C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 8—PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD WITH REGARD TO FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS › Subpart A—Purpose and Scope

29 C.F.R. § 8.1

Purpose and scope

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

(a) This part contains the rules of practice of the Administrative Review Board when it is exercising its jurisdiction described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) The Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion appeals concerning questions of law and fact from final decisions of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or authorized representative, and from decisions of Administrative Law Judges under subparts B, D, and E of part 6 of this title, arising under the Service Contract Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act where the contract is also subject to the Service Contract Act. The Board shall not have jurisdiction to pass on the validity of any portion of the Code of Federal Regulations which has been duly promulgated through notice and comment by the Department of Labor and shall observe the provisions thereof, where pertinent, in its decisions. The jurisdiction of the Board includes:

(1) Wage determinations issued under the Service Contract Act;

(2) Substantial variance proceedings or arm's-length negotiations proceedings pursuant to section 4(c) of the Service Contract Act;

(3) Debarment or other enforcement proceedings;

(4) Proceedings to determine substantial interest of debarred persons or firms;

(5) Decisions of the Wage-Hour Administrator or authorized representative regarding recommendations of a Federal agency for adjustment or waiver of liquidated damages assessed under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act;

(6) Other final actions of the Wage-Hour Administrator or authorized representative (e.g., additional classification actions and rulings with respect to application of the Act(s), or the regulations, or of wage determinations issued thereunder).

(7) Other matters specifically referred to the Board by the Secretary of Labor.

(c) In considering the matters within the scope of its jurisdiction the Board shall act as the authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and shall act as fully and finally as might the Secretary of Labor concerning such matters, except as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).

(d) The Board is an appellate body and shall decide cases properly brought before it on the basis of all relevant matter contained in the entire record before it. Decisions by the Board shall be based upon the preponderance of the evidence before it. It may remand with appropriate instructions any case for the taking of additional evidence and the making of new or modified findings by reason of the additional evidence. However, unless the petition for review cities alleged procedural irregularities in the proceeding below and not the merits of a case, the Board shall not consider a petition for review filed by any party against whom default judgment has been entered pursuant to the provisions of part 6 of this title.

[49 FR 10637, Mar. 21, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996; 85 FR 13031, Mar. 6, 2020; 85 FR 30616, May 20, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case: Karawia v. United States Dep't of Labor, 627 F. Supp. 2d 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Karawia v. United States Dep't of Labor, 627 F. Supp. 2d 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 3× “On the other hand, the IDEA requires the district court to “hear additional evidence at the request of a party,” and neither Section 39 nor the DOL’s implementing regulations expressly permit introduction of new evidence before either the ARB or the district court.”
Dantran, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 171 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1999). “They refer to the ARB as an “appellate body,” 29 C.F.R. § 8.1 (d), and empower it to “modify or set aside” an ALJ’s findings of fact “only when it determines that those findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence,” id.”
Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Serv. of Texas, Inc., 412 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1969). “11 of the Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing, 29 C.F.R. § 8.1 , et seq. (Now 29 C.F.R. § *1034 1501 , et seq.”
Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Serv. of Texas, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 97 (W.D. La. 1964). · cites it 2× “11, of the Department of Labor Regulations (29 C.F.R. 8.1 et seq.), and a well-established safety practice regarding the tank entry.”
Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. Ohio Bldg. Serv. & Maint., Inc. William W. Johnson v. Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, 14 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir. 1994). “29 C.F.R. § 8.1 . To be timely, such appeals would have to be filed with the Board within forty days of an ALJ’s decision.”
Summitt Investigative Serv., Inc. v. Herman, 34 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1998). “” 29 C.F.R. § 8.1 (d). As an “appellate body” charged with deciding cases based on the “record before it,” the ARB is hardly the forum for raising novel legal theories that depend upon facts never developed in the “record before it.”
Brinegar v. San Ore Constr. Co., 302 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. Ark. 1969). ““Where, as here, there is a failure to comply with Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing (29 CFR 8.1 et seq.) * * * and this violation proximately results in death, there exists fault and a breach of duty which permits recovery for damages * * *,” (citing Kernan and…”
Jose Perez v. Owl, Inc., 110 F.4th 1296 (11th Cir. 2024). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 8.1 (b)(1), (6). In a case like this one, district courts can simply wait until the end of any DOL administrative proceedings under the SCA before mov- ing forward on an FLSA overtime claim that relies on an SCA rate.”
United States v. Hunter L. Todd A/K/A Todd Hunter D/B/A Courier Express Mail & Package Delivery Serv., 38 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 1994). “1994); 29 C.F.R. § 8.1 . To be timely, such appeals must be filed with the Appeals Board within forty days of an ALJ’s decision.”
Vigilantes, Inc. v. Adm'r, Wage & Hour Div., 769 F. Supp. 57 (D.P.R. 1991). “” 29 C.F.R. § 8.1 (d). The Board’s decision must be based on a preponderance of the evidence found in the administrative record.”
Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Serv. of Texas, Inc., 412 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1969). “11 of the Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing, 29 C.F.R. 8.1, et seq. (Now 29 C.F.R. 1501, et seq.”
BCFS Health & Human Servs. v. United States Dep't of Labor (W.D. Tex. 2022). “20, which then invokes the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 8.1 through 8.19. And as noted previously, the ARB’s decision constitutes the DOL’s final decision and, as such, is judicially reviewable.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 8.1(d) — 1 case
Dantran, Inc. v. United States Dept (1st Cir. 1999).
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.