Decks, Inc. of Florida

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Decks, Inc. of Florida for several items, including an allegation that it failed to install perimeter guarding on a flat roof. The Commission held that 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1) did not apply to flat roofs. It therefore vacated Item 7 and its associated penalty. The Commission also affirmed the judge's vacation of Item 6 and affirmed admitted Items 1, 3, and 4 without penalties. Items 2 and 5 had been withdrawn at the hearing, and the release does not identify the standards or workplace facts for those other items.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2)
• Outcome: Item 7 and its penalty were vacated; Item 6 remained vacated; admitted Items 1, 3, and 4 were affirmed with no penalties.
• Key point: The construction perimeter-guarding standard cited in Item 7 did not apply to a flat roof.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 4965

DECKS, INC. OF FLORIDA

OSHRC Docket No. 4965

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

August 19, 1976

�
[*1]
�

BEFORE: BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Ira J. Smotherman, Jr., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION: A decision of Review Commission Judge Paul L. Brady, dated January 20, 1975, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i).
�
That decision, which is attached hereto as Appendix A, n1 affirmed item 7 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).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Chairman Barnako does not agree to this attachment.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

�
1926.500(d)(1) does not apply to flat roofs.
�
That decision is dispositive of the charge in issue in the instant case.

Accordingly, item 7 of the citation and the penalty assessed therefor are vacated.
�
Furthermore, the Judge's vacation of item 6 is affirmed and items [*2]
�
1, 3, and 4, which were admitted in respondent's answer to the complaint, are affirmed with no penalty assessment. n2

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 The complainant withdrew items 2 and 5 at the hearing.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -