Serstel Corporation
Secretary withdraws two construction citations
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1986, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An OSHRC judge affirmed citations against Serstel Corporation under a general personal-protective-equipment standard and a material-hoist standard. Serstel petitioned for Commission review, review was directed, and the Commission issued a briefing order. After further review, the Secretary decided that continued litigation was not warranted and withdrew the citation. The Commission granted the withdrawal. The official release does not include the judge's decision or state the underlying facts, classifications, or penalties.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.553(a)(4)
- Outcome: Both citation allegations withdrawn.
- Key point: The Commission ended the case after the Secretary withdrew the citation during review.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
Docket No. 85-0362
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.
SERSTEL CORPORATION
Respondent.
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 85-0362
ORDER
The Commission grants the Secretary's motion to withdraw the citation.
FOR THE COMMISSION
RAY H. DARLING, JR.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Dated: December 19, 1986
WILLIAM E. BROCK, SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.
SERSTEL CORPORATION,
Respondent.
OSHRC DOCKET No. 85-0362
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CITATION
Complainant, William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, hereby states that he is withdrawing
his citation which alleges violations of 29 CFR 1926.28(a) and 29 CFR 1926.553(a)(4). As
reasons therefore, the Secretary states:
-
Respondent filed a petition for review of the administrative law judge's decision and
order affirming the Secretary's citation which alleged violations of 29 CFR 1926.28(a) and
1926.553(a)(4). Review was directed and a briefing order issued. -
As a result of further review of this case, the Secretary has determined that continued
litigation is not warranted. Consequently, we are sending to the party of record this
notice of withdrawal. No employee or authorized employee representative elected party
status in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE R. SALEM
Solicitor of Labor
CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD
Associate Solicitor for Occupational
Safety & Health
DANIEL J. MICK
Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation
KAREN E. S. BRAY
Attorney
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).
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1986. 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.