“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,Respondent.INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOF MACHINES AND AEROSPACEWORKERS, AFL-CIO,Authorized Employees Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 83-1227_DECISION_Before: BUCKLEY Chairman; RADER and WALL, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissionunder 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupation Safety andHealth Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”). The Commission inan adjudicatory agency independent of the Department of Labor and theOccupational Safety and Health Administration. It was established toresolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by theSecretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatory functions. Seesection 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.? 659(c).The Secretary issued a citation alleging that the General ElectricCompany (\”GE\”) had exposed employees to burn hazards associated with hotslag produced in a molten metal furnace. After GE filed a notice ofcontest, the Secretary and GE agreed upon a settlement. In the agreementGE stated that it would monitor all its furnaces for slag buildup,follow \”to the extent possible\” its normal practice of shutting down afurnace to perform rebricking, and review \”necessary safety precautions\”before performing maintenance other than rebricking. The administrativelaw judge approved the agreement over the objections of the employeerepresentative, the International Association of Machinists andAerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, which had elected party status.On review, the union continues to object to the settlement. The unionargues that the settlement should be rejected because it does notspecify the procedures GE must use for hot slag removal, and does notstate what remedies will be available to the union if the uniondisagrees with GE’s determination what safety precautions are\”necessary\” and \”possible.\”The issue of whether the Commission can consider a union-party’sobjection to the adequacy of the abatement method in a settlementagreement has been settled. In Pan American World Airways, Inc., 84OSAHRC 19\/C9, 11 BNA OSHC 2003, 1984 CCH OSHD ? 26,920 (No. 83-249,1984), the Commission held that a union-party could not object to theadequacy of the abatement method, that it could object only to thereasonableness of the abatement date. See 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c). Recently,the Supreme Court considered a closely- related question: whether theCommission can consider a union-party’s objection to a withdrawal of acitation by the Secretary. The Court held that the Commission cannotconsider such an objection. Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. v. UnitedTransportation Union,. 54 U.S.L.W. 3299 (Nov. 4, 1985). The Courtreasoned that the Commission’s review of the Secretary’s decision towithdraw a citation would impermissibly interfere with a prosecutorialdecision that is exclusively the Secretary’s province under the Act. Thereasoning of Cuyahoga and Pan Am is generally consistent with that of anumber of courts of appeals that have held or implied that unions lackthe right to object to the adequacy of an abatement method in asettlement. Donovan v. Allied Industrial workers of America, 760 F.2d783 (7th Cir. 1985); Donovan v. Local 962, International ChemicalWorkers Union, 748 F.2d 1470 (11th Cir. 1984); Donovan v. InternationalUnion, Allied Industrial Workers of America, 722 F.2d 1415 (8th Cir.1983); Donovan v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 722 F.2d 1158(4th Cir. 1983); Donovan v. Oil, Chemical, and Atomic WorkersInternational Union, 718 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104S.Ct. 2344 (1984); Donovan v. OSHRC (Mobil Oil Corp. and PetroleumTrades Employees Union, Local 419 ), 713 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1983); Oil,Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. OSHRC, 671 F.2d 643(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 969 (1982); Marshall v. SunPetroleum Products Co., 622 F.2d 1176 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S.1061 (1980). Indeed, the Supreme Court cited all these cases withapproval. Accordingly, we do not consider the union’s objection to themethod of abatement in the settlement agreement. Because the union didnot object to the reasonableness of the abatement date, the judgeproperly approved the settlement agreement.[[1]]Accordingly, the judge’s decision is affirmed.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDated: December 11, 1985————————————————————————FOOTNOTES:[[1]] We do not, however, base our decision on the concept thatunilateral action by the Secretary–such as the withdrawal of a citationor the filing of a settlement– deprives the Commission of\”jurisdiction\” over a case. We necessarily have jurisdiction under theAct to determine whether the employee objection goes to the abatementdate. There may be other cases where it would be consistent with theintent of Congress for the Commission to retain jurisdiction over acase-perhaps to oversee outstanding protective orders over trade secretsunder 29 U.S.C. ? 664, or to adjudicate an employer’s counterclaim for adeclaratory order under 29 U.S.C. ? 664(e).”