Mustang Plus
Post-hearing settlement approved, combined $2,000 penalty
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1993 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Mustang Plus is a Dallas, Texas employer. After an OSHA inspection of its workplace, the Secretary issued a serious citation with eight items and a non-serious citation with three items. At the close of a hearing held on November 6, 1992, the parties reached a settlement resolving all issues. Under the agreement, the Secretary withdrew several serious items (1(a), 1(b), 3, 5, 7(a), and 7(b)) and all three non-serious items; three serious items (4(a), 4(b), and 8) were reclassified as non-serious; and two serious items (2 and 6) were retained as serious. The parties agreed to a combined total penalty of $2,000. Administrative Law Judge Stanley M. Schwartz found the agreement met the Commission's requirements and approved the settlement.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): None specified in this order. The settlement resolves the items by number rather than restating each cited standard.
- Outcome: Settled. Several items withdrawn, three reclassified from serious to non-serious, and two retained as serious; combined total penalty $2,000.
- Key point: The judge approved the parties' post-hearing settlement resolving all citation items with a combined $2,000 penalty.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1825 K STREET NW
4TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1246
FAX
CGM (202) 634-4008
FTS (202) 634-4008
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 91-3466
MUSTANG PLUS
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on January 7, 1993. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on February 8, 1993 unless a
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
Any such etition should be received b the Executive Secretary on or before
January 2 -s, 1993 in order to ermit su Yficient time for its review. See
Commission Rule 91, 29 C.F.‘K. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1825 K St. N.W., Room 401
Washington, D.C. 20006-1246
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any part\’
having questions about review rights may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 634-7950.
FOR THE COMMISSION
KY& up yy$&L
Date: January 7, 1993 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 91-3466
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOY
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
James E. White, Esq.
Re ional Solicitor
Of&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL ’
525 Griffin Square Blhg., Suite 501
Griffin & Youn Streets
Dallas, TX 752 (If2
William W. Dendy, General Manager
Mustang Plus
4333 Scottsdale Drive
Dallas, TX 75227
Stanley M. Schwartz
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an f Health
Review Commission
Federal Building, Room 7Bll
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242 0791
00103372322 : 06
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
ROOM 7811, FEDERAL BUILDING
1100 COMMERCE
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242-0791
PHONE: FAX:
COM (214)767-5271 COM (214)767-0350
FE 729-5271 FTS 729-0350
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. .. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 91-3466
..
MUSTANG PLUS, ..
..
Respondent. ..
APPEARANCES:
Terry Goltz Greenberg, Esq. William W. Dendy, pro se.
Dallas, Texas Dallas, Texas
For the Complainant For the Respondent
Before: Administrative Law Judge Stanley M. Schwartz
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding brought before the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to section 10 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 5 651 et seq. (“the Act”). As a result of an inspection
of Respondent’s workplace, a serious citation containing 8 items and a non-serious
citation containing 3 items were issued by the Secretary.
A hearing in this matter was held on November 6, 1992 in Dallas, Texas. At
the completion of the hearing, the Secretary and Respondent were afforded an
opportunity to discuss settlement of this matter. They were successfu 1 in reaching an
agreement with respect to all pending issues.
2
The agreement provides as follows:
1. The Secretary withdrew items l(a), l(b), 3, 5, 7(a) and 7(b) of
serious citation number 1 and items 1, 2, and 3 of non-serious citation
number 2.
2. Items 4(a), 4(b) and 8 of serious citation number 1 was amended to
reflect non-serious violations of the standards cited.
3. Items 2 and 6 of serious citation number 1 were retained as serious
violations.
4. The parties agreed to a combined total penalty of $2,000 for all
retained items of the citations.
The agreement set forth above meets the requirements of the Commission for
hospitable consideration of settlements. The settlement agreement is approved.
TZ
Administrative Law Judge
Date: OEC 28 1992
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.