Chicago, West Pullman and Southern Railroad Company
Railroad exemption rejected
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1976, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
OSHA cited Chicago, West Pullman and Southern Railroad for failing to comply with 30 safety and health standards at a Chicago workplace. The parties resolved all issues except whether federal railroad regulation exempted the company from OSHA jurisdiction. The Commission relied on earlier decisions holding that railroads did not receive an industry-wide exemption and affirmed the citation with a $240 penalty. The official release is internally inconsistent about the docket number: the Commission caption says 14471, while the attached judge decision says 114471. This file retains the index-assigned docket and slug, 114471, while preserving both captions verbatim below.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): The decision states that 30 standards were cited but does not identify them.
- Outcome: The citation was affirmed with a $240 penalty.
- Key point: Railroad regulation did not create an industry-wide exemption from OSHA jurisdiction.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
Document
UNITED STATES
OF
AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 14471
CHICAGO, WEST PULLMAN AND
SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
Respondent.
Before: BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
BY THE COMMISSION: A decision of Review Commission Judge Paul L. Brady, dated
November 25, 1975, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 661.
That decision is affirmed on the basis of the decisions by a divided Commission in
Secretary v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., OSHRC Docket No. 11904, December 1, 1975,
and Secretary v. Belt Railway Company of Chicago, 20 OSAHRC 568 (1975). Those decisions
are dispositive of the instant case.
Respondent, in its answer to the complaint, admitted the alleged violations and that due
consideration was given to the statutory criteria in 29 U.S.C. § 666(i) in determining the penalty
proposal. Respondent also stipulated that the exemption question was the only issue in contest.
Accordingly, the entire citation is affirmed and a penalty of $240 is assessed therefor.
FOR THE COMMISSION:
William S. McLaughlin
Executive Secretary
DATED: OCT 19, 1976
UNITED STATES
OF
AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 114471
CHICAGO, WEST PULLMAN AND
SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
BRADY, JUDGE: This proceeding is brought pursuant to section 10 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. 84 Stat. 1590 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act) to contest a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the
Secretary) pursuant to section 9(a) of the Act. The citation alleges that as a result of an inspection
of respondent’s workplace located at Chicago, Illinois, respondent violated section 5(a) of the
Act by failing to comply with 30 occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the
Secretary pursuant to section 6 thereof. Notice of proposed penalty was issued with the citation.
A stipulation executed by the parties hereto resolves the issues in this proceeding except
whether respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Act, or is it exempt by reason of section
4(b)(1) thereof. In Secretary v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 13 OSAHRC 258
(1974) petitions for review docketed, numbers 74–3981 and 75–1091 (5th Cir.), the Commission
ruled that railroads are not entitled to an industry-wide exemption under section are not entitled
to an industrywide This ruling was recently upheld and extended in Secretary v. Belt Railway
Company of Chicago, et al, docket number 4616, et al, (October, 1975) 20 OSAHRC ——.
These decisions are binding in this case; and, accordingly, it is held that respondent is subject to
the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The notice of contest is hereby dismissed.
(2) The citation is hereby affirmed, and the proposed penalty in the sum of $240 is
assessed.
Dated this 25th day of November, 1975.
PAUL L. BRADY
Judge
Copies mailed certified to:
Herman Grant, Esquire
Regional Solicitor
U. S. Department of Labor
Federal Building
230 South Dearborn St., 8th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Thomas J. Duggan, State Legis. Dir.
United Transportation Union
330 S. Wells Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
J. E. Rice, President & General Manager
Chicago West Pullman & Southern Railroad Company,
2728 East 104th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60617
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1976. 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.