“Docket No. 78-4198 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. 78-4198DECISION Before:\u00a0 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 and Health Act of1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”).\u00a0 The Commission is anadjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration.\u00a0 It was established to resolve disputes arising out ofenforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatoryfunctions.\u00a0 See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).The question for decision is whether an authorized representative of affectedemployees may object to a change in the characterization of a violation in a settlementagreement between the Secretary of Labor and an employer.The Secretary of Labor and Willamette Iron & Steel Company entered into asettlement agreement in which Willamette agreed to withdraw its notice of contest of threecitations and the accompanying proposed penalties.\u00a0 The citations required immediateabatement of the alleged violations.\u00a0 The Secretary moved in the settlement agreementto amend the characterization of one violation from \”willful\” to\”serious\” and to reduce the proposed penalties for two violations.\u00a0 TheInternational Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local No. 10, which had electedparty status, objected to this change in characterization but not to the reduction ofproposed penalties.\u00a0 Administrative Law Judge Jerry Mitchell held a hearing,concluded that the union’s objection lacked merit, and approved the settlement agreement.On review, the union continues to maintain that the violation should havebeen characterized as \”willful.\”\u00a0 The Secretary and Willamette argue,however, that the union may not object to the characterization of the violation in asettlement agreement.In Pan American World Airways, No. 83-249 (May 31, 1984), wereexamined Commission precedent on the rights of union-parties to object to settlementagreements in light of several recent appellate court decisions and held that aunion-party may object only to the reasonableness of the abatement period prescribed in asettlement agreement.\u00a0 Inasmuch as the objections by the union here do not pertain tothe reasonableness of the abatement period in the settlement agreement, the judge’sdecision approving the agreement is affirmed.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 MAY 31 1984 CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting:I dissent for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Pan AmericanWorld Airways, No. 83-249, supra.The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in thisformat.\u00a0 To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our PublicInformation Office by e-mail ( [email protected]), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).”