Connecticut Light & Power Company

“Docket No. 85-1118 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v. CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 85-1118DECISION Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:The issue in this case is whether Connecticut Light & PowerCompany (CL & P) violated the \”general duty clause,\” section 5(a)(1) [[1\/]]of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 651-678,…

Continental Electric Company

“Docket No. 83-0921 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.CONTINENTAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 83-0921\u00a0DECISIONBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:The issue in this case is whether Administrative LawJudge Joe D. Sparks properly vacated the Secretary’s citation alleging that ContinentalElectric Company (\”Continental\”) committed a nonserious violation of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-78,…

Dun-Par Engineered Form Company

“Docket No. 79-2553 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.DUN-PAR ENGINEEREDFORM COMPANYRespondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 79-2553DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY,Commissioner.AREY, Commissioner:This case is before the Commission for the second time, pursuant to a court of appealsremand order.\u00a0 Brock v. Dun-Par Engineered Form Co., 843 F.2d 1135 (8th Cir.1988), rev’g, 12 BNA OSHC 1949, 1986-87 CCH OSHD ? 27,650 (No. 79-2553,…

East Penn Manufacturing Company

“Docket No. 87-0537 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. EAST PENN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 87-0537DECISIONBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY,Commissioner.BUCKLEY, Chairman:This case requires us to reconsider the Commission’s earlier interpretation of the medicalremoval protection (\”MRP\”) provision of the OSHA lead standard. The leadstandard requires employers to remove from continued exposure to high lead levelsemployees who…

Frito-Lay, Inc.

“Docket No. 86-1026 \u00a0SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 86-1026ORDERThe Commission treats the Secretary’s secondnotice of withdrawal as a motion to withdraw Citation 1 and grants the motion.\u00a0 Inaddition, the Commission sets aside the Judge’s decision to the extent that it rules onCitation 1, the withdrawn citation.\u00a0 The Judge’s report now…

General Dynamics and Systems Division, Inc.

“Docket No. 83-1293 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS DIVISION, INC., Respondent.INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and its LOCALUNION NO. 1230, Authorized Employee Representatives.OSHRC Docket No. 83-1293\u00a0ORDER OF REMANDBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman; AREY, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:The Secretary’s Motion for Expedited Remand, which General Dynamics has supported,…

Gilian Instrument Corporation

“Docket No. 88-2306 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GILIAN INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET No. 88-2306ORDERThe parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement is approved.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling Jr.Executive Secretary Dated: April 11, 1989ELIZABETH DOLE, SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GILIAN INSTRUMENT CORP. Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 88-2306Stipulation and Settlement AgreementIn full settlement and disposition of the instant…

Hern Iron Works, Inc.

“Docket No. 88-1962 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.HERN IRON WORKS, INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 88-1962ORDER OF REMANDBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Commission pursuant to the Commission’sorder of March 6, 1989, granting the Secretary’s petition for interlocutory review. Atissue before the Commission is whether the administrative law judge properly granted amotion…

Lee Roy Westbrook Construction Company

“Docket No. 84-0009 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. LEE ROY WESTBROOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-0009DECISIONBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:The issue in this case is whether Lee Roy Westbrook Construction Company(\”Westbrook\”), a concrete framing subcontractor working at a multi-employerconstruction site, had a legal obligation or duty under 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(b)(1)[[1\/]]to…

Lee Roy Westbrook Construction Company, Inc.

“Docket No. 85-0601 \u00a0SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. LEE ROY WESTBROOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 85-0601DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY,Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:The issue in this case is whether Lee RoyWestbrook Construction Company, Inc. (\”Westbrook\”), a concrete framingsubcontractor at a multi-employer construction site, violated 29 C.F.R. ?1926.500(b)(1)[[1\/]] by failing to guard or cover…