Valmet, Inc.

Plain-English summary

An administrative law judge approved a settlement agreement between Valmet and the Secretary. The parties later reported that they had inadvertently submitted an earlier draft containing an incorrect abatement date. The Secretary filed an unopposed motion to vacate the approval order and submitted the corrected agreement. Because the corrected agreement had to remain posted through the required ten-day objection period before approval, the Commission directed review and remanded the case to the judge to consider the motion after that period expired.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No substantive OSHA standard is identified in the remand order.
• Outcome: Settlement approval order directed for review; case remanded for consideration of the corrected agreement.
• Key point: A corrected settlement agreement cannot be approved until its required posting and objection period has run.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


Document

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20 th
Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No.
17-0909

VALMET, INC. ,

Respondent.

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW &
REMAND ORDER

Before: M ac DOUGALL , Chairman;
ATTWOOD and SULLIVAN,
Commissioner s .

BY THE COMMISSION:

An order issued by Administrative Law Judge
Keith Bell ,
approving a settlement agreement between Respondent and the Secretary ,
was
issued on December 11, 2017, and
docketed
the next day . The judge’s order becomes a final order of the Commission on January 11, 2018.

29 U.S.C. § 661(j) (absent direction for review, judge’s decision becomes a final order of the Commission after 30 days).

On December 29, 2017, the Secretary filed a n unopposed
motion
to vacate t he judge’s order because the settlement agreement that the judge approved was
not, in fact, the final agreement between the parties—rather,
the parties had inadvertently submitted
a
prior draft of the agreement , which included an erroneous abatement date . The motion also seeks
approval of
the
corrected
agreement, which
the Secretary
attached
to the motion . A handwritten notation on the corrected agreement states that
it
was posted
by the employer
on December 29, 2017. See
29 C.F.R. §
2200. 100(c) ( requiring posting of settlement agreement).

Under Commission Rule 100(c), a n order approving the corrected agreement
must not
be issued until
after
the
agreement has been posted and the
ten-day period for filing “ objection [s]
to
the reasonableness of any abatement time ”
has expired. 1
Id.
In order to allow the judge the opportunity to approve the corrected settlement agreement once the ten-day period has elapsed, we direct the case for review and remand it to the judge to consider the Secretary’s motion. S ee
29 C.F.R. § 2200.4(a) (“ When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, the period shall commence on the first day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, and intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays shall likewise be excluded from the computation. ”) .

SO
ORDERED.

/s/               

H eather L. MacDougall

Chairman

/s/               

Cynthia L. Attwood

C ommissioner

/s/               

James J. Sullivan, Jr.

Commissioner

Dated:    January 11, 2018

UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND
HEALTH
REVIEW
COMMI SSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

United States Department of Labor,

Complainant,

REGION I

v.

DOCKET NO. 17-0909

VALMET, INCORPORATED,

INSPECTION no. 1212247

Respondent.

ORDER

This case has been assigned to this Judge for disposition.

The Settlement Agreement is approved in its entirety in accordance with its terms.

SO ORDERED.

/s/         

Honorable Keith Bell

JUDGE, OSHRC

Washington, D.C.

Dated    Dec 11 2017         

"

1
We note that the judge ’s December 11, 2017 ,
approval order was issued prior to the expiration of
Rule 100(c)’s ten-day period, which began when the erroneous version of the settlement agreement was posted on November 28, 2017.