Globe Industries, Inc.

Plain-English summary

OSHA issued Globe Industries two citations alleging two serious and one nonserious violation. Before the hearing, the parties agreed to reduce penalties, amend one serious item, and withdraw Globe's contest. Their agreement did not say whether abatement had already occurred or when remaining corrective work would be completed. The Commission held that this omission prevented approval under its settlement requirements. It remanded the case so the judge could clarify Globe's specific abatement responsibilities.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The order does not identify the standards underlying the citations.
• Outcome: The settlement was remanded to specify whether abatement was complete and, if not, the completion date.
• Key point: A negotiated OSHRC settlement must clearly state the status and timing of abatement before it can be approved.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 78-3605

GLOBE INDUSTRIES, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 78-3605

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

May 3, 1979

COUNSEL:

�
[*1]
�

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

William S. Kloepfer, Assoc. Regional Solicitor

Richard T. Sargeant, for the employer

OPINION:

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION: On February 16, 1979, the order of Administrative Law Judge Joe D. Sparks, approving a settlement agreement filed by the parties in this case, was directed for review under 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i) and Commission Rule 91a(a), 29 C.F.R. �
�
2200.91a(a).
�
The direction for review informed the parties that an order would follow.

The Respondent, Globe Industries, Inc. ("Globe"), was issued two citations on July 28, 1978, alleging two serious violations and one non-serious violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. �
�
651 et seq. Globe filed a timely notice of contest and the case was scheduled for hearing.
�
Prior to the hearing, the Secretary and Globe entered into a settlement agreement that provides for the reduction of proposed penalties, amendment of the description of item 2 of the serious citation, and withdrawal of Globe's notice of contest.
�
The settlement agreement does not indicate when abatement of the violative conditions will be accomplished.

In Dawson Brothers, Mechanical Contractors, [*2]
�
72 OSHARC 5/B8, 1 BNA OSHC 1024, 1971-73 CCH OSHD P15,039 (No. 12, 1972), the Commission set forth several prerequisites that must be satisfied before approval of a negotiated settlement will be considered.
�
Among other things, Dawson requires the record to reflect the date on which abatement of the violations has been or will be accomplished. n1 The settlement agreement in this case fails to satisfy this requirement.

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

n1 We interpret this to require the agreement to reveal whether abatement has been accomplished and, if not, the date on which abatement will be accomplished.

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

Accordingly, this case is remanded to the judge for the purpose of clarifying Globe's specific abatement responsibilities. n2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

n2 See Walling Crate Company, 78 OSAHRC 104/49, 1978 CCH OSHD P23,197, 6 BNA OSHC 2191 (Nos. 78-1403 & 78-1928, Dec. 13, 1978).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                �
                                [*3]
                                �
• -