“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.WILLAMETTE IRON & STEEL COMPANY,Respondent.INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS& ALLIED TRADES LOCAL UNION No.10,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 78-4198_DECISION_Before: ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and BUCKLEY, 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 Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”). The Commission isan 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. _See_section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).The question for decision is whether an authorized representative ofaffected employees may object to a change in the characterization of aviolation in a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor andan employer.The Secretary of Labor and Willamette Iron & Steel Company entered intoa settlement agreement in which Willamette agreed to withdraw its noticeof contest of three citations and the accompanying proposed penalties. The citations required immediate abatement of the alleged violations. The Secretary moved in the settlement agreement to amend thecharacterization of one violation from \”willful\” to \”serious\” and toreduce the proposed penalties for two violations. The InternationalBrotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local No. 10, which hadelected party status, objected to this change in characterization butnot to the reduction of proposed penalties. Administrative Law JudgeJerry Mitchell held a hearing, concluded that the union’s objectionlacked merit, and approved the settlement agreement.On review, the union continues to maintain that the violation shouldhave been characterized as \”willful.\” The Secretary and Willametteargue, however, that the union may not object to the characterization ofthe violation in a settlement agreement.In _Pan American World Airways_, No. 83-249 (May 31, 1984), wereexamined Commission precedent on the rights of union-parties to objectto settlement agreements in light of several recent appellate courtdecisions and held that a union-party may object only to thereasonableness of the abatement period prescribed in a settlementagreement. Inasmuch as the objections by the union here do not pertainto the reasonableness of the abatement period in the settlementagreement, the judge’s decision approving the agreement is affirmed.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: MAY 31 1984CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting:I dissent for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in _PanAmerican World Airways_, No. 83-249, _supra_.————————————————————————The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable inthis format. To obtain a copy of this document, please request one fromour Public Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax(202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).”