” SECRETARY OF LABOR,\t Complainant,\t v.\tOSHRC Docket No. 06-0936BILLIE GOWANS, d\/b\/a BILLY G?S,\t Respondent.\t APPEARANCES:Judson H.P. Dean, Attorney; Catherine Oliver Murphy, Regional Solicitor;Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC For the ComplainantBillie Gowans, \/pro se\/; Philadelphia, PA For the RespondentRemand OrderBefore: RAILTON, Chairman; ROGERS and THOMPSON, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION: In an order dated December 13, 2006, Administrative LawJudge G. Marvin Bober issued a Consent Order Approving Settlement in theabove-captioned case. Billie Gowans, d\/b\/a Billy G?s (?Billy G?s?),appearing \/pro se\/,^Footnote filed a letter withthe Commission on January 10, 2007, objecting to the payment required bythe approved settlement agreement.^Footnote Commissioner HoraceA. Thompson III subsequently directed this case for review on January12, 2007. For the following reasons, we remand this matter to the judgefor further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Background The fatality of a Billy G?s employee triggered an inspectionby OSHA of Billy G?s worksite from March 11 through April 11, 2006. OnMay 5, 2006, the Secretary issued to Billy G?s one serious and onewillful citation, with a total penalty amount of $27,100, for allegedviolations of several general industry lockout\/tagout standards. Thecitations were timely contested by Billy G?s.On June 16, 2006, theSecretary filed a Joint Motion For Extension Of Time To File A Complaintthat indicated a need ?for additional time to explore an informalresolution,? which was granted on June 22, 2006. Subsequently, theparties duly filed a complaint and answer, and the case was assigned toJudge G. Marvin Bober on September 6, 2006. By facsimile dated October 4, 2006, the Secretary advisedthe judge that she and Billy G?s had reached a verbal settlement, andthe judge received the fully executed settlement agreement on December4, 2006.Discussion As stated in the Commission?s Rules of Procedure,?[s]ettlement is permitted and encouraged by the Commission at any stageof the proceedings.? Commission Rule 100(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.100(a).However, ?[t]he Commission must be assured that a proposed settlementrepresents a genuine agreement between the parties and a true meeting ofthe minds on all provisions thereof.? \/84 Components Co.\/,\/\/20 BNA OSHC2063, 2064 (No. 02-0363, 2003) (citing \/Aerlex Corp.\/,\/\/12 BNA OSHC1989, 1986-87 CCH OSHD ? 27,847 (No. 85-1257, 1986)).Here, the parties? settlement agreement approved by the judge containsthe following contradictory language:Respondent will pay the reduced penalty of $16,200 in thirty-six (36)monthly installments over a period of three years in accordance with thefollowing plan. The first payment of $450 shall be due on the first dayof the month following approval of this Settlement Agreement by the ALJ(for example, if the Settlement Agreement is approved by the ALJ duringthe month of December 2006, the first payment would be due on January 1,2007). The remaining \/thirty-five (35) payments\/of $450 each shall bepaid on the first of every month thereafter \/for a total of 10 paymentsover 5 years\/. . . . In the event that Respondent fails to satisfy anyof these \/10 payment deadlines\/,Respondent shall be in default[.]\/\/ (Emphasis added.) This contradictory language reflects a failure on thepart of the parties, as well as the judge, to carefully review theapproved settlement agreement. This failure, at a minimum, precludes anyfinding of a ?genuine agreement between the parties and a true meetingof the minds on all provisions[,]? particularly where the record lacksany explanation from, or correction by, the parties and\/or the judgewith regard to the inconsistent language. Accordingly, we set aside the judge?s order approving thesettlement agreement and remand this case to the judge. On remand, thejudge should closely review the agreement, including the contradictorylanguage noted above, and seek further information or clarification fromthe parties, if necessary, prior to final approval of theagreement. If the parties do not agree within thirty days of the date ofthis order to amend their agreement, the judge should set this matterfor a hearing date. \/\/ SO ORDERED. __\/s\/___________________ W.Scott Railton Chairman __\/s\/____________________ ThomasinaV. Rogers Commissioner __\/s\/____________________ HoraceA. Thompson IIIDated: February 12,2007 Commissioner ———————————————————————— ELAINE L CIIAO, SECPETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,\t Complainant,\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 06-0936 v.\t BILLIE GOWANS, dba BILLY G?S,and its successors,\tINSPECTIONNO. 308992338 Respondent.\t CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT The parties advise that all matters in dispute have beenamicably resolved and agree to entry of the order set forth below. It istherefore ORDERED that: 1. The Settlement Agreement is approved and theterms thereof are incorporated into this Order; 2. The Citation and Notification of Penalty ismodified in accordance with the Settlement Agreement; and 3. The total penalty associated with the affirmedCitation amounts to $16,200. __\/s\/__________ Judge,OSHRCDecember 13, 2006″