L.A. Dreyfus Company

Plain-English summary

The parties settled a machine-guarding citation originally classified as repeated with a proposed $360 penalty. The settlement reclassified the violation as serious but not repeated, reduced the penalty to $200, recorded abatement, withdrew the employer's contest and the Secretary's review petition, and limited the employer's admission to proceedings under the Act. The Commission approved the agreement.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii)
• Outcome: Serious, non-repeated violation settled for $200.
• Key point: The approved settlement resolved the disputed classification by replacing the repeated allegation with a serious violation and a reduced penalty.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Johnson, Dawn Adair
Normal
OChair
2
8
2018-01-09T18:13:00Z
2018-01-09T18:13:00Z
1
650
3706
30
8
4348
16.00

Clean
Clean

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. 79�1407

L.
A. DREYFUS COMPANY,

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

November 25, 1980

ORDER

The Parties� Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
dated March 27, 1980, is approved.

�

FOR THE COMMISSION:

�

RAY H. DARLING, JR.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

DATED NOV 25, 1980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

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

������������������������ v.

OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 79�1407

L.
A. DREYFUS COMPANY,

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

March 27, 1980

STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I

����������� The
parties hereby enter into this stipulation and settlement agreement as a full
and complete settlement of the instant case which is presently pending upon
review before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

II

����������� The
parties stipulate as follows:

����������� (A)
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereinafter �the
Commission�) has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to section 10(c) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590; 29 U.S.C. � 651 et.
seq.) (hereinafter �the Act�).

����������� � (B) Respondent, L.A. Dreyfus Company, is a
corporation with its office and place of business located in Edison, New Jersey
where it manufactures chewing gum base. During the course of its business its
employees are engaged in this manufacturing enterprise. Respondent uses
equipment and material from places located outside the State of New Jersey.
Respondent was and is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of sections 3(3) and 3 (5) of the Act and employed employees
within the meaning of section 3 (6) of the Act.

����������� (C)
As a result of an inspection conducted between January 11, 1979 and January 26,
1979, at respondent�s workplace, one citation for a repeated violation of 29
CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) was issued to respondent on March 2, 1979, pursuant to
section 9(a) of the Act.

����������� (D)
On March 2, 1979, pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act, a notice of proposed
penalty recommending a penalty of $360.00 was sent to respondent by certified
mail, return receipt requested.

����������� (E)
By letter dated March 16, 1979, respondent timely contested the citation and
proposed penalty. Respondent�s notice of contest was duly transmitted to the
Commission.

����������� (F) A
hearing was held on the contest on June 29, 1979. The administrative law judge
filed his decision and order of October 22, 1979. In his decision the judge
modified the classification of the violation from repeated to non-serious and
assessed no penalty.

����������� (G)
On November 8, 1979, the Secretary filed a petition for discretionary review,
in which he excepted to the judge�s classification of the violation. On
November 21, 1979 Commission Bertram R. Cottine
directed the case for review.

III

����������� Complainant
hereby agrees to classify the violation as serious, not repeated, and to reduce
the penalty proposed for the violation of 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) from
$360.00 to $200.00. Furthermore, Complainant hereby agrees to withdraw its
petition for discretionary review of the judge�s decision.

IV

����������� Respondent
hereby agrees to withdraw its notice of contest of the citation and the penalty
proposed therefor, as amended above, submits that it has abated the violation of
the Act set forth in the citation, and agrees to pay the proposed penalty, as
amended above ($200.00).

V

����������� (A)
Respondent�s consent to this stipulation and settlement agreement does not
constitute an admission of violation of the Act in any proceedings except those
brought under the Act.

����������� (B)
Nothing in this stipulation and settlement agreement constitutes a concession
by the Secretary that the administrative law judge correctly stated the law on
repeated violations or correctly classified the violation in the instant case.

VI

����������� Respondent
agrees to post this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in accordance with
Commission Rule 7. WHEREFORE, the parties request the Commission to approve
this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.

�

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

�

FOR THE RESPONDENT

�

Dated this 27th day of March 1980.