Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002
Issue Date: 07 May 2004
Case No.: 2004-AIR-19
In the Matter of
Coleen L. Powers,
Complainant
v.
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers Int'l Union (PACE),
Respondent
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM
On April 14, 2004, I issued a Preliminary Order and Order to Show Cause, directing that the Complainant, within fifteen days, show cause as to why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under the AIR 21 Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The Complainant filed the following pleadings, some of which she also filed in connection with 2004 AIR 6 and other matters before the Administrative Review Board:
"Complainant's Motion for Recusal of ALJ Chapman in 2004-AIR-6 & 2004-AIR-19;"
"Complainant's Notice of Filing Proposed, Preliminary, Comprehensive Witness List {2003-AIR-12; ARB 04-035; 2004-AIR-6; ARB 04-066; 2004-AIR-19};" and
"Complainant's Supplement to Her April 15, 2004 Motion for Continuance of Hearing in 2004-AIR-6 Based Further on Receipt of ALJ's April 14, 2004 Order in 2004-AIR-19; Motion to Consolidate to Conserve Judicial Resources; Motion to Amend/Alter the Harmful Errors in the April 14, 2004 Order in 2004-AIR-19; Motion to ALJ to Properly Address the Conflict of Interests {Disqualify} & Prohibited Exparte Material Communications With Mr. Doug Hall and His Law Firm, Piper Rudnick, LLP in These Matters."
Among other requests for relief in these pleadings, including a request that the Court become competent in the law and conduct introspection, the Complainant "reserves her right" to request an extension of time to respond to my April 14, 2004 Order, and to supplement her motion. The time for filing a response to my April 14, 2004 Order has expired, and the Complainant has not exercised her "right" to request an extension, nor have I granted an extension to respond.
[Page 2]
Nevertheless, despite the Complainant's failure to respond, I have carefully reviewed the Complaint that the Complainant filed with OSHA, to determine if it states a cause of action on which this Court may grant relief. But even under the most generous of interpretations, I find that the Complainant has not alleged any facts that if proven, would constitute a cause of action under any of the statutes that this Court may consider.
Initially, I note that the bulk of the Complainant's complaints deal with alleged wrongdoings and shortcomings of the Complainant's Union, PACE. For instance, the Complainant alleges that PACE failed to investigate and hold a hearing on the Complainant's grievance; that it refused to provide copies of documents to the Complainant; that union officials did not respond to the Complainant's requests; that union officials were not prepared, and were abrupt, rude, and discourteous. In her complaint, the Complainant requests that the NLRB investigate the alleged failure of PACE officials to competently represent union members, and order PACE to produce a copy of a mediation settlement agreement. The Complainant also alleges that the PACE President harbors resentment toward the Complainant, and has been rude and discourteous to her. The Complainant alleges that certain portions of the collective bargaining agreement violate FAA regulations.
The Complainant alleges that she was given a work assignment that was contrary to her seniority rights, in retaliation for serving discovery in a different proceeding, and that Pinnacle personnel were verbally abusive to her.
The Complainant alleges that she engaged in protected activity by attempting to schedule a meeting to try to resolve contractual grievances, and that a "named person" retaliated by verbally threatening a written warning. She characterized this activity as a "clear effort at restraint, and completely discriminatory for Ms. Powers' employee protected activities under the NLR Act, 29 CFR Part 1979, 29 CFR Part 1980, and 20 CFR Part 24."
The Complainant argues that "named persons" violated her civil rights, as well as her rights under the First and Fourth Amendments, and her rights to freedom of speech and property.
The Complainant alleges that "named persons" retaliated against her by denying her request to attend "NWA Emergency Response Plan Assist Volunteer training," and by overpaying her on several occasions.
The Complainant asks that the NLRB take action to halt union and company "retaliation, harassment, coercion, and restraints" against her for her protected activities in her pursuit of her contract grievance.
The Complainant also alleges that "named persons" violated various provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations.
DISCUSSION
This Court has no jurisdiction over allegations that involve the relationship between a union and its members or the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, nor does it have any jurisdiction over the activities of the National Labor Relations Board. Nor does this Court have the authority to adjudicate alleged violations of the rules or regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. This Court has no authority to resolve claims of violations of civil or constitutional rights.
[Page 3]
More importantly, nowhere in the Complainant's 46 page complaint does she allege facts that would conceivably support a finding that she engaged in any protected activity under the AIR 21 Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Nor has she alleged that she suffered an "adverse employment action" as that term is defined in these statutes at the hands of PACE, the Respondent, or any of the other parties that she alleges are respondents, as a result of such activity.
1 In her April 22, 2004 pleading, the Complainant also states that "An ALJ is not allowed pursuant to federal regulations to issue "Preliminary Orders"," claiming that only OSHA is allowed to issue "Preliminary Orders."