“Docket No. 90-2129 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. 90-2129ORDERBefore: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN and MONTOYA.Commissioners. BY THE COMMISSION:Review Commission Administrative Law Judge LouisLaVecchia approved a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and theRespondent, A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (\”Staley\”), in this case. The AlliedIndustrial Workers of America, Local Union No. 837 (\”AlW\”), the authorizedemployee representative in the case, requested in writing that the Commission review thecircumstances surrounding the settlement agreement. The AIW maintains that its rights toparticipate in the case were 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, thejudge did not address the AlWs contentions that it had been denied its opportunity toprovide input on that agreement before it was finalized and executed by the Secretary andStaley. However, upon review of the record, we find that the AIW was clearly afforded anopportunity to participate in the settlement process, as that opportunity was establishedby the Commission 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 \”itis the Secretary who is responsible for protecting the interest of employees in safe andhealthful working conditions…. The discretion to settle a case pending before theCommission is an adjunct of the Secretary’s prosecutorial and enforcement 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 this regard to determine whether the Secretary hasabused his discretion.\” 14 BNA OSHC at 1997, 1991 CCH OSHD at p. 39,123. However, theCommission concluded that it would not be proper \”to inquire into the provision ofemployee input except in unusual or egregious cases where it appears that the Secretaryhas contravened his stated policy by denying employees an opportunity for input.\” 14BNA OSHC at 1998, 1991 CCH OSHD at p. 39,124.We find that the Secretary’s counsel extended to theAIW a sufficient opportunity for input on all aspects of the proposed settlement, beforeit was finalized and executed. A document entitled \”Affidavit,\” signed by theSecretary’s counsel, Stephen Walanka, was submitted to the judge. It describes thesettlement process and the AlW’s role in it. The document states, among other things, thatMr. Walanka spoke with AlW’s representative, Milan Racic, about the case from its earlystages; that Mr. 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 otherAlW officials attended a conference with Staley and the Secretary’s counsel in November,1991, at which the union’s objections to the settlement were expressed; and that the AIWofficials then met privately with the Secretary’s counsel to go over their objectionsfurther. Those objections did not go to any abatement matters, including thereasonableness of the abatement date.Mr. Racic discussed that document in detail in aletter to the judge. However, he did not dispute the statements mentioned above. Thosestatements, made under penalty of perjury, show that the AIW was given a sufficientopportunity to provide input on the settlement agreement, before it was finalized andexecuted 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 opportunityfor input on settlement agreement, Commission gave AlW opportunity, because judge hadapproved settlement agreement before Commission announced its current policy).As the judge noted, the AlW does not contend herethat the period permitted 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 sufficient opportunity for input into settlement agreement,they may only object before Commission to the reasonableness of the abatement period setforth in that agreement).Thus, we affirm the judge’s order approving thesettlement agreement between the Secretary and Staley in this case.\u00a0Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. ChairmanDonald G. Wiseman CommissionerVelma Montoya CommissionerDated: May 21, 1992SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant.v.A. E. STALEY MFG. CO., Respondent.ALLIED INDUSTRIAL WORKERSOF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 837,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 90-2129ORDERThe objections filed by the Union to the SettlementAgreement presented to me for approval by the Secretary and the Respondent in this matterhave been considered. Since the objections do not address abatement periods I amconstrained to find them irrelevant.The Settlement Agreement is approved. So ORDERED.Louis G.LaVecchia Administrative Law JudgeDate: March 30, 1992\u00a0FOOTNOTES:[[1]] \”The Commission ordinarily will requestthe parties to file briefs on issues before the Commission.\” Commission Rule 93(a).29 C.F.R. ? 2200.93(a). However, requesting briefs on review is discretionary with theCommission. In this case, we have determined that brick are unnecessary. The record belowis clear that the AIW’S was given the necessary opportunity for input on the proposedsettlement agreement. The AIW’s letter requesting Commission review actually corroboratesthat fact, because it states, \”we stated our objections [regarding the settlementagreement] to the Solicitor, Region V …..\” Thus, this case may be decided withoutbriefs on review.[[2]] In its Motion to Vacate Direction for Review.Staley assert that the AlW fail to serve it with a copy of its letter to the Commission.The Commission’s Rules of Procedure require service. on all other parties and intervenors,of a copy of all documents that are filed with the Commission. 29 C. F. R. ? 2200.7(a).In view of our disposition of this case. we need not resolve whether Staley objection iswell-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 deny Staley’s motionas moot.”