“\ufeff\t\tBOISE CASCADE CORPORATION OSHRC Docket Nos. 89\u20133087 & 89\u20133088\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; margin-top:0; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:WindowText; } p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Normal { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_Normal span { font-family:Calibri; } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } table.style_TableGrid { } .style_TableGrid span { font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Header { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; } span.style_HeaderChar { font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_HeaderChar span { font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Footer { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; } span.style_FooterChar { font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_FooterChar span { font-family:Calibri; } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC Docket Nos. 89\u20133087 & 89\u20133088\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Respondent\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tINTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 2144, Affected Employees\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED PAPERWORKERS\u2019 INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 900, Affected Employees\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNovember 29, 1990\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn October 30, 1990, Respondent filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review of two Orders entered by Administrative Law Judge Delbert R. Terrill, Jr. on October 23, 1990, and September 7, 1990, respectively. Also on October 30, 1990, the United\t\t\t\t\t\tPaperworkers\t\t\t\t\t\tInternational Union, Local 900, an employee representative herein, filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review of Judge Terrill\u2019s Order of October 23, 1990. Given the circumstances of this case, the Commission finds that each of the said petitions meets the requirements of Commission Rule 73(a)(1), 29 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a02200.73(a)(1). Accordingly, the petitions are granted and the following issues are designated for review:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Whether the administrative law judge erred in considering the employee representative\u2019s challenge, as to the extent of its participation in settlement discussions, prior to the filing of an executed settlement agreement by the parties?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ruling that the right of affected employees to provide input to the Secretary of Labor and the employer, concerning a proposed\t\t\t\t\t\tsettlement agreement, requires the presence of the said employees or their representatives at or during all settlement discussions engaged in by the Secretary and the employer?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. If the presence of affected employees or their representatives at or during all settlement discussions is required, did the administrative law judge err in limiting their role to that of silent observers?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ruling that the affected employees or their representatives should be given an opportunity to provide input to the Secretary, prior to the filing of any executed settlement agreement, on \u201cany and all matters at issue in addition to the reasonableness of the period [for] abatement?\u201d\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ordering the Secretary and the employer to disclose all materials describing the substance of settlement discussions which they engaged in on June 12, 1990, and in ordering their lead counsel to submit affidavits containing a chronology of all settlement discussions occurring after issuance of the citations?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t6. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ruling that the parties may not engage in settlement discussions prior to 15 days after full compliance with his Order of October 23, 1990?\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Commission has determined that its adjudication of the above issues would be aided by the presentation of oral argument by the parties hereto, rather than by their filing of additional briefs. Accordingly, by subsequent order, the Commission will schedule such oral argument. See Commission Rule 2200.95, 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.95.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOne additional matter remains for disposition at this time. On October 30, 1990, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay of Judge Terrill\u2019s Order of October 23, 1990, and of all further proceedings before the judge in this case, pending the Commission\u2019s disposition of Respondent\u2019s Petition for Interlocutory Review. The motion for stay is granted in part; all further proceedings before Judge Terrill, and any and all settlement discussions between the parties, are stayed until the Commission rules upon the issues designated for review.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEdwin G.\t\t\t\t\t\tFoulke, Jr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tChairman\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tVelma Montoya\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommissioner\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDonald G. Wiseman\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommissioner\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNovember 29, 1990\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\” \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t”