Howick v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 2003-STA-6 (ALJ Sept. 26, 2003)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 36 E. 7th Street, Suite 2525 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 (513) 684-6108 (FAX)

Issue Date: 26 September 2003

Case No. 2003-STAA-00006

MARK E. HOWICK,
   Complainant,

v.

CAMPBELL-EWALD COMPANY,
   Respondent.

   Pending determination in the present matter is Respondent's post-hearing revised objections to ex parte communications by Complainant and his counsel with the Office of Administrative Law Judges and requesting an order prohibiting ex parte communications with the Office of Administrative Law Judges during the pendency of this matter, filed on September 24, 2003. This filing replaced Respondent's September 22, 2003, post-hearing filing of its objections to ex parte communications by Complainant and his counsel with the Office of Administrative Law Judges and requesting a "gag order" during the pendency of this matter, which was withdrawn by the Respondent on September 24, 2003 in response to Complainant's objections thereto which were filed on September 22, 2003.

   On September 18, 2003, the undersigned issued his recommended decision and order – dismissal of complaint. The appendix informed the parties that under the provisions of 29 C.F.R §1978.109(c)(2), they could file briefs in support of or in opposition to the undersigned's decision and order within thirty days of the date of its issuance, unless the Administrative Review Board, established a different briefing schedule. 29 C.F.R §1978.109(a) provides that: "For the purposes of the statute the issuance of the judge's decision shall be deemed the conclusion of the hearing," and directs that the decision and order be forwarded immediately with the record to the Administrative Review Board for review. At the time of issuance of the present recommended decision and order, the jurisdiction of this matter technically passed to the Administrative Review Board.

   The present request for an order prohibiting ex parte communications is therefore moot, as there is no matter pending before the undersigned to which the order could be applied. In addition, the undersigned knows of no ex parte communication in violation of 29 C.F.R. §18.38 that has occurred in the matter when it was pending before the undersigned, including any communication with District Chief Administrative Law Judge Daniel J. Roketenetz, with the undersigned, with any member of the staff of undersigned, or the staff of this District Office, or with any other office within the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Therefore,

   IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's objections and order prohibiting ex parte communications is denied.

      THOMAS F. PHALEN, JR.
      Administrative Law Judge