84 Components Company

Plain-English summary

After the judge approved a settlement, 84 Components asserted that the parties had not agreed on how to abate one machine-guarding item. The Secretary did not oppose the company's request for relief. The Commission set aside the approval and remanded so the judge could investigate the disputed abatement issue.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.213(h)(1)
• Outcome: The settlement approval was set aside and the case was remanded for inquiry into the disputed abatement issue.
• Key point: A settlement approval may be set aside and remanded when a party raises a supported claim that no agreement existed on a material abatement term.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

84 Components Company, Docket No. 02-0363

Walter, J. David
Normal
Walter, J. David
2
1
2018-08-02T18:10:00Z
2018-08-02T18:10:00Z
1
587
3346
27
7
3926
16.00

Clean
Clean
false

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No. 02-0363

84 COMPONENTS COMPANY,

Respondent.

ORDER

On
January 31, 2002, following an inspection of Respondent’s facility in
Pennington, New Jersey, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) issued two citations with proposed penalties of $37,000. Respondent
filed a timely notice of contest and the case was assigned to Administrative
Law Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld. On October 22, 2002, the parties executed a
Stipulated Settlement (“settlement”) agreeing to the conclusion of all matters
at issue. The parties submitted the settlement to the judge, and on November 4,
2002, the judge issued an Order Approving the Settlement. The judge’s order was
docketed by the Commission on November 5, 2002.

On
November 25, 2002, Respondent filed a Petition for Discretionary Review (“PDR”)
and a Motion for Relief (“motion”) from the judge’s order. Chairman W. Scott Railton directed the case for review on December 3, 2002.
In both the PDR and the motion, Respondent claims that, contrary to the
language of the settlement, the parties are not in agreement as to the
requirements for abatement of the conditions cited in Citation 1, item 8a,
which alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.213(h)(1). The Secretary did not
oppose the PDR or the motion, nor has she filed a Cross-Petition for
Discretionary Review.

To
permit appropriate inquiry into this matter, we set aside the judge’s order and
remand this case to him so that he may consider the issues raised by
Respondent.

/s/

W.
Scott Railton

Chairman

/s/

Thomasina
V. Rogers

Commissioner

/s/

James
M. Stephens

Commissioner

Dated: February
24, 2003  

ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor’

United States Department of Labor,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No. 02-0363

84 COMPONENTS,

Respondent.

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Respondent
in OSHRC Docket No. 02-363 by a letter dated contested the citations issued to
it by Complainant on February 21, 2002. In that letter, Respondent also
contested the penalties proposed by Complainant for the citations.

An
executed Settlement Agreement has been received from the parties, and this
Agreement addresses all matters at issue between the parties in this
proceeding. The Agreement having been read and considered it is

ORDERED:
(1) That the terms of the Settlement Agreement are approved and incorporated as
part of this Order; and

(2)
That this Order, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 661 (j),
will become the final order of the Commission at the expiration of 30 days from
the date of docketing by the Executive Secretary, unless within that time a
member of the Commission directs that it be reviewed.

Dated this 4th
day of November , 2002. 

/s/

HONORABLE
MICHAEL H.. SCHOENFELD

Judge,
Occupational Safety

&
Health Review Commission