🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 78-0275-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 78-0275 Decided June 2, 1983 Remanded

Emerson Electric Company, Emerson Electric Motor Division

Amended crane item remanded for defenses

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1983, 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 1983
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

In an earlier decision, the Commission amended serious citation item 1 to allege a crane violation under section 1910.179(n)(3)(vi), conditionally affirmed it, and assessed $300 while allowing Emerson to seek reopening. Emerson requested a hearing. The Commission treated that filing as a motion to set aside the conditional order, vacated the affirmance and penalty, and remanded so the employer could present defenses to the amended charge.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.179(n)(3)(vi) (overhead and gantry cranes).
  • Outcome: Conditional affirmance and $300 penalty set aside; case remanded for defenses to the amended charge.
  • Key point: An employer given an opportunity to contest a Commission-amended charge is entitled to present its defenses before that charge is finally affirmed.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 78-0275

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, EMERSON

ELECTRIC MOTOR DIVISION,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 78- 0275

ORDER OF REMAND

The Commission's decision of April 27, 1983, amended serious citation item 1 to allege a
violation of 29 C.F.R. sec. 1910.179(n)(3)(vi) and conditionally affirmed that item and
assessed a $300 penalty. The decision gave respondent the opportunity to request that the
order respecting this item be set aside and to present argument on defenses to the amended
charge.

Respondent has filed a "Request for Hearing" which we interpret as a motion to
set aside the order conditionally affirming the amended charge. Accordingly, the order
affirming serious citation item 1 as amended and assessing a $300 penalty is set aside and
this case is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to permit respondent the
opportunity to present argument on defenses to the amended charge.[[1]]

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H.Darling, Jr.

Executive Secretary

DATED: JUN 2 1983

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format. To
obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office by
e-mail ( [email protected] ) , telephone
(202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386)

FOOTNOTES:

[[1]] Administrative Law Judge Patton initially decided this case and is no longer with
the Commission.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1983. 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.