skip navigational links United States Department of Labor
May 8, 2009        
DOL Home > OALJ Home > USDOL/OALJ Reporter
DOL Home USDOL/OALJ Reporter

Ferguson v. Schlumberger Technical Corp., ARB No. 06-093, ALJ No. 2006-STA-11 (ARB Aug. 25, 2006)


U.S. Department of LaborAdministrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
DOL Seal

 

ARB CASE NO.  06-093
ALJ CASE NO.  2006-STA-00011
DATE: August 25, 2006

In the Matter of:

LARRY FERGUSON,                                              

            COMPLAINANT,  

            v.                                                                    

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNICAL

CORPORATION,

                        RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:       THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Complainant:

            David E. Wood, Esq., McAllen, Texas

For the Respondent:

            Amy Karff Halevy, Esq., Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Houston, Texas

FINAL DECISION AND DISMISSAL ORDER

This case arises under Section 405, the employee protection provision, of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA).[1]  On June 23, 2006, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order Approving Withdrawal of Objections and Dismissing Claim (R. O.).  The ALJ stated in the R. O.:

This case was brought under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 31105.  The matter is set for formal hearing on June 29, 2006, but Complainant, through Counsel, has now advised he does not wish to pursue his complaint in this forum.  Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that Complainant's appeal of OSHA's determination of December 23, 2005, is DISMISSED and the hearing scheduled for June 29, 2006 is CANCELLED.[2]

The ALJ's R. O. and record were forwarded to the Administrative Review Board for automatic review and to issue a final decision.[3]  The Board issued a Notice of Review and Briefing Schedule, directing the parties to file briefs in support of or in opposition to the R. O., within thirty days from the date on which the ALJ issued the R. O.[4]  Both parties filed statements with the Board indicating that they did not intend to file briefs.

The Board is required to issue a final decision and order based on the record and the decision and order of the ALJ.[5]  Accordingly, we APPROVE Ferguson's withdrawal of his objections to OSHA's findings and DISMISS this appeal.

            SO ORDERED.

   M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
   Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

   WAYNE C. BEYER
    Administrative Appeals Judge

 



[1]           49 U.S.C.A. § 31105 (West 1997).

[2]               R. O. at 1.  Under the STAA's implementing regulations a party may withdraw his objections to OSHA findings "[a]t any time before the findings or order become final . . . by filing a written withdrawal with the administrative law judge."  29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c) (2005).

[3]              29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a).

[4]              See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(2).

[5]              29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(1).



Phone Numbers