“Docket No. 89-2713 \u00a0SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Respondent.LOCAL 3-469, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 89-2713DECISION BEFORE: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:An order of Administrative Law Judge Sidney J.Goldstein approving a settlement agreement between the Secretary and Georgia-PacificCorporation (\”Georgia-Pacific\”), is before us for review on issues relating tothe participation of employees and representatives of employees in Commission proceedings.\u00a0 We conclude that the judge acted properly in approving the settlement agreement,and we affirm his order.Following an inspection by the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (\”OSHA\”), the Secretary alleged thatGeorgia-Pacific had committed one willful and seven serious violations of standards issuedunder the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-78 (\”theAct\”), and one violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Act, the \”general dutyclause,\” 29 U.S.C. ? 654 (a)(1).\u00a0 Georgia-Pacific timely contested theSecretary’s citations, thus invoking the Commission’s jurisdiction.All of the allegations relate to the exposure ofGeorgia-Pacific’s employees to hazards of polychlorinated biphenyls (\”PCB’s\”).Shortly after the Secretary filed her complaint with the Commission, a former employee,Treva VandenBosch, requested the right to participate as a party to the Commission’sproceedings.\u00a0 VandenBosch stated that, while she was no longer employed atGeorgia-Pacific’s plant, during the time she was an employee she had complained to OSHAabout a discharge of PCB’s at the facility.\u00a0 In response, Judge Goldstein advisedVandenBosch that since she was not a current employee of Georgia-Pacific, she was notentitled to elect party status.\u00a0 Thereafter, the authorized collective bargainingagent for Georgia-Pacific’s employees, Local 3-469 of the International Woodworkers ofAmerica (\”IWA\”), filed an election of party status.Several employees then wrote to Judge Goldstein,advising him that they had \”no confidence\” in the IWA’s business agent and thatthey did not \”authorize\” the IWA to serve as their representative.\u00a0 Theemployees requested that they be represented by two other individuals, Judi Bari and AnnaMarie Stenberg, and that Bari and Stenberg be granted party status.\u00a0 VandenBoschjoined in this letter.\u00a0 At the same time, Bari and Stenberg wrote to the judge,requesting party status on behalf of \”affected employees.\”\u00a0 Both Bari andStenberg identified themselves as representatives of Local 1 of the Industrial Workers ofthe World (\”IWW\”).\u00a0 The IWW concedes that it is not an authorizedcollective bargaining agent for Georgia-Pacific’s employees.Georgia-Pacific and the Secretary subsequentlyentered into a settlement agreement that amended the alleged willful violation to aserious violation, amended the alleged violation of section 5 (a) (1), and reduced thepenalties the Secretary had proposed.\u00a0 The IWW objected to the settlement agreementon the ground that it would not adequately protect employees from hazards in the plant andwould encourage Georgia-Pacific to continue harassing and retaliating against employeeswho file complaints with OSHA.\u00a0 The IWA objected on the ground that it was notnotified of the settlement agreement or consulted with respect to the provisions of theagreement.In approving the settlement agreement, JudgeGoldstein concluded that neither the IWW nor any other individuals designated by theemployees were entitled to elect party status under the Commission’s rules governing theelection of party status by employees or their representatives.\u00a0 He also concludedthat the objection to the settlement agreement raised by the IWA was not an objectioncognizable by the Commission.\u00a0 We directed review of the judge’s order and requestedbriefs on the issues of:\u00a0 (1) whether the judge erred in denying the requests forparty status filed by the employees and Stenberg and Bari, (2) whether the judge erred indenying VandenBosch’s request for party status as a former employee, and (3) whether theIWA had been \”afforded an opportunity for meaningful participation in the settlementagreement process.\”The IWW contends that internal operatingprocedures established by OSHA for the guidance of its field personnel allow affectedemployees the right to freely choose their representatives in a proceeding before theCommission.\u00a0 In addition, the IWW asserts that under the Commission’s Rules ofProcedure, there similarly are no restrictions on the employees’ choice of arepresentative.\u00a0 For the reasons set forth below, we reject the IWW’s arguments.The right of employees to elect party status isconferred by the Act, which requires that ”[t]he rules of procedure prescribed by theCommission shall provide affected employees or representatives of affected employees anopportunity to participate as parties to hearings [before the Commission].\”[[1\/]]\u00a0 Commission Rule 20(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.20(a), states that \”affectedemployees and authorized employee representatives\” may elect party status.\u00a0 Rule22(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.22(a), generally permits \”any party\” to appear\”through an attorney, or through another representative who is not an attorney.\”\u00a0 However, a specific limitation applies in the case of employees who are members ofa collective bargaining unit.Rule 22(b), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.22(b), provides as follows:\u00a0 \”Where an authorizedemployee representative (see ? 2200.1(g)) elects to participate as a party, affectedemployees who are members of the collective bargaining unit may not separately elect partystatus.\” Rule 1(g) defines \”authorized employee representative\” as a\”labor organization that has a collective bargaining relationship with the citedemployer and that represents affected employees.\”Under the plain language of these rules, if theaffected employees’ authorized collective bargaining agent elects party status, theemployees themselves cannot make any separate election of party status. United StatesSteel Corp., 11 BNA OSHC 1361, 1364, 1983-84 CCH OSHD ? 26,523, p. 33,780 (No. 80-2425,1983). Because the affected employees are precluded from electing party status in suchcircumstances, it necessarily follows that the representation by the authorized collectivebargaining agent is exclusive, and the affected employees cannot appear through any otherrepresentative. 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 bargainingrepresentative for the affected employees, the IWA, timely elected party status under theCommission’s rules, Judge Goldstein properly held that the IWW cannot elect party statusin these proceedings.For the same reason, we conclude that the judgedid not err in denying the request for party status by former employee VandenBosch.\u00a0 In the circumstances presented here we find it unnecessary to decide whether anindividual who at one time was an employee affected by the allegedly hazardous workingconditions that are the subject of the Secretary’s citations may either elect or maintainparty status after his or her employment ends.\u00a0 To the extent that VandenBosch seeksto present the same interest as Georgia-Pacific’s current affected employees, we concludethat she may not do so separately and distinct from the IWA, since under the Commission’srules the IWA, having elected party status, is the only representative who may appear onbehalf of Georgia-Pacific’s affected employees.\u00a0 To the extent that VandenBosch seeksto present some other interest that would not be adequately protected by the participationof the IWA, the Commission’s rule on intervention, Rule 21, applies rather than the rulesgoverning party status.\u00a0 See Brown & Root, Inc., 7 BNA OSHC 1526, 1979 CCHOSHD ? 23,731 (No. 78-127, 1979) (union which represents employees of a subcontractor ata construction site but does not represent employees of the cited employer cannot begranted party status and can only enter the proceeding as an intervenor).\u00a0 However,while VandenBosch sought to elect party status, she has not moved for leave to interveneand has not made the factual showing necessary to support intervenor status. [[3\/]]We also requested briefs on the question ofwhether the authorized employee representative, the IWA, was afforded an opportunity formeaningful participation in the settlement process.\u00a0 In General Electric Co.,14 BNA OSHC 1763, 1990 CCH OSHD ? 29,072 (No. 88-2265, 1990) and more recently in BoiseCascade Corp., 14 BNA OSHC 1993 1991 CCH OSHD ? 29,222 (No. 89-3087, 1991), we heldthat employees or their authorized representatives who have elected party status should beallowed to present their input to a proposed settlement before it is executed andsubmitted to the Commission or Commission judge for approval.\u00a0 The IWA, however,neither filed a petition for review of Judge Goldstein’s decision approving the settlementagreement nor responded to our briefing order.\u00a0 In short, the IWA has expressed nointerest in review of this matter.\u00a0 We therefore decline to address the question ofwhether the IWA should have been afforded an opportunity to present input to the proposedsettlement agreement.\u00a0 See Marmon Group, Inc., 11 BNA OSHC 2090, 2090n.1, 1984-85 CCH OSHD ? 26,975, p. 34,641 n.1 (No. 79-5363, 1984) (Commission declines toreach issues on which the aggrieved party indicates no interest).Accordingly, the judge’s order denying therequests for party status by the individual employees and by Stenberg and Bari asrepresentatives of the IWW, and approving the settlement agreement, is affirmed.[[4\/]]Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. ChairmanDonald G. Wiseman CommissionerDated: June 28, 1991SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 89-2713FINAL ORDERAfter a representative of the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration inspected a workplace of the respondent, that Agencyissued to the company two citations for the alleged violation of regulations adopted underthe Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.\u00a0 The respondent disagreed with thecitations and submitted a notice of contest.Thereafter the Secretary filed a Complaint withthis Commission to affirm the citations, and the respondent forwarded its Answer. TheInternational Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-469, AFL-CIO, filed a notice to theeffect that it intended to participate in this case.\u00a0 The union was granted partystatus in this proceeding.After a Notice of Hearing was served upon theparties, approximately fifty-one individuals requested permission to attend theproceedings.\u00a0 In addition a few employees wrote to the effect that they weredispleased with the union’s efforts on their behalf and requested that they and theInternational Workers of the World, Local No. 1, represent them in this matter.Prior to the hearing, the Secretary of Labor andrespondent entered into and submitted a Settlement Agreement, and the hearing wastherefore cancelled.On January 31, 1990, John C. Smith, Jr., wroteto me as follows:Be advised that my client, InternationalWoodworkers of America, Local No. 3-469, objects to the purported settlement of thismatter.\u00a0 We were not notified or consulted about any settlement and as anecessary party, we will require that the parties include us in any attempts at resolvingthis case.As noted, a few employees submitted a requestthat they or the International Workers of the World, Local Union No. 1, instead of theInternational Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-469, AFL-CIO, represent them in thiscase.\u00a0 In this connection Section 2200.22(b) provides:(b) Affected employees in collectivebargaining unit.\u00a0 Where an authorized employee representative (see 2200.1(g)elects to participate as 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 acollective bargaining relationship with the cited employer and that represents affectedemployees.Inasmuch as neither those individuals who desireto represent the employees nor the International Workers of the World, Local Union No. 1,do not fall within the definition of a labor organization that has a collective bargainingrelationship with the cited employer, their requests for party status must be denied.The employee representative objects to theSettlement Agreement on the ground that it was not notified or consulted about anysettlement.\u00a0 In this 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 the currentproceeding.\u00a0 In that case the Secretary and the company agreed upon a settlementwhich was approved by the administrative law judge over the objections of the employeerepresentative.\u00a0 On review, the union argued that the settlement should be rejectedfor a number of reasons.\u00a0 The Commission held that the issue of whether it canconsider a union-party’s objection to the adequacy of the abatement method in a settlementagreement has been settled.\u00a0 The Commission’s position is that a union-party couldobject only to the reasonableness of the abatement date.\u00a0 Since there has been nodisagreement with the abatement date, 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, as amended, and proposedpenalties, as amended, are AFFIRMED.Sidney J. GoldsteinJudge, OSHRCDated: March 29, 1990FOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] In its briefs, the IWW relies on OSHAInstruction 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). The provisionsto which the IWW refers deal only with the filing with the Secretary of complaints ofunsafe working conditions. They have no bearing on the question presented here, thedesignation of a representative to appear on behalf of affected employees in a Commissionproceeding.[[2\/]] Babcock & Wilcox held that an affected employee who is a member of acollective bargaining unit may only appear through his bargaining unit even if thatcollective bargaining unit declined to participate as a party.\u00a0 In United StatesSteel, the Commission overruled this portion of Babcock & Wilcox, butotherwise left undisturbed its general principle that \”once employees have selectedan exclusive bargaining representative, they may deal with their employer only throughthat representative concerning their conditions of employment.\”\u00a0 8 BNA OSHC at2105, 1980 CCH at p. 30,565.[[3\/]] Rule 21 provides, in pertinent part, asfollows:? 2200.21 Intervention; Appearance bynon-parties.(a) When allowed.\u00a0 A petition forleave to intervene may be filed at any time prior to ten days before commencement of thehearing. A petition filed less than ten days prior to the commencement of the hearing willbe denied unless good cause is shown for not timely filing the petition.\u00a0 A petitionshall be served on all parties in accordance with ? 2200.7.(b) Requirements of petition.\u00a0 The petition shall set forth the interest ofthe petitioner in the proceeding and show that the participation of the petitioner willassist in the determination of the issues in question, and that the intervention will notunduly delay the proceeding.The IWW alleges on review that VandenBosch hasan interest in emissions from Georgia-Pacific’s plant because she lives close to thefacility and is caring for family members disabled from respiratory conditions.\u00a0 Evenassuming these unsworn representations are factually correct, the IWW has failed to showhow VanderBosch’s concerns regarding environmental emissions from the worksite relate tothe occupational safety and health issues that are the subject of the Secretary’scitations.[[4\/]] In view of our disposition, we deny thepending motions for oral argument filed by Georgia-Pacific and Stenberg.”