29 C.F.R. § 1979.106

Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and request for a hearing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and preliminary order, or a named person alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney's fees, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1979.105(b). The objection or request for attorney's fees and request for a hearing must be in writing and state whether the objection is to the findings, the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney's fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal will be considered to be the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the objections must be served at the same time on the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.

(b)(1) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order shall be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement shall be effective immediately upon the named person's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order.

(2) If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings or preliminary order, as the case may be, shall become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.

[68 FR 14107, Mar. 21, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 1788, Jan. 11, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2008–2018 · leading case: Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Robert Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Robert Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.106 (a). However, DOL also noted that, as it had not reached a finding in his favor, it would not conduct any further investigation on its own, and any adversary proceedings against the Airline or Union would be Mawhinney’s sole responsibility.”

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 145 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 1979.106 (a); accord 49 U.S.C.”

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 522 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2008). “See § 42121(b)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.106 (a). If the Secretary’s findings are timely challenged, AIR21 provides for a de novo, on-the-record hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.”

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 237 P.3d 565 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “See § 42121(b)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.106 (a). If the Secretary's findings are timely challenged, AIR 21 provides for a de novo, on-the-record hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.”

Murry v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008). “See § 42121(b)(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.106 (a). If the Secretary’s findings are timely challenged, AIR21 provides for a de novo, on-the-record hearing before an Adminis- trative Law Judge.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.