“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant.v.A. E. STALEY MFG. CO.,Respondent.ALLIED INDUSTRIAL WORKERSOF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 837,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 90-2129*ORDER*Before: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN and MONTOYA. Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:Review Commission Administrative Law Judge Louis LaVecchia approved asettlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and the Respondent,A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (\”Staley\”), in this case. The AlliedIndustrial Workers of America, Local Union No. 837 (\”AlW\”), theauthorized employee representative in the case, requested in writingthat the Commission review the circumstances surrounding the settlementagreement. The AIW maintains that its rights to participate in the casewere denied. The AIWs’ letter was construed as a petition fordiscretionary review, and review was directed under 29 U.S.C. ? 660(j).In his order approving the settlement agreement, the judge did notaddress the AlWs contentions that it had been denied its opportunity toprovide input on that agreement before it was finalized and executed bythe Secretary and Staley. However, upon review of the record, we findthat the AIW was clearly afforded an opportunity to participate in thesettlement process, as that opportunity was established by theCommission in Boise Cascade Corp., 14 BNA OSHC 1993, 1991 CCH OSHD ?29,222 (No. 89-3087, 1991). Thus, we affirm the judge’s order. [[1]]In Boise Cascade, the Commission held that \”it is the Secretary who isresponsible for protecting the interest of employees in safe andhealthful working conditions…. The discretion to settle a case pendingbefore the Commission is an adjunct of the Secretary’s prosecutorial andenforcement authority.\” 14 BNA OSHC at 1995, 1991 CCH OSHD at p. 39,121.The Commission held that it can \”review the Secretary’s actions in thisregard to determine whether the Secretary has abused his discretion.\” 14BNA OSHC at 1997, 1991 CCH OSHD at p. 39,123. However, the Commissionconcluded that it would not be proper \”to inquire into the provision ofemployee input except in unusual or egregious cases where it appearsthat the Secretary has contravened his stated policy by denyingemployees an opportunity for input.\” 14 BNA OSHC at 1998, 1991 CCH OSHDat p. 39,124.We find that the Secretary’s counsel extended to the AIW a sufficientopportunity for input on all aspects of the proposed settlement, beforeit was finalized and executed. A document entitled \”Affidavit,\” signedby the Secretary’s counsel, Stephen Walanka, was submitted to the judge.It describes the settlement process and the AlW’s role in it. Thedocument states, among other things, that Mr. Walanka spoke with AlW’srepresentative, Milan Racic, about the case from its early stages; thatMr. Racic received a copy of the draft settlement agreement in October,1991, about three months before the Secretary signed the final version.that Mr. Racic and other AlW officials attended a conference with Staleyand the Secretary’s counsel in November, 1991, at which the union’sobjections to the settlement were expressed; and that the AIW officialsthen met privately with the Secretary’s counsel to go over theirobjections further. Those objections did not go to any abatementmatters, including the reasonableness of the abatement date.Mr. Racic discussed that document in detail in a letter to the judge.However, he did not dispute the statements mentioned above. Thosestatements, made under penalty of perjury, show that the AIW was given asufficient opportunity to provide input on the settlement agreement,before it was finalized and executed by the Secretary and Staley. Cf.Ficks Reed Co., 14 BNA OSHC 2222, 1991 CCH OSHD ? 29,305 (No. 90-1337,1991) (where AlW claimed that it had been denied the opportunity forinput on settlement agreement, Commission gave AlW opportunity, becausejudge had approved settlement agreement before Commission announced itscurrent policy).As the judge noted, the AlW does not contend here that the periodpermitted for abatement of the violation is unreasonable. Cf. GeneralElectric Co., 14 BNA OSHC 1763, 1765, 1990 CCH OSHD ? 29,072, p.38,849-50 (No. 88-2265, 1990) (once employees have had sufficientopportunity for input into settlement agreement, they may only objectbefore Commission to the reasonableness of the abatement period setforth in that agreement).Thus, we affirm the judge’s order approving the settlement agreementbetween the Secretary and Staley in this case. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.ChairmanDonald G. WisemanCommissionerVelma MontoyaCommissionerDated: May 21, 1992————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant.v.A. E. STALEY MFG. CO.,Respondent.ALLIED INDUSTRIAL WORKERSOF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 837,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 90-2129_*ORDER*_The objections filed by the Union to the Settlement Agreement presentedto me for approval by the Secretary and the Respondent in this matterhave been considered. Since the objections do not address abatementperiods I am constrained to find them irrelevant.The Settlement Agreement is approved.So ORDERED.Louis G.LaVecchiaAdministrative Law JudgeDate: March 30, 1992 FOOTNOTES:[[1]] \”The Commission ordinarily will request the parties to file briefson issues before the Commission.\” Commission Rule 93(a). 29 C.F.R. ?2200.93(a). However, requesting briefs on review is discretionary withthe Commission. In this case, we have determined that brick areunnecessary. The record below is clear that the AIW’S was given thenecessary opportunity for input on the proposed settlement agreement.The AIW’s letter requesting Commission review actually corroborates thatfact, because it states, \”we stated our objections [regarding thesettlement agreement] to the Solicitor, Region V …..\” Thus, this casemay be decided without briefs on review.[[2]] In its Motion to Vacate Direction for Review. Staley assert thatthe AlW fail to serve it with a copy of its letter to the Commission.The Commission’s Rules of Procedure require service. on all otherparties and intervenors, of a copy of all documents that are filed withthe Commission. 29 C. F. R. ? 2200.7(a). In view of our disposition ofthis case. we need not resolve whether Staley objection is well-founded.Because the only reasons given by Staley in this motion for vacating thedirection for review relate the lack of service of the petition. we denyStaley’s motion as moot.”