ARB CASE NO. 06-051
ALJ CASE NO. 2005-STA-0056
DATE: November 29, 2006
In the Matter of:
WILLIAM J. GILBERT,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
McELROY TRUCK LINES, 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 December 19, 2005, the parties submitted a Settlement Agreement and Release
of All Claims signed by the Complainant, William Gilbert, and the Respondent,
McElroy Truck Lines, 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 January 31,
[Page 2]
2006, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order Approving Settlement. According to the STAA’s
implementing regulations, the 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.[5]
The Respondent replied to the Board’s notice on February 23, 2006, indicating
that it would not file a brief with the Board. Gilbert, did not respond to the
Board’s order. We therefore deem settlement unopposed under the terms of the Recommended
Order Approving Settlement.
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. 06-051, 2005-STA-0056, 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. 06-051, 2005-STA-0056.[8]
Therefore, we APPROVE the terms of the agreement pertaining to Gilbert’s
STAA claim, and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
