Carmen Paliotta Contracting Co.

Plain-English summary

Carmen Paliotta Contracting Co. performed construction and demolition work. OSHA issued one citation alleging three serious violations and another alleging three willful violations, with $158,900 in proposed penalties. After a three-day hearing, the parties reported that they had reached a written settlement. The judge found that the agreement met Commission requirements and approved it. The released order incorporates the settlement by reference but does not state the cited standards, amended classifications, or final penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Not stated in the published order.
• Outcome: Settlement approved; the final citation terms and penalty are not stated in the released text.
• Key point: The order approves and incorporates the parties' written settlement without reproducing its terms.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
        OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION



SECRETARY OF LABOR,
            Complainant,
                      v.                                                  Docket No. 96-1720
CARMEN PALIOTTA CONTRACTING
CO.,
            Respondent.

Appearances: Myrna Butkovitz, Esq. Tarek F. Abdalla, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor of Labor Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir
US Department of Labor Pittsburgh, PA
For Complainant For Respondent

Before: Michael H. Schoenfeld, Administrative Law Judge

                           DECISION AND ORDER

I Background and Procedural History
This case arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § § 651 -
678 (1970) ("the Act").
Having had a worksite in Ohiophyle, Ohio, inspected by a compliance officer of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), Carmen Paliotta Contracting Company
("Respondent"), was issued one citation alleging three serious violations of the Act and one citation
alleging three willful violations. A total penalty of $158,900.00 was proposed. Respondent timely
contested. The case came on to be heard on October 7, 8 and 9, 1997 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
No affected employees sought to assert party status.

Jurisdiction
 Complainant alleges and Respondent does not deny that it is engaged in construction and
demolition. Respondent does not deny that it uses tools, equipment and supplies which have moved
in interstate commerce and conducts a business affecting interstate commerce.

Discussion
The parties announced after the hearing that in accordance with Commission Rule 100, 29
C.F.R. § 2200.100, a settlement had been reached.
The terms of the settlement have been reduced to writing and have been submitted. The
terms of the settlement meet the requirements of Commission Rule 100(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.100(b).
Accordingly, the settlement is approved under 5 U.S.C. § 554(c)(1) and Commission Rule 100. The
terms of the stipulated settlement are incorporated, in their entirety, by reference in this order.

                                                   ____________________________
                                                   Michael H. Schoenfeld

Dated: Judge, OSHRC
Washington, DC

                                             -2-