Blackburn v. Mesaba Aviation, Inc., 2002-AIR-22 (ALJ Jan. 22, 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: 22 January 2003
Case No. 2002-AIR-22

In the Matter of

JAMES D. BLACKBURN
    Complainant

    v.

MESABA AVIATION, INC.
d/b/a MESABA AIRLINES
    Respondent

   This proceeding arises under the employee protection provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 42121 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, and the applicable regulations issued thereunder found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1979 published at 67 Fed. Reg. 15453 (Apr. 1, 2002) and also 29 C.F.R. Part 18. The U.S. Department of Labor issued the Secretary's Findings on June 14, 2002. A hearing was requested by the Complainant on the determination made by the Department of Labor.

   Following the commencement of the scheduled hearing in this case, it was announced by counsel that the matter had been administratively resolved. Therefore, the hearing was terminated and a date set for the submission of settlement documents. The documents were received on January 3, 2003.

   The regulations provide that settlements will be controlled by 29 C.F.R. §§ 1979.100(b) and 1979.111(d)(2). The latter regulation gives authority to the Administrative Law Judge to approve settlements in these cases and that the settlement document shall constitute the final order of the Secretary. 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(e). In the drafting of these regulations, consideration was given to the whistleblower regulations of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 29 C.F.R. Part 1978, and also the Energy Reorganization Act which are codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 24. It is incumbent upon the Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the terms of the settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable. Johnson v. Transco Products, Case No. 85-ERA-7, slip op. at 1, August 8, 1985; Young v. Hake, Case No. 83-ERA-11, slip op., January 18, 1985; Eggers v. Cincinnati Drum Services, Inc., Case No. 84-TSC-2, slip op. of ALJ, March 6, 1984; Chan Van Vo. v. Carolina Power & Light Company, Case No. 85-ERA-3, slip op. April 12, 1985.

   The document submitted is entitled "AIR 21 Settlement Agreement." It comes in two parts. The initial part is the original of the document and the second part includes the signed portion, bearing the signatures of both James D. Blackburn and his attorney, Wayne Rice, which were affixed on December 31, 2002. The Agreement consists of three pages, including the facsimile page bearing the signatures of the Complainant and his attorney.

   Upon review of the Agreement, it is my conclusion that the terms of the settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable and fully protect the Complainant, and they are not contrary to the public interest. In addition, the agreement also provides for the Respondent's payment of a $1,000.00 attorney fee to Complainant's counsel.

   Upon full consideration of the Settlement Agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Agreement is approved and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

       Rudolf L. Jansen
       Administrative Law Judge