Armco, Inc.

Plain-English summary

The Secretary and Armco submitted a settlement agreement, but the authorized employee representative objected that plant foremen were being allowed to omit or alter existing lockout procedures. Judge Covette Rooney reviewed the objection after a Commission direction for review and remand. She explained that employees may object to a settlement only on the reasonableness of the time allowed for abatement. Because the union's concerns did not challenge the abatement period, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear them. The judge approved the settlement and incorporated it into the order.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the order.
• Outcome: Settlement approved and incorporated into the order.
• Key point: An employee representative's settlement objection is limited to whether the abatement period is reasonable.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
      OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. DOCKET NO. 98-0810
ARMCO, INC.,
Respondent

                        and

USWA, LOCAL 169
Authorized Employee Representative.

                     ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
     Pursuant to the Review Commission’s February 3, 1999, Direction for Review and

Remand Order, the undersigned has reviewed the contents of the objection, filed by the Union
with respect to the settlement filed by the Secretary and Armco in the above-captioned matter. In
a letter dated December 29, 1998, the Union states that the authorized employee representative
did not sign the settlement because "foreman (sic) in the plant are being permitted to omit and/or
alter existing lockout procedures", and that a "review of the lockout procedures outlined in the
settlement agreement should be completed before any changes are made in those procedures". It
is well settled that employees may object before the Commission only to the reasonableness of
the period of time set forth in a settlement agreement for the abatement of the violations. See
General Electric Co.,14 BNA OSHC 1763, 1765 (No. 88- 2265, 1990), Pan American World
Airlines, Inc.,11 BNA OSHC 2003, 2004 (No. 83-249, 1984), and American Cyanamid Co., 9

BNA OSHC 2052, 2053 (No. 77-3752, 1981). In view of the foregoing, the undersigned has
determined that the Union has not raised any objections to the reasonableness of the abatement
period set forth in the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Commission has no jurisdiction to
hear the Union's objections to the settlement agreement.
 The terms and conditions of the executed settlement agreement filed on December 21,
1998, dispose of all matters at issue between the parties in this proceeding, and the agreement
meets all criteria for Commission approval. The settlement agreement is accordingly approved
and incorporated as part of this order. Pursuant to section 12(j) of the Act, this order will become
a final order of the Commission at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of docketing
by the Executive Secretary, unless within that time a member of the Commission directs its
review.

                                                  Covette Rooney
                                                  Judge, OSHRC

Dated: 2/8/99
Washington, D.C.