Federal agency decisions, searchable in plain English.
Workplace-safety cases from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) and mine-safety cases from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), each with a plain-English summary, the standards it cites, and whether it counts as precedent. More agencies are coming.
No decisions match these filters
Try a different search term or clear the filters.
Holt Cargo Systems, Inc.
Forklift-horn and carbon-monoxide-testing citations affirmed, but rider and hard-hat items thrown out
Holt Cargo Systems is a stevedoring company that was unloading pallets of plywood from the vessel Pan Queen at a marine terminal in Camden, New Jersey. After an OSHA inspection, the Secretary of Labor issued three serious citation items and two repeated items, proposing $9,000 for the serious items…
I.T.O. Corporation of Ameriport
Longshore hardhat citation vacated
OSHA alleged that six longshoremen, including their foreman, worked in a vessel hold without hardhats. If the foreman's testimony was credited, he had just arrived, lacked knowledge of the two uncovered employees, and immediately corrected them. If OSHA's version was credited, I.T.O. still rebutted…
Chesapeake Operating Company
Deck-cargo item vacated and hardhat item affirmed
Chesapeake, a Baltimore stevedoring company, had employees clearing snow and ice from modular-home sections stowed on a ship's deck without fall protection. A majority agreed that the cited fall-protection standard applied to deck cargo, but the item was still vacated because one Commissioner found…
Seattle Stevedore Company
Hardhat violations affirmed as nonserious
Seattle Stevedore supplied hardhats, but longshore employees frequently refused to wear them and the company largely stopped using discipline after one 1973 incident. The Commission held that the company had not exhausted less drastic enforcement options, including bargaining with the union and…
T. Smith & Sons (Texas), Inc.
Repeated hard-hat penalty set at $200
T. Smith & Sons performed stevedoring work at the Port of Houston. About half of the employees unloading pipe and steel from one ship were not wearing hard hats, and the company's supervisor was also unprotected. The company did not dispute the repeated-serious violation, but challenged OSHA's…
Bernard S. Costello, Inc.
Longshoring citations affirmed after the employer withdrew its contest
Bernard S. Costello, Inc. operated as a contract stevedore and terminal operator. OSHA cited the company after employees worked near unguarded open weather-deck hatches and handled cargo without protective hats. The judge found that the open hatches exposed two employees to a possible 17-foot fall…
International Terminal Operating Co., Inc.
Hard-hat violation affirmed without repeat status or penalty
International Terminal Operating employed about eighty stevedores unloading frozen meat from a vessel in Port Newark. Six employees worked beneath loaded cargo slings without hard hats. The company issued hats, refused to sign in employees who lacked them, made paging announcements, and posted…
Everett Stevedoring Company
Repeat hard-hat violation affirmed
Three Everett Stevedoring longshoremen were not wearing protective hats while logs were being hoisted aboard a vessel. Two worked on deck within the swing area of operating cargo gear, and one worked on a log boom beside the ship; all had access to hazards from the gear, slings, or falling debris…
J.A. McCarthy, Inc
Hardhat violations reduced to nonserious with no penalties
J.A. McCarthy conducted longshoring operations in Philadelphia and supplied hardhats, but many employees refused to wear them. The Commission held that urging employees to comply without using available disciplinary measures did not satisfy the longshoring hardhat standard. It reversed the judge's…
J.A. McCarthy, Inc.
Employee refusal did not excuse hardhat violations
J.A. McCarthy employed longshoremen at the Port of Philadelphia who repeatedly refused to wear required protective hats. The company supplied hats, posted signs, conducted an educational campaign, included reminders in pay envelopes, and held safety meetings, but did not discipline or discharge…
International Terminal Operating Corporation of New England; John T. Clark and Son of Boston, Inc.; Terminal Services, Inc.; Bernard S. Costello, Inc.
Longshore hard-hat citations affirmed
Four Boston stevedoring companies were cited in nine cases after longshore employees handled cargo without required protective hats. The employers had supplied hats and repeatedly instructed workers to wear them, but they did not discipline noncompliant employees because they feared crews would…
Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.
Five longshore hard-hat violations affirmed
Atlantic & Gulf's longshore employees repeatedly worked without protective hats where falling objects could injure their heads. The company supplied hats at no charge and promoted their use through meetings, signs, pay-envelope messages, and hiring tapes, but many employees continued to refuse…
Northern Metal Company
Hard-hat violations affirmed but repeat claims and penalties removed
Northern Metal's longshore employees repeatedly worked without protective hats despite the company's efforts to encourage their use. The Commission held that Northern Metal remained their employer under the economic realities of the hiring-hall arrangement because it paid the workers, determined…
Independent Pier Company; Holt Marine Terminal, Inc.; I.T.O. of Ameriport, Inc.; Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.
Longshore hard-hat violations affirmed but employee order vacated
Six consolidated cases involved stevedoring companies whose longshore employees refused to wear supplied hard hats at the Port of Philadelphia. The judge held the employers responsible under 29 C.F.R. § 1918.105(a), affirmed or modified the citations, and assessed penalties totaling $545 across the…
Rothschild Washington Stevedoring Co.
Hard-hat citation affirmed, penalty reduced to $50
Rothschild Washington Stevedoring loaded and discharged cargo at a Seattle pier and aboard a ship. An OSHA inspector saw five longshoremen working without hard hats while exposed to ship gear, overhead cargo, and material that could fall from loads. The company supplied hard hats, required…
Pittston Stevedoring Corporation; and International Terminal Operating Co., Inc.
Hard-hat citations affirmed without penalties
Inspectors found large numbers of longshore workers without required protective headwear aboard several ships operated by Pittston and International Terminal Operating. The companies had supplied hard hats, posted notices, held safety meetings, and urged voluntary compliance, but had not removed…
Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc.; Nacirema Operating Company, Inc.;Holt Marine Terminal, Inc.; and International Terminal Operating Corporation of Ameriport
Mixed hard-hat ruling for port employers
Four Port of Philadelphia employers were cited because longshore employees did not wear required protective hats. The Commission held that the longshoring rule imposed a duty on employers and that incorporation of the referenced private consensus specifications was legally permissible. It also…
Marine Terminals Corp.
Posted settlement approved without separate service proof
Marine Terminals contested only the two $125 penalties associated with its citation, so the citation itself had already become final. The parties agreed that OSHA would withdraw one proposed penalty and the employer would withdraw its contest to the other. The settlement was posted at the worksite…
John W. McGrath Corporation
Omitted hard-hat item remained final
McGrath's notice of contest expressly challenged citation items 2 and 3 but omitted item 1, which alleged that longshore employees lacked required protective hats. At the hearing, McGrath said the omission was a typographical error and sought to defend item 1 while withdrawing its contest to the…
What these documents are
- Commission decisions: Rulings by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission itself, the highest level of agency review. These are citable as Commission precedent, though a decision may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance.
- ALJ decisions: Rulings by OSHRC Administrative Law Judges after a hearing. When no Commissioner directs review, an ALJ decision becomes a final order under 29 U.S.C. § 661(j): it binds the parties in that case but is not binding precedent in other cases.
- Why finality matters: Every page here says which kind of decision you are reading, so you know whether it is precedent you can cite or a final order that only shows how one judge ruled on one set of facts.
- Where they come from: Every page links the official OSHRC public release, and the full text on the page is that release. The plain-English summaries are written by Ezel.