Homestead Gourmet Food Co., Inc.
Settlement approved after hearing
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1994 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
OSHA inspected Homestead Gourmet Food Company's facility in Linden, New Jersey, and issued two citations. The citations alleged six serious violations and five other-than-serious violations under standards addressing exits, personal protective equipment, emergency washing, electrical training, hazard communication, recordkeeping, lockout procedures, fire extinguishers, and electrical safety. Homestead timely contested, and both parties presented their cases at a hearing. After the hearing, they entered a written settlement resolving every issue. The judge approved and incorporated the agreement. The official release does not include the agreement's terms, so the final citation classifications, penalty amount, and any amendments cannot be determined from this document.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.36(b)(4), 1910.37(k)(2), 1910.132(a), 1910.151(c), 1910.332(b)(1), 1910.1200(c)(1), 1904.2(a), 1904.4(c), 1910.147(c)(4)(i), 1910.157(e)(3), and 1910.333(b)(2)(i).
- Outcome: Settled. The judge approved a written agreement resolving all issues, but its substantive terms are absent from the official release.
- Key point: The case ended by settlement after a full hearing, with no reliable basis in the released document to state the final penalty or citation amendments.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
OCCUPATIONAL SAFi??%%Eb:~i:cblEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Stmet, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 200364419
PHONE
COM (202) 6obbloo
ns (202) 606400
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 93-015 1
HOMESTEAD GOURMET FOOD COMPANY, INC.
Respondent.
_ _ ENTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ~~SlWUIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on Januq 12, 1994. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on February 11, 1994 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.
An such etition should be received b the Executive Secretary on or before
Fe&uq ! 1994 in order to ermit s-u&cient 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
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Re ‘onal Trial Liti ation
Office of the Sof ‘&or, U.S. DOgL
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 party
having questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMMiSSION
Date: January 12, 1994
DdCKET NO. 93-0151
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOmWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Rt 'onal Trial Liti ation
Office of the So1 ‘dot, U.S. Dck
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Patricia Rodenhausen, Esq a
Re ‘onal Solicitor
O&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL
201 Varick, Room JO?
New York, NY 10014
Zalmon Sandon, Vice-President
Homestead Gourmet Food Co., Inc.
1 Baltimore Avvnue
Linden, NJ 07065
Irvin Sommer
Chie%Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety and Healt5
Review Commission
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 990
Washington, DC 20036 3419
00106937881:02
OCCUPATIONAL SAF~~?i~~%?iIiI?ihW COhdMiSS)ON
One Lafayette Cents
1120 20th Strwt, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
0
l
SECRETARY OF LABOR, l
l
Complainant,
l
l
Ve
l
l Docket Noe 93-0151
HOMESTEAD GOURMET FOOD
CO.9 INC,
.
l
Respondent.
.
Appearances:
Esther D. Curtwright,Esq. Zalman Saadon
U.S. Department of Labor Via-President
New York, N.Y. Linden, NJ.
For the COmplainant For the Respondent
Before: Administrative Law Judge Irving Sommer
This is a proceeding under Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970,29 USC 651 et seq.9 (the Act) to review citations issued by the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, and the proposed assessment of penalties therein issued,
pursuant to Section lo(a) of the Acte
Following an inspection of respondent’s business site at 1 Baltimore Avenue, Linden,
N.J. the Secretary of Labor issued two citations charging serious violations of the standard
at 29 CFR 1910.36(B)(4), 29 CFR 1910.37(k)(2), 29 CFR 1910.132(a), 29 CFR 1910.151(c),
2
29 CFR 1910.332(b)(l) and 29 CFR 1910e1200(C)(l). Other than SWiOUS violations were
chuged of the 8tdkd at 29 CFR 1904.2(a), 29 CFR l~.~(c), 29 m 19100147(c)(4)(i),
29 CFIX1910.157(e)(3) and 29 CFR 1910.333@)(2)(i). The respondent timely contested the
citations. Following the filing of a complaint and answer and pursuant to a notice of hearing
the case came on to be heard in New York, N.Y. on November 30,1993. No jurisdictions
issues are in dispute, the parties having pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the
respondent is subject to the Act and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of
the subject matter.
Both parties presented their case at the hearing and rested. Subsequent to the
hearing the Secretary and the Respondent entered into a settlement agreement which fblly
disposes of all the issues, and has been reduced to a written Stipulated Settlement.
The terms and conditions of the Stipulated Settlement incorporated here in its
entirety are approved.
IRVING SbMMER
Judge
DATED: JAN 1 1 1934
Washington, D.C.
SOL:EDC:gr
(93) 35376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 6)HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
---------------------0-----------------o-e------
ROBERT 8. REICH, Secretary of Labor, a
a
United States Department of Labor,
l
l OS=C Docket
Complainant,
0
0 NO. 93-0151
v.
:
HOMESTEAD GOURMET FOOD CO.I INC.I
Respondent.
After a full hearing was held in this matte= on November: 30 I
1993; the parties agreed to settle the issues in dispute.
An executed Settlement Agreement has been received from the
parties, and this Agreement addresses all matters at isme between
the parties in this proceeding. The Agreement having been read and
considered it is
ORDERED: (1) That the terms of the Settlement Agmnmnt are
approved and incorporated a8 part of this Order; and
(2) That this Order, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Act, 29
u.s.c. § 641(j), will become the final order of the Commission at
the expiration of 30 days from the date of docketing by the
Executive SeCr8tary, unless within that time a mmber of the
Commission directs that it be reviewed.
Dated this
HONORABIWIRVING SOMWR
Judge, Occupational Safety
& Health Review Commission
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1994, 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.