement provided either the Secretary or the Administrative Law Judge approves the agreement. 49 U.S.C. app. § 2305(c)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2). Kidd v. Sharron Motor Lines, Inc., Case No. 87-STA-2, Decision and Order on Settlement (July 30, 1987). The agreement must be reviewed to determine whether the terms are a

fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec'y Ord. Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.

    The Settlement Agreement may encompass the settlement of matters other than those enumerated under the STAA. (See II. C.) The Secretary's authority over settlements is limited to those statutes over which the Secretary has jurisdiction including the STAA. Therefore, my review of the settlement agreement is limited to a determination as to whether it consti- tutes a reasonable settlement of the complainant's allegation that the respondent violated the STAA.

    The Agreement provides that neither complainant would institute a civil action under any statute in state or federal court for relief permitted under § 31105 of the Act as a result of the warning issued by the company in this case. (II. B.) That paragraph could possibly be construed as a waiver by complainants of a cause of action potentially arising in the future. The provision must be interpreted as limited to the right to sue in the future on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any set of facts occurring before the date of the agreement. Bittner v. Fuel Economy Contracting Co., Case No. 88-ERA-22, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Complaint (June 28, 1990), Slip op. at 2.

    As so construed, I find the terms of the agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore approve the agreement and release. Accordingly, the complaints filed by James E. Forrester and Robert H. Spearman are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

       Rudolf L. Jansen
       Administrative Law Judge