The arguments the parties and the amici make to us are essentially the same as those they presented to the ALJ. They have not convinced us that the ALJ committed legal error. With respect to whether OATELS can derecognize CDIR and CAC for failure to receive prior approval for the amended statute, OATELS and the Associated Builders and Contractors have not demonstrated, as they must, that OATELS's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 29.13 is reasonable. Likewise, CDIR, CAC, and the JATC have not convinced us that OATELS has unreasonably determined that the amended statute does not conform to federal apprenticeship standards and that, therefore, it has authority to derecognize.
The ALJ clearly and thoroughly recites the relevant background, the issues presented, and the position of the parties and amici. Furthermore, he applied the correct standard of review and relevant case law in determining whether OATELS's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 29.13 and the amended statute are reasonable. Therefore, we adopt as our own the ALJ's April 22, 2005 Recommended Decision and Order on
[Page 5]
Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and attach it hereto as part of this Final Decision and Order.
SO ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 29 U.S.C.A. § 50 (West 2006); 29 C.F.R. Part 29 (2006).
2 29 U.S.C.A. § 50.
3 29 C.F.R. § 29.2(e).
4 OATELS has replaced the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT) as the agency that administers the NAA although the regulations still refer to the BAT. See 29 C.F.R. § 29.2(c).
5 29 C.F.R. §§ 29.2(k), 29.3.
6 29 C.F.R. § 29.12.
7 29 C.F.R. § 29.13.
8 See Cal. Lab. Code § 3075 (1999).
9 29 C.F.R. § 29.13(c) (3).
10 See 29 C.F.R. § 18.40. The standard that applies to "summary decision" motions under the rules of practice and procedure for hearings before ALJs is essentially the same as that used under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the rule governing summary judgment in the federal courts. See Hasan v. Burns & Roe Enters., Inc., ARB No. 00-080, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-6, slip op. at 6 (ARB Jan. 30, 2001).
11 Recommended Decision and Order On Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (R. D. & O.) at 18.
12 R. D. & O. at 26.
13 Id. at 27.
14 Secretary's Order No. 1-2002, 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002) (delegating to the Administrative Review Board the Secretary's authority to review cases arising under, inter alia, the NAA); 29 C.F.R. § 29.9 (b).
15 See 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(b) (West 1996).
16 The Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. filed a brief in support of the ALJ's recommended decision and order. The California Apprenticeship Coordinators Association and the State Building and Construction Trades Council (the "JATC amici") filed a brief opposing derecognition.
17 See Miami Elevator Co. and Mid-American Elevator Co., Inc., Nos. 98-086, 97-145, slip op. at 16 (ARB Apr. 25, 2000); see also Millwright Local 1755, No. 98-015, slip op. at 7 (ARB May 11, 2000); Dep't of the Army, Nos. 98-120, 98-121, 98-122, slip op. at 16 (ARB Dec. 22, 1999) (citing ITT Fed. Servs. Corp. (II), No. 95-042A (ARB July 25, 1996) and Service Employees Int'l Union (I), No. 92-01 (BSCA Aug. 28, 1992)); Titan IV Mobile Serv. Tower, No. 89-14, slip op. at 7 (WAB May 10, 1991) (citing Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1965)) (deferring to the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Administrator as being "in the best position to interpret those rules in the first instance . . . , and absent an interpretation that is unreasonable in some sense or that exhibits an unexplained departure from past determinations, the [Wage Appeals] Board is reluctant to set the Administrator's interpretation aside.").