R. Wantz & Sons Construction

Plain-English summary

R. Wantz & Sons Construction’s case came before the Commission on its own review order, but no party objected to the judge’s decision. The Commission declined to address the merits independently and left the ruling unchanged. Commissioner Moran’s separate opinion states that the judge vacated the serious citation and item 2 of the nonserious citation, while item 1 concerning an employee’s failure to wear a hard hat remained affirmed. The available official HTML does not include the referenced judge’s attachment, so it does not identify the cited standards, underlying facts, or penalty result.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard is identified in the available official text.
• Outcome: The serious citation and nonserious item 2 were vacated; the nonserious hard-hat item remained affirmed.
• Key point: With no party objection or compelling public-interest issue, the Commission left the judge’s mixed disposition unchanged.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 14796

R. WANTZ AND SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 14796

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

February 18, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

William S. Kloepfer, Associate Regional Solicitor

Robert R. Wantz, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review.
�
The parties have filed no objections to the Administrative Law Judge's decision, either by way of petitions for discretionary review or response to the order for review.
�
Accordingly, there has been no appeal to the Commission, and no party has otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

In these circumstances, the Commission declines to pass upon, modify or change the Judge's decision in the absence of compelling public interest.
�
Abbott-Sommer, Inc., 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); Crane Co., 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976); see also Keystone Roofing Co., Inc., v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 960, 964 (3d Cir. 1976). The order for review in this case describes no compelling public interest issue.

The Judge's decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's [*2]
�
decision.
�
Leone Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).

It is ORDERED that the decision be affirmed.
�

CONCURBY: MORAN (In Part)

CONCUR:

MORAN (In Part)

DISSENT:

MORAN, Commissioner, Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part:

I agree with Judge LaVecchia's vacation of the serious citation and item 2 of the nonserious citation for the reasons stated in his decision which is attached hereto as Appendix A.
�
I would, however, also vacate item 1 of the nonserious citation because the record establishes that the failure of the employee to wear a hard hat was an isolated deviation from respondent's well-enforced safety rule that required them to be worn.
�
Secretary v. Utilities Line Construction Company, OSAHRC Docket No. 4105, September 16, 1976; Secretary v. B-G Maintainance Management, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 4713, June 1, 1976 (dissenting opinion).

Furthermore, for the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in Secretary v. Schultz Roof Truss, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 14046, December 20, 1976, I disagree with the manner in which my colleagues are disposing of this case and with their views regarding the significance of decisions rendered by Review Commission [*3]
�
Judges.
�