SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,

v.

WILLAMETTE IRON & STEEL COMPANY,
Respondent.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS
& ALLIED TRADES LOCAL UNION No.10,

Authorized Employee Representative.

OSHRC Docket No. 78-4198

DECISION

Before:  ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and BUCKLEY, Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission under 29 U.S.C. § 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 ("the Act").  The Commission is an adjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  It was established to resolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatory functions.  See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c).

The question for decision is whether an authorized representative of affected employees may object to a change in the characterization of a violation in a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and an employer.

The Secretary of Labor and Willamette Iron & Steel Company entered into a settlement agreement in which Willamette agreed to withdraw its notice of contest of three citations and the accompanying proposed penalties.  The citations required immediate abatement of the alleged violations.  The Secretary moved in the settlement agreement to amend the characterization of one violation from "willful" to "serious" and to reduce the proposed penalties for two violations.  The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local No. 10, which had elected party status, objected to this change in characterization but not to the reduction of proposed penalties.  Administrative Law Judge Jerry Mitchell held a hearing, concluded that the union's objection lacked merit, and approved the settlement agreement.

On review, the union continues to maintain that the violation should have been characterized as "willful."  The Secretary and Willamette argue, however, that the union may not object to the characterization of the violation in a settlement agreement.

In Pan American World Airways, No. 83-249 (May 31, 1984), we reexamined Commission precedent on the rights of union-parties to object to settlement agreements in light of several recent appellate court decisions and held that a union-party may object only to the reasonableness of the abatement period prescribed in a settlement agreement.  Inasmuch as the objections by the union here do not pertain to the reasonableness of the abatement period in the settlement agreement, the judge's decision approving the agreement is affirmed.

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary

DATED:  MAY 31 1984

CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Pan American World Airways, No. 83-249, supra.

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format.  To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office by e-mail ( lwhitsett@oshrc.gov ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).