Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Plain-English summary

Bethlehem Steel's case involved about 36 remaining citation items and more than 20 expected witnesses for each of the company, the Secretary, and the union. Nearly all witnesses worked or lived near Bethlehem and Allentown, while the judge set the hearing in Philadelphia more than 50 miles from the plant. Bethlehem and the Secretary asked for Allentown to reduce travel, operational disruption, and witness costs. The Commission held that administrative hearings must give due regard to the convenience and necessity of the parties and should be held near the alleged violations when possible. It vacated the Philadelphia setting and ordered the hearing held in Allentown.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The order does not identify the standards underlying the remaining citation items.
• Outcome: The Philadelphia hearing notice was vacated and the hearing was ordered to proceed in Allentown.
• Key point: OSHRC hearing locations should reasonably accommodate the parties and witnesses and generally be near the cited worksite.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Johnson, Dawn Adair
Normal
OChair
2
28
2018-01-12T14:19:00Z
2018-01-12T14:19:00Z
1
464
2645
22
6
3103
16.00

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

��������������������������������������������
Complainant,

������������������������ v.

OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 77-2876

BETHELEM
STEEL CORPORATION,

���������������������������������������������
Respondent.

August 29, 1978

Decision and Order on Interlocutory Appeal

Before Cleary, Chairman and Cottine, Commissioner [*] :

Cleary, Chairman:

����������� As a
result of a series of inspections of its Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, plant,
respondent was issued citations and notifications of proposed penalty. � A timely notice of contest was filed. � After the complaint and answer were filed, a
pre-hearing conference was held at which certain items were settled. � There remain for adjudication approximately
36 items. �

����������� Respondent,
joined by the Secretary, requested that Administrative Law Judge Joseph A.
Chalk, to whom the case is assigned, set the hearing to be held in Allentown,
Pennsylvania. � In support of its request
respondent made the following assertions:

����������� (1)
Respondent, the Secretary and the United Steelworkers of America each
anticipate calling in excess of 20 witnesses;

����������� (2)
All of these witnesses are employed and/or reside in the Bethlehem and/or
Allentown, Pennsylvania area;

����������� (3)
Philadelphia is more than 50 miles from respondent�s plant;

����������� (4)
The courthouses (one Federal, one county) are approximately six miles from
respondent�s plant;

����������� (5)
All of respondent�s witnesses except three are supervisory employees who are
responsible for the day-to-day operations of certain departments and they
should be close by in the event that they are needed;

����������� (6)
Because of its collective bargaining agreement, respondent is required to pay
the different between witness fees and employee�s wages for those employees
subpoenaed by the Secretary.

����������� Although
Judge Chalk did not consider the request to set the hearing in Allentown to be
a motion and issue a ruling on it, he did issue a notice setting the hearing
for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. � It is
from this notice that respondent wishes to appeal. � We grant the request to file an interlocutory
appeal and proceed to address the substantive merits of that appeal.

����������� We
note initially that hearings under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970, 29 U.S.C. � 651 et seq. , are to be held in accordance with section
554 of Title 5, U.S.C., the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). � Section 554(b) states in relevant part:

In fixing the time and place for hearings,
due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties or
their representatives.

����������� It
has been the Commission�s policy that the �due regard� mandated by section
554(b) of the APA requires that the hearing be set as near to the site of the
alleged violations as possible. � The site
selected for the hearing in this case is not consistent with that policy.

����������� Accordingly,
we vacate the notice of hearing to the extent that it sets the hearing for
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and order Judge Chalk to hold the hearing in this
case in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

[ALJ order not available].

[*] Commissioner
Barnako did not participate in this decision.