AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (“the Act”). In response to a complaint that an employee had fallen and was seriously injured, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) initiated an inspection of Suncor Energy LLC’s (“Respondent”) refinery, located at 5801 Brighton Boulevard in Commerce City, Colorado, on January 14, 2013. (Tr. 37, Citation and Notification of Penalty). As a result of the inspection, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (“Citation”) to Respondent alleging two serious violations and one other-than serious violation of the Act with a proposed total penalty of $12,000.00.
DECISION AND ORDER Georgia Carolina Stucco, Inc., (Georgia-Carolina) engages in stucco work activities. It was performing stucco work activities on a construction jobsite located at 950 Ronald Reagan Drive and 680 Industrial Park Drive, Evans, Georgia, where an assisted living facility was being constructed. An inspection of that jobsite was initiated on May 8, 2014, by OSHA Safety and Health Compliance Officer Linston Maurice Starks (Starks or CSHO). As a result of the inspection, a Citation and Notification of Penalty (Citation) was issued to Georgia-Carolina alleging violations of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.451(b)(1), 1926.451(e)(1) and 1926.451(g)(1), and proposing penalties in the total amount of $18,480.00. Georgia-Carolina timely contested the Citation. A hearing was held on January 12, 2015. Georgia-Carolina was represented pro se by Mark Davison. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs.
DECISION AND ORDER Quandel Construction Group, Inc., (Quandel) seeks an award for attorney fees and expenses in accordance with the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (EAJA), for costs incurred in defending against a one-item citation. The Secretary issued the Citation and Notification of Penalty, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.453(b)(2)(v), on September 3, 2014. The Court held a hearing in this matter in accordance with Subpart M—Simplified Proceedings, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.200-211, on January 8, 2015. The Court vacated the cited item in a Decision and Order issued February 23, 2015. The Decision became a final order of the Commission on March 30, 2015.
DECISION AND ORDER Amanda Bent Bolt Company (ABB, Amanda, or Respondent) is in the business of manufacturing automotive parts, at its facility in Logan, Ohio. In December 2011, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted inspection number 110138 at ABB’s facility. As a result of that inspection, on January 30, 2012, OSHA issued to ABB a three item serious citation, with subparts. Relevant here is serious citation item 3 that alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A), regarding the use of flexible cords as a substitute for fixed wiring. (Ex. C-1). ABB filed a notice of contest. This case was docketed with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) as case no. 12-0454. (Exs. C-2, 3, 4 and 5).
BRIEFING NOTICE The Commission requests that the parties brief the following issues regarding the alleged violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1):
(1) Did the Secretary show that using propane torches to thaw frozen valves on tankers at Respondent’s worksite presented an explosion hazard to employees? In addressing this issue, the parties are requested to discuss whether the judge erred in holding that, in order to establish an explosion hazard, the Secretary was required to show that the tankers actually contained sufficient quantities of hydrocarbons or toxic and/or flammable or combustible gases or vapors to produce an explosion.
DECISION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce the Settlement Agreement or Equitably Estop Complainant (“Motion”). After reviewing the parties’ respective motions and memoranda in support, the Court ordered the parties to appear at an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104. The hearing was held on March 17, 2015, in San Antonio, Texas.
Jurisdiction over this action is conferred upon the Commission pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c), (“Act”) by Respondent filing a Notice of Contest and Answer. The record establishes that at all times relevant to this action, Respondent was an employer engaged in a business and industry affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).