🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 14426-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 14426 Decided June 17, 1977 Citations vacated

Diamond Roofing Company, Inc.

Commission vacates a flat-roof perimeter-guarding citation

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1977, 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 1977
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

Diamond Roofing Company was cited for failing to install perimeter guarding on a flat roof under 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1). An administrative law judge affirmed that citation item. The Commission applied its divided decision in Central City Roofing Co., which held that the cited standard did not apply to flat roofs. It therefore vacated item 2 of the citation. The decision does not state the proposed penalty or address other citation items.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1) and 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2).
  • Outcome: Vacated. The Commission vacated the flat-roof perimeter-guarding citation item; the penalty result is not stated.
  • Key point: Under the Commission precedent applied in this decision, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1) did not govern perimeter guarding on flat roofs.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 14426

DIAMOND ROOFING COMPANY, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 14426

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 17, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before: BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Reg. Sol., USDOL

Ira J. Smotherman, Jr., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION: A decision of Review Commission Judge John S. Patton, dated January 6, 1976, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i).
�
The only issue before the Commission is whether the Judge properly affirmed item 2 of a citation which alleged that respondent violated 29 U.S.C. �
�
654(a)(2) by failing to install perimeter guarding on a flat roof in contravention of 29 C.F.R. �
�
1926.500(d)(1).

In Secretary v. Central City Roofing Co., 76 OSAHRC 61/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1286, 1976-1977 CCH OSHD para. 20,761 (No. 8173, 1976), a divided Commission held that 29 C.F.R. �
�
1926.500(d)(1) does not apply to flat roofs.
�
That decision is dispositive of the issue in the instant case.

Accordingly, item 2 of the citation is vacated.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1977. 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.