“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 ASPRO, INC., SPUN STEEL DIVISION, \u00a0 \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78-1381 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 \u00a0 ???????????????????????? ?????????????????????Respondent, \u00a0 And \u00a0 \u00a0 UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCAL 917, \u00a0 \u00a0 ?????????????? Authorized Employee Representative. \u00a0 \u00a0September 15, 1978DECISION AND ORDER OF REMANDBefore: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE,Commissioners.COTTINE, Commissioner:??????????? TheOrder of Commission Judge Cecil L. Cutler, Jr., approving a settlementagreement entered into by Aspro, Inc. and the Secretary of Labor, is before theCommission for review under ? 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Actof 1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 651 et seq. The issues to be considered include whetheraffected employees were afforded notice and the opportunity to participate inthe proceedings initiated by Aspro?s petition for modification of abatementdate filed on March 27, 1978.[1] The settlement agreementapproved by the Judge on May 22, 1978, modified the abatement date as requestedby Aspro.??????????? TheInternational Representative for the United Automobile, Aerospace andAgricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 917 elected partystatus in this case by letter to the Judge dated May 25, 1978. Thereafter, theCommission received a letter from the International Representative, dated June7, 1978, objecting to the settlement agreement approved by Judge Cutler.??????????? Bymotion received August 10, 1978, and served on Aspro and the AuthorizedEmployee Representative, the Secretary of Labor moves the Commission to setaside the Judge?s order and remand the case for further proceedings inaccordance with Commission Rule 34(d), 29 C.F.R. ?\u00a02200.34(d).[2] The Secretary states thatthe petition for modification of abatement date inadvertently was not posted toafford notice to affected employees. He also states that Aspro and theAuthorized Employee Representative have consented to the request for a remand.??????????? TheCommission Rules of Procedure set forth specific requirements for notifyingemployees that a petition for modification of abatement date has been filed byan employer[3]or a settlement agreement has been entered into by an employer and theSecretary.[4] Absent this notice,affected employees may be deprived of their right to oppose an employer?srequest for an extension of the abatement date, Keystone Seneca Wire ClothCo., 75 OSAHRC 83\/E10 (microfiche), 3 BNA OSHC 1553, 1975?76 CCH OSHD?19,993 (No. 10996?P, 1975), and to participate in settlement adjudications.Furthermore, where affected employees have indicated an intent to participatein a proceeding by exercising their statutory right to elect party status under29 U.S.C. ? 659(c), it is the duty of the Commission judge, as well as theSecretary and the employer, to ensure an opportunity for meaningful employeeparticipation. ITT Thompson Industries, Inc., ?? OSAHRC ??, ?? BNA OSHC??, 1978 CCH OSHD ?___ (Nos. 77?4174 & 77?4175, 1978).[5]??????????? TheSecretary?s motion is granted. The Order approving the settlement agreement isset aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings.?It is so ORDERED.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?RAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 ASPRO, INC., SPUN STEEL DIVISION, \u00a0 \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78-1381 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 \u00a0 ???????????????????????? ?????????????????????Respondent, \u00a0 And \u00a0 \u00a0 UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCAL 917, \u00a0 \u00a0 ?????????????? Authorized Employee Representative. \u00a0 \u00a0ORDER??????????? Thesettlement agreement filed by the parties on May 22, 1978, is approved andrespondent?s objection to the petition for modification of abatement date isdismissed.??????????? A newabatement date is established as March 24, 1978, as agreed by the parties.?SO ORDERED.?Dated this 22nd day of May, 1978.?CECIL L. CUTLER, JR., Judge[1] Commission Rule34(c)(1), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.34(c)(1), requires that petitions for modificationof abatement date ?be posted in a conspicuous place where all affectedemployees will have notice thereof.?[2] Rule 34(d) setsforth the procedures to be followed when a petition for modification ofabatement date is objected to by the Secretary or affected employees.[3] See n. 1, supra.[4] Commission Rule100(c), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.100(c).[5] CommissionerBarnako would note his concurring opinion in ITT Thompson Industries, Inc.,supra, in which he explained his interpretation of the phrase ?meaningfulemployee participation.?”