Interpace Corporation

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Interpace under two scaffold provisions, and the company contested only item 1A. At the hearing, the Secretary stated that the agreement was a withdrawal of item 1A and its proposed penalty. The judge's written order instead said that Interpace had withdrawn its contest. After the judge identified the error and requested a remand, the Commission vacated the order. The case was returned for an order that correctly reflected the Secretary's withdrawal.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.28(a)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.28(a)(12)
• Outcome: The inaccurate settlement order was vacated and the case was remanded for proper disposition of the Secretary's withdrawal of item 1A.
• Key point: A settlement order must accurately state which party withdrew which claim because a citation withdrawal is not the same as an employer withdrawing its contest.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 78-2703

INTERPACE CORPORATION

OSHRC Docket No. 78-2703

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

March 1, 1979

�
[*1]
�

Before: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Kent E. Hansen, Interpace Corporation, for the employer

OPINION:

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

The January 30, 1979 Memorandum and Order of Administrative Law Judge Seymour Fier, approving a settlement purportedly entered into by the Secretary of Labor and the Respondent, Interpace Corporation ["Interpace"], is DIRECTED FOR REVIEW under 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i) and Commission Rule 91a(a), 29 C.F.R. �
�
2200.91a(a).

On May 22, 1978, Interpace was issued one citation alleging a serious violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. �
�
651 et seq., for failure to comply with the occupational safety and health standards published at 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.28(a)(3) [item 1A] and 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.28(a)(12) [item 1B].
�
Interpace contested only item 1A.
�
At a hearing convened on January 8, 1979, counsel for the Secretary informed Judge Fier that the parties had reached a "settlement," the basis of which "is strictly a withdrawal by the Secretary of Labor of Item One A of Serious Citation Number One and the proposed penalty."

Judge [*2]
�
Fier's order incorrectly states that the Respondent withdrew its notice of contest. In a memorandum to the Commission dated February 5, 1979, Judge Fier notes that his order should have reflected the Secretary's withdrawal of Item 1A, rather then Interpace's withdrawal of its notice of contest. The judge requests that the case be remanded.

Accordingly, Judge Fier's January 30, 1979 order is vacated and the case is remanded for proper disposition.
�
IT IS SO ORDERED.
�