ARB CASE NO. 06-027
ALJ CASE NO. 2003-STA-36
DATE: November 30, 2006
In the
Matter of:
ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF LABOR
FOR OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY
AND
HEALTH,
PROSECUTING
PARTY,
and
DOMICO
ROMERIO BRYANT,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
MENDENHALL
ACQUISTION CORP.
d/b/a
BEARDEN TRUCKING,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE:
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
FINAL
DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, as amended. 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105
(West 1997). On December 2, 2005, an attorney for the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, United States Department of Labor
submitted a Joint Motion and Stipulation and Settlement Agreement executed by
that attorney, the complainant, and counsel for Mendenhall Acquisition Corp.,
d/b/a Bearden Trucking 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2) (2006). The regulations direct the
[Page 2]
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.” Id.
When the parties reached a settlement, the case was pending before the
ALJ. Therefore, the ALJ appropriately reviewed the settlement agreement. On December
13, 2005, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. & O.) – Approval
of Settlement Stipulation & Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice.
According to the STAA’s implementing regulations, the Administrative Review
Board issues the final decision and order in this case. 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).
The Board issued a Notice of Review and Briefing Schedule on December 16,
2005, apprising the parties of their right to submit briefs supporting or
opposing the ALJ’s recommended decision. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2). The
parties did not file briefs. We therefore deem the settlement unopposed under
the terms of the R. D. & O.
We note that
paragraph 3 of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement purports to confer on
the Office of Administrative Law Judges (“this Court”) “jurisdiction to enforce
this agreement.” The authority and jurisdiction of the ALJs and this Board are
governed by statute and regulation, and can not be modified by the parties. Noting
this, we APPROVE the terms of the agreement pertaining to Bryant’s STAA
claim, and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
SO
ORDERED.
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge