OSHRC ALJ decision
Docket 93-0524, 93-1498
Decided September 9, 1994
Settled
Judge Stanley M. Schwartz
Beall Construction, Inc., d/b/a Tiger Manufacturing
Settlement resolves two consolidated cases, $1,000 penalty
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.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by an OSHRC
Administrative Law Judge became a final order of the Commission
because no Commissioner directed review (29 U.S.C. § 661(j)). It
binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases. The
full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)
Plain-English summary
Beall Construction, Inc., doing business as Tiger Manufacturing in Dallas,
Texas, faced OSHA citations in two separate cases covering welding,
respirator, flammable-liquid, spray-finishing, and electrical safety
standards. At a June 28, 1994 hearing, the parties used a short settlement
discussion to resolve every citation item in both cases, and Administrative
Law Judge Stanley M. Schwartz consolidated the two dockets into a single
order reflecting their agreement. In docket 93-0524 the Secretary withdrew
both citations in exchange for the company providing its written work rules
within 60 days, so those items were vacated. In docket 93-1498 the Secretary
withdrew several items and the company dropped its contest of five serious
items, agreeing to a total penalty of $1,000. The affirmed items involved
respirator use, spray-finishing, portable power tools, and electrical wiring
requirements. Each side bore its own expenses.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): Multiple 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 general-industry standards (welding, respiratory protection, flammable liquids, spray finishing, hand/power tools, and electrical), listed in the frontmatter.
- Outcome: Settled. Docket 93-0524 citations vacated; docket 93-1498 items 1a, 1b, 4, 5b of serious citation 1 and "other" citation 2 vacated; items 1c, 2, 3, 5a, 5c of serious citation 1 affirmed with a total $1,000 penalty.
- Key point: A negotiated settlement let both cases close on agreed terms, with the company correcting or contesting fewer items and paying a reduced combined penalty.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
.
PHONE:
COM (202) 6064100 zi (202) 6o%5050
FTS (202) 60641(10 FTs (202) 6o6-sEo
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant, OSHRC DOCKET
v. NOS. 93-0524
93-1498
BEALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., D/B/A
TIGER MANUFACTURING,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVEi LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on August 10, 1994. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on September 9, 1994 unless a
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGES DECISION BY THE
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
Any such petition should be received b the Executive Secretary on or before
August 30, 1994 in order to ermit sud cient time for its review. See
Commission Rule 91, 29 C.3 .R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Re ional Trial Liti ation
Office of the So9 icitor, U.S. DO5
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
havmg questions about review rrghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMMISSION
n,;-y <,Y/$i=-
Date: August 10, 1994 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NOS. 93-0524 & 93-1498
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DO5
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&
Nelson Quinn, Esq.
10440 North Central ressway
Suite 750, Lock Box 7Fir
Dallas, TX 75231
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.
00103400859:06
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
ROOM 7811, FEDERAL BUILDING
1100 COMMERCE STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242-0791
PHONE: FAX:
COM (214) X7-5271 COM (214) 767-0350
FTS (214) 767-5271 FE (214) 767-335c)
..
SECRETARY OF LABOR, ..
..
Complainant, ..
..
v. .. OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 93-0524
& 93-1498
BEALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., d/b/a
TIGER MANUFACTURING,
.
l
Respondent.
APPEARANCES:
Ernest A Burford, Esquire Nelson Quinn, Esquire
Dallas, Texas Dallas, Texas
For the Complainant. For the Respondent.
Before: Administrative Law Judge Stanley M. Schwartz
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding 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. 8 651 et seq. (“the Act”). The hearing in this matter was convened at 1:35
p.m. on June 28, 1994, after a thirty-minute settlement discussion which resulted in the
Secretary and the Respondent settling all of the citation items in the cases referenced above.
The undersigned determined that no additional persons desired to elect party status in this
matter, and consolidated the cases for the purpose of issuing one order reflecting the
agreement of the parties. The settlement terms are set out below.
2
Docket No. 93-0524
The Secretary agreed to withdraw serious citation number 1, which alleged a violation
of 29 C.F.R. 8 1910.252(a)(3)(i), and repeat citation number 2, which alleged a violation of
29 C.F.R. 8 1910.106(b)(6), in exchange for Respondent’s agreement to provide to the
Secretary within sixty days a copy of its work rules addressing the issues relating to the
alleged violations. Each party also agreed to bear its own expenses in this matter.
Docket No. 93-1498
The Secretary agreed to withdraw items la, lb, 4 and Sb of serious citation number
1, which alleged, respectively, violations of 29 C.F.R. 80 1910.94(a)(5)(iv), 1910.134(b)( 1),
1910.252(b)(4)(iv) and 1910.304(f)(5)(v); the Secretary also agreed to withdraw “other”
citation number 2, which alleged a violation of 1910.253(b)(5)(ii)(A). In return, Respondent
agreed to withdraw its notice of contest as to items lc, 2, 3, 5a and 5c of serious citation
number 1, which alleged, respectively, violations of 29 C.F.R. 85 1910,134(e)(5)(i),
1910.107(c)(6), 1910.244(b), 1910.303(b)(2) and 1910.305(b)( 1). The parties agreed to a
total penalty of $l,OOO.OOin this matter, and also agreed that each party would bear its own
expenses.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent, Beall Construction, Inc., d/b/a Tiger Manufacturing, is engaged in a
business affecting commerce and has employees within the meaning of section 3(5) of the
Act. The Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of the
proceeding.
2. Respondent was not in violation of 29 C.F.R. 06 1910.94(a)(5)(iv), 1910.106(b)(6),
1910.134(b)( 1), 1910.252(a)(3)(i), 1910.252(b)(4)(iv), 1910.253(b)(5)(ii)(A) and
1910.304(f)(5)(v).
3. Respondent was in serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 5s 1910.134(e)(5)(i),
1910.107(c)(6), 1910.244(b), 1910.303(b)(2) and 1910.305(b)( 1).
3
Order
On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is
ORDERED that:
1. Serious citation number 1 and repeat citation number 2, docket number 93-0524,
are VACATED.
2. Items la, lb, 4 and 5b of serious citation number 1, docket number 93-1498, are
VACATED.
3. Items lc, 2,3,5a and 5c of serious citation number 1, docket number 93-1498, are
AFFIRMED, and a total penalty of $l,OOO.OOis assessed for these items.
4. “Other” citation number 2, docket number 93-1498, is VACATED.
Date:
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.