” SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainantv.GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,Respondent.LOCAL 3-469, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERSOF AMERICA,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 89-2713_DECISION _BEFORE: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:An order of Administrative Law Judge Sidney J. Goldstein approving asettlement agreement between the Secretary and Georgia-PacificCorporation (\”Georgia-Pacific\”), is before us for review on issuesrelating to the participation of employees and representatives ofemployees in Commission proceedings. We conclude that the judge actedproperly in approving the settlement agreement, and we affirm his order.Following an inspection by the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (\”OSHA\”), the Secretary alleged that Georgia-Pacific hadcommitted one willful and seven serious violations of standards issuedunder the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ??651-78 (\”the Act\”), and one violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Act, the\”general duty clause,\” 29 U.S.C. ? 654 (a)(1). Georgia-Pacific timelycontested the Secretary’s citations, thus invoking the Commission’sjurisdiction.All of the allegations relate to the exposure of Georgia-Pacific’semployees to hazards of polychlorinated biphenyls (\”PCB’s\”). Shortlyafter the Secretary filed her complaint with the Commission, a formeremployee, Treva VandenBosch, requested the right to participate as aparty to the Commission’s proceedings. VandenBosch stated that, whileshe was no longer employed at Georgia-Pacific’s plant, during the timeshe was an employee she had complained to OSHA about a discharge ofPCB’s at the facility. In response, Judge Goldstein advised VandenBoschthat since she was not a current employee of Georgia-Pacific, she wasnot entitled to elect party status. Thereafter, the authorizedcollective bargaining agent for Georgia-Pacific’s employees, Local 3-469of the International Woodworkers of America (\”IWA\”), filed an electionof party status.Several employees then wrote to Judge Goldstein, advising him that theyhad \”no confidence\” in the IWA’s business agent and that they did not\”authorize\” the IWA to serve as their representative. The employeesrequested that they be represented by two other individuals, Judi Bariand Anna Marie Stenberg, and that Bari and Stenberg be granted partystatus. VandenBosch joined in this letter. At the same time, Bari andStenberg wrote to the judge, requesting party status on behalf of\”affected employees.\” Both Bari and Stenberg identified themselves asrepresentatives of Local 1 of the Industrial Workers of the World(\”IWW\”). The IWW concedes that it is not an authorized collectivebargaining agent for Georgia-Pacific’s employees.Georgia-Pacific and the Secretary subsequently entered into a settlementagreement that amended the alleged willful violation to a seriousviolation, amended the alleged violation of section 5 (a) (1), andreduced the penalties the Secretary had proposed. The IWW objected tothe settlement agreement on the ground that it would not adequatelyprotect employees from hazards in the plant and would encourageGeorgia-Pacific to continue harassing and retaliating against employeeswho file complaints with OSHA. The IWA objected on the ground that itwas not notified of the settlement agreement or consulted with respectto the provisions of the agreement.In approving the settlement agreement, Judge Goldstein concluded thatneither the IWW nor any other individuals designated by the employeeswere entitled to elect party status under the Commission’s rulesgoverning the election of party status by employees or theirrepresentatives. He also concluded that the objection to the settlementagreement raised by the IWA was not an objection cognizable by theCommission. We directed review of the judge’s order and requestedbriefs on the issues of: (1) whether the judge erred in denying therequests for party status filed by the employees and Stenberg and Bari,(2) whether the judge erred in denying VandenBosch’s request for partystatus as a former employee, and (3) whether the IWA had been \”affordedan opportunity for meaningful participation in the settlement agreementprocess.\”The IWW contends that internal operating procedures established by OSHAfor the guidance of its field personnel allow affected employees theright to freely choose their representatives in a proceeding before theCommission. In addition, the IWW asserts that under the Commission’sRules of Procedure, there similarly are no restrictions on theemployees’ choice of a representative. For the reasons set forth below,we reject the IWW’s arguments.The right of employees to elect party status is conferred by the Act,which requires that ”[t]he rules of procedure prescribed by theCommission shall provide affected employees or representatives ofaffected employees an opportunity to participate as parties to hearings[before the Commission].\”[[1\/]] Commission Rule 20(a), 29 C.F.R. ?2200.20(a), states that \”affected employees and authorized employeerepresentatives\” may elect party status. Rule 22(a), 29 C.F.R. ?2200.22(a), generally permits \”any party\” to appear \”through anattorney, or through another representative who is not an attorney.\” However, a specific limitation applies in the case of employees who aremembers of a collective bargaining unit.Rule 22(b), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.22(b), provides as follows: \”Where anauthorized employee representative (see ? 2200.1(g)) elects toparticipate as a party, affected employees who are members of thecollective bargaining unit may not separately elect party status.\” Rule1(g) defines \”authorized employee representative\” as a \”labororganization that has a collective bargaining relationship with thecited employer and that represents affected employees.\”Under the plain language of these rules, if the affected employees’authorized collective bargaining agent elects party status, theemployees themselves cannot make any separate election of party status.United States Steel Corp., 11 BNA OSHC 1361, 1364, 1983-84 CCH OSHD ?26,523, p. 33,780 (No. 80-2425, 1983). Because the affected employeesare precluded from electing party status in such circumstances, itnecessarily follows that the representation by the authorized collectivebargaining agent is exclusive, and the affected employees cannot appearthrough any other representative. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 8 BNA OSHC 2102,2106, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,812, pp. 30,565-66 (No. 78-446, 1980) [[2\/]]Since the authorized collective bargaining representative for theaffected employees, the IWA, timely elected party status under theCommission’s rules, Judge Goldstein properly held that the IWW cannotelect party status in these proceedings.For the same reason, we conclude that the judge did not err in denyingthe request for party status by former employee VandenBosch. In thecircumstances presented here we find it unnecessary to decide whether anindividual who at one time was an employee affected by the allegedlyhazardous working conditions that are the subject of the Secretary’scitations may either elect or maintain party status after his or heremployment ends. To the extent that VandenBosch seeks to present thesame interest as Georgia-Pacific’s current affected employees, weconclude that she may not do so separately and distinct from the IWA,since under the Commission’s rules the IWA, having elected party status,is the only representative who may appear on behalf of Georgia-Pacific’saffected employees. To the extent that VandenBosch seeks to presentsome other interest that would not be adequately protected by theparticipation of the IWA, the Commission’s rule on intervention, Rule21, applies rather than the rules governing party status. S_ee Brown &Root, Inc_., 7 BNA OSHC 1526, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,731 (No. 78-127, 1979)(union which represents employees of a subcontractor at a constructionsite but does not represent employees of the cited employer cannot begranted party status and can only enter the proceeding as anintervenor). However, while VandenBosch sought to elect party status,she has not moved for leave to intervene and has not made the factualshowing necessary to support intervenor status. [[3\/]]We also requested briefs on the question of whether the authorizedemployee representative, the IWA, was afforded an opportunity formeaningful participation in the settlement process. In _GeneralElectric Co_., 14 BNA OSHC 1763, 1990 CCH OSHD ? 29,072 (No. 88-2265,1990) and more recently in _Boise Cascade Corp_., 14 BNA OSHC 1993 1991CCH OSHD ? 29,222 (No. 89-3087, 1991), we held that employees or theirauthorized representatives who have elected party status should beallowed to present their input to a proposed settlement before it isexecuted and submitted to the Commission or Commission judge forapproval. The IWA, however, neither filed a petition for review ofJudge Goldstein’s decision approving the settlement agreement norresponded to our briefing order. In short, the IWA has expressed nointerest in review of this matter. We therefore decline to address thequestion of whether the IWA should have been afforded an opportunity topresent input to the proposed settlement agreement. _See_ _MarmonGroup, Inc_., 11 BNA OSHC 2090, 2090 n.1, 1984-85 CCH OSHD ? 26,975, p.34,641 n.1 (No. 79-5363, 1984) (Commission declines to reach issues onwhich the aggrieved party indicates no interest).Accordingly, the judge’s order denying the requests for party status bythe individual employees and by Stenberg and Bari as representatives ofthe IWW, and approving the settlement agreement, is affirmed.[[4\/]]Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.ChairmanDonald G. WisemanCommissionerDated: June 28, 1991————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 89-2713_FINAL ORDER_After a representative of the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration inspected a workplace of the respondent, that Agencyissued to the company two citations for the alleged violation ofregulations adopted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970. The respondent disagreed with the citations and submitted anotice of contest.Thereafter the Secretary filed a Complaint with this Commission toaffirm the citations, and the respondent forwarded its Answer. TheInternational Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-469, AFL-CIO, fileda notice to the effect that it intended to participate in this case. The union was granted party status in this proceeding.After a Notice of Hearing was served upon the parties, approximatelyfifty-one individuals requested permission to attend the proceedings. In addition a few employees wrote to the effect that they weredispleased with the union’s efforts on their behalf and requested thatthey and the International Workers of the World, Local No. 1, representthem in this matter.Prior to the hearing, the Secretary of Labor and respondent entered intoand submitted a Settlement Agreement, and the hearing was thereforecancelled.On January 31, 1990, John C. Smith, Jr., wrote to me as follows:Be advised that my client, International Woodworkers of America, LocalNo. 3-469, objects to the purported settlement of this matter. We were_not_ notified or consulted about any settlement and as a necessaryparty, we will require that the parties include us in any attempts atresolving this case.As noted, a few employees submitted a request that they or theInternational Workers of the World, Local Union No. 1, instead of theInternational Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-469, AFL-CIO,represent them in this case. In this connection Section 2200.22(b)provides:(b) _Affected employees in collective bargaining unit_. Where anauthorized employee representative (see 2200.1(g) elects to participateas a party, affected employees who are members of the collectivebargaining unit may not separately elect party status.Section 2200.1(g) defines the term \”authorized employee representative\”as a labor organization that has a collective bargaining relationshipwith the cited employer and that represents affected employees.Inasmuch as neither those individuals who desire to represent theemployees nor the International Workers of the World, Local Union No. 1,do not fall within the definition of a labor organization that has acollective bargaining relationship with the cited employer, theirrequests for party status must be denied.The employee representative objects to the Settlement Agreement on theground that it was not notified or consulted about any settlement. Inthis regard the case of _Secretary of Labor v. General Electric Co_.,1985 CCH OSHD 27,452 (No. 83-1227) is determinative of the issue in thecurrent proceeding. In that case the Secretary and the company agreedupon a settlement which was approved by the administrative law judgeover the objections of the employee representative. On review, theunion argued that the settlement should be rejected for a number ofreasons. The Commission held that the issue of whether it can considera union-party’s objection to the adequacy of the abatement method in asettlement agreement has been settled. The Commission’s position isthat a union-party could object only to the reasonableness of theabatement date. Since there has been no disagreement with the abatementdate, the International Woodworkers of America, Local No. 3-469,AFL-CIO’s objection to the Settlement Agreement is denied.There being no objection to the abatement date, the citations, asamended, and proposed penalties, as amended, are AFFIRMED.Sidney J. GoldsteinJudge, OSHRCDated: March 29, 1990FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] In its briefs, the IWW relies on OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45B,_Field Operations Manual_, Chapter IX, section A.2.c (June 15, 1989),_amended by_ OSHA Instruction CPL 2.45B CH-1 (Dec. 31, 1990). Theprovisions to which the IWW refers deal only with the filing with theSecretary of complaints of unsafe working conditions. They have nobearing on the question presented here, the designation of arepresentative to appear on behalf of affected employees in a Commissionproceeding.[[2\/]] _Babcock & Wilcox_ held that an affected employee who is a memberof a collective bargaining unit may only appear through his bargainingunit _even if_ that collective bargaining unit declined to participateas a party. In _United States Steel_, the Commission overruled thisportion of _Babcock & Wilcox_, but otherwise left undisturbed itsgeneral principle that \”once employees have selected an exclusivebargaining representative, they may deal with their employer onlythrough that representative concerning their conditions of employment.\” 8 BNA OSHC at 2105, 1980 CCH at p. 30,565.[[3\/]] Rule 21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:*? 2200.21 Intervention; Appearance by non-parties.*(a) _When allowed_. A petition for leave to intervene may be filed atany time prior to ten days before commencement of the hearing. Apetition filed less than ten days prior to the commencement of thehearing will be denied unless good cause is shown for not timely filingthe petition. A petition shall be served on all parties in accordancewith ? 2200.7.(b) _Requirements of petition_. The petition shall set forth theinterest of the petitioner in the proceeding and show that theparticipation of the petitioner will assist in the determination of theissues in question, and that the intervention will not unduly delay theproceeding.The IWW alleges on review that VandenBosch has an interest in emissionsfrom Georgia-Pacific’s plant because she lives close to the facility andis caring for family members disabled from respiratory conditions. Evenassuming these unsworn representations are factually correct, the IWWhas failed to show how VanderBosch’s concerns regarding environmentalemissions from the worksite relate to the occupational safety and healthissues that are the subject of the Secretary’s citations.[[4\/]] In view of our disposition, we deny the pending motions for oralargument filed by Georgia-Pacific and Stenberg.”