🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 1050 Decided November 7, 1972 Citations affirmed

Chicago Lumber Co., Inc.

Serious citation and $550 penalty affirmed

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1972, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1972
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

OSHA issued Chicago Lumber serious and non-serious citations with proposed penalties of $550 and $400. The company contested only the serious citation, so the non-serious citation became final without review. Chicago Lumber later stipulated to withdrawal of its contest, paid the $550 proposed penalty, certified correction and continuing abatement, and posted the stipulation for affected employees. The Secretary agreed, and no employee objected. The Commission approved the withdrawal and expressly affirmed the serious citation and penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard number is identified in the decision.
  • Outcome: The serious citation and $550 proposed penalty were affirmed; the uncontested non-serious citation was already final.
  • Key point: Only the serious citation was before the Commission because the company had not contested the separate non-serious citation.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 1050

CHICAGO LUMBER CO., INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 1050

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

November 7, 1972


[*1]

Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners

OPINIONBY: BURCH

OPINION:


BURCH, COMMISSIONER: On October 11, 1972, Judge Paul E. Dixon issued a "Stipulation and Order" in this case, whereby he ordered that the stipulation of respondent joined in by the Department of Labor should be sustained.

Pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651,
et seq.,
hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), I am hereby directing that the Judge's decision be reviewed by the Commission.

The Commission has reviewed the record in this case and notes that on June 7, 1972, respondent was issued citations for serious and other than serious violations of the Act together with proposed penalties of $550 and $400, respectively.

A timely notice of contest as to the serious citation and penalty proposed therefor was filed and issue joined with the exchange of the Secretary's complaint and respondent's answer.

Since no notice of contest was filed as to the citation for nonserious violations, that citation became the final order of the Commission.

Thereafter by stipulation entered into by and between the parties respondent moved to withdraw its notice of contest [*2]

with the Secretary's concurrence.

Respondent certified thereby compliance with those conditions precedent essential to hospitable consideration by the Commission of such motions.


Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Judge's order is amended to provide that respondent's motion to withdraw notice of contest is granted and the Secretary's citation for serious violations of the Act and notification of proposed penalty are affirmed.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

DIXON, JUDGE, OSAHRC: This case is properly before the Judge upon assignment for hearing by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

By Stipulation of September 28, 1972, Respondent moved to withdraw its Notice of Contest previously filed on June 19, 1972, to contest Citation for serious violation and Notification of Proposed Penalty heretofore issued to Respondent on June 7, 1972, by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Total Proposed Penalty in the amount of $550.00 was assessed.

Respondent by Stipulation avers:

(a) It has tendered payment of the Proposed Penalty of $550.00 to the Secretary of Labor.

(b) It is now, and will continue to [*3]

remain in compliance with the abatement requirement of the Citation, which is a continuing requirement.

(c) A copy of the Stipulation for Withdrawal of Respondent's Notice of Contest has been posted in the affected workplace with the affected employees not represented by any labor organization or authorized employee representative or representative of employees.

Complainant stipulates that it acknowledges receipt of payment of the aforesaid Proposed Penalty and agrees that, based upon the representations of Respondent, an order may be entered allowing Respondent to

withdraw its Notice of Contest and affirming the Citation and Notification of Proposed Penalty previously issued.

No objections having been received from any authorized representative of employees or affected employees, and upon showing by Stipulation of correction, abatement, payment of Proposed Penalties and continuing compliance, the Stipulation of Respondent, joined in by the Department of Labor, should be sustained and it is so ORDERED.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1972. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.