Secretarial and Administrative Review Board Decisions - March 2026

Administrative Review Board Decisions

The following case summaries were created by the Administrative Review Board staff.

Robles v. Mr. Bults, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0058, ALJ Nos. 2025-STA-00050, -00051, -00052 (ARB Mar. 5, 2026) (Order Denying Reconsideration)

RECONSIDERATION; ARB WILL NOT RECONSIDER SAME ARGUMENTS MADE IN ORIGINAL APPEAL

In Robles v. Mr. Bults, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0058, ALJ Nos. 2025-STA-00050, -00051, -00052 (ARB Mar. 5, 2026) the ARB denied Complainant's request for reconsideration of the ARB's February 20, 2026 Decision and Order affirming the ALJ's dismissal of Complainant's complaints as untimely.

The ARB will reconsider a decision only under limited circumstances. In considering whether to reconsider a decision, the ARB considers whether the movant has demonstrated: (i) material differences in fact or law from those presented to the ARB of which the moving party could not have known through reasonable diligence; (ii) new material facts that occurred after the ARB's decision; (iii) a change in the law after the ARB's decision; or (iv) failure to consider material facts presented to the ARB before its decision.

The ARB determined that Complainant's motion did not fall within any of the limited circumstances warranting reconsideration. Complainant argued that the ARB failed to consider material facts that were known to the ARB prior to making its decision. However, Complainant simply repeated arguments he raised in his original appeal to the ARB that the ARB considered and rejected. Thus, the ARB declined to address them again on reconsideration.

Complainant also argued that Respondents mislead him into delaying to file his complaints by allegedly withholding records and Teamsters 731 misrepresenting his rights. The ARB was not persuaded by Complainant's arguments. Complainant had not demonstrated how Respondents' alleged withholding of documents lulled him into not filing a timely complaint. The ARB also determined that, even if Complainant had believed Teamsters 731 was going to represent his grievance in arbitration, the complaint would still be untimely. Thus, the ARB denied Complainant's motion for reconsideration.