Monk v. Hubbell Inc.

U.S. Department of Labor 	Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
NATHANIEL MONK,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
HUBBELL INC.,
RESPONDENT.
ARB CASE NO. 2025-0091
ALJ CASE NO. 2021-PSI-00003
ALJ JOHN P. SELLERS, III
DATE: November 18, 2025
Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and BURRELL,
Administrative Appeals Judge
ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA) and its implementing regulations.0F
1
Complainant Nathaniel Monk filed a complaint against Respondent Hubbell Inc.
with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration on October 12, 2020, alleging Respondent violated the PSIA. On
August 27, 2025, a U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued a Decision and Order Denying Complaint (D. & O.), ruling against
Complainant and denying his Complaint. On September 11, 2025, Complainant
filed a copy of the D. & O. with the Administrative Review Board (Board).
The Secretary of Labor has delegated authority to the Board to consider
petitions for review under the PSIA.1F
2 Complainant, however, failed to file a petition
for review. The PSIA’s implementing regulations state that a party seeking review
1 	49 U.S.C. § 60129; 29 C.F.R. Part 1981 (2025).
2 	Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of
Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020); see
also 29 C.F.R. § 1981.110(a).

2
of an ALJ’s decision must file a “written petition for review” with the Board, that
the petition for review “must specifically identify the findings, conclusions, or orders
to which exception is taken,” and that “[a]ny exception not specifically urged
ordinarily will be deemed to have been waived by the parties.”3 Filing a copy of the
D. & O, without filing a separate written petition for review identifying exceptions
to the ALJ’s findings, conclusions, or orders, does not satisfy this regulatory
requirement.
Accordingly, the Board issued an Order on September 22, 2025, directing
Complainant to file a written petition for review in compliance with 29 C.F.R. §
1981.110(a) by October 2, 2025. The Board cautioned Complainant that if it did not
receive a petition for review as ordered, it would administratively close this case.
As of the date of this Order, Complainant has not filed a petition for review or
made any other response to or communication with the Board. Thus, no petition for
review of the D. & O. has been filed. Consequently, the Board hereby ORDERS
that this matter be ADMINSITRATIVELY CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
THOMAS H. BURRELL
Administrative Appeals Judge
3 29 C.F.R. § 1981.110(a).