“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 77-4174 & 77-4175 \u00a0 ITT THOMPSON INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT, and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and its Local 1635 AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE, \u00a0 \u00a0 ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0August 17, 1978ORDERBefore: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE,Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:??????????? On May 15, 1978, the Order Approving Settlement of theParties issued by Commission Judge James D. Burroughs was directed for reviewunder section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29U.S.C. ? 651 et seq. In a Statement of Issues on Review, the parties wereadvised that the issue to be considered was whether the Authorized EmployeeRepresentative was served with the proposed settlement agreement in accordancewith Commission Rules and the Administrative Law Judge?s order granting partystatus. The parties were also invited to supply evidence demonstrating that theAuthorized Employee Representative had in fact been served with a copy of theproposed agreement and had an opportunity to consider its provisions.??????????? By motion received June 15, 1978, and served on theRespondent and the Authorized Employee Representative, Complainant moves theCommission to affirm Judge Burroughs? order. Complainant states that because ofan administrative error the Authorized Employee Representative neitherparticipated in the settlement negotiations nor had the opportunity to commenton the settlement agreement prior to its submission. Complainant alsorepresents that it has contacted Paul Heldman, Esq., counsel for InternationalUnion, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers ofAmerica and its Local 1635. Mr. Heldman was authorized to state that theAuthorized Employee Representative has no objection to the settlement agreementas approved by Judge Burroughs. No other party has filed a response toComplainant?s motion in the time provided under Commission Rule 37, 29 C.F.R. ?2200.37.??????????? In his motion, ?Complainant reaffirms his position thatan election of party status by an authorized employee representative entitlessaid representative to meaningful participation in the settlement process.?Complainant?s position is consistent with that of the Commission. One of ourconcerns in reviewing settlement agreements is that affected employees andtheir representatives have been notified and afforded an opportunity to beheard. American Airlines, Inc., 75 OSAHRC 43\/F3 (microfiche), 2 BNA OSHC1391, 1974?75 CCH OSHD ?19,108 (No. 6087, 1974); Davies Can Co., 76 OSAHRC56\/D8 (microfiche), 4 BNA OSHC 1237, 1976?77 CCH OSHD ?20,704 (No. 8182, 1976).The Commission Rules of Procedure specifically provide for notice by requiringthat proposed settlement agreements be served upon represented andunrepresented affected employees. Commission Rule 100(c), 29 C.F.C. ?2200.100(c). Furthermore, where affected employees have indicated an intent toparticipate in a proceeding by exercising their statutory right to elect partystatus, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c), it is the duty of the Commission judge,[1] as well as the Secretaryand the employer,[2]to ensure an opportunity for meaningful employee participation.??????????? Here, on the basis of Complainant?s representation onbehalf of the Authorized Employee Representative and the lack of any recordobjections, we conclude that the parties are in agreement with respect to thesettlement of this matter.??????????? The Judge?s Order Approving Settlement of the Parties isAFFIRMED.?It is so ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSION:Ray H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: August 17, 1978BARNAKO, Commissioner,Concurring:??????????? I concur in the order approving the settlement agreement,and I agree that employees or their representative are entitled to theopportunity to participate in the formulation of such an agreement. In myopinion, however, the issues which employees have standing to raise in ourproceedings are limited. See Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.,77 OSAHRC 83\/D1, 5 BNA OSHC 1405, 1977?78 CCH OSHD para. 21,480 (No. 10340,1977) (Employees have no standing to object to withdrawal of citation bySecretary); Local 588, United Auto workers (Ford Motor Co.), 76 OSAHRC58\/B8, 5 BNA OSHC 1243, 1976?77 CCH OSHD para. 20,737 (No. 2785, 1976), aff?d,557 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1977) (Employees cannot dispute sufficiency of abatementplan). To the extent that the lead opinion?s reference to ?meaningful employeeparticipation? might be read to imply that employees have broad rights insettlement negotiations, I do not agree with the implication.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 77-4174 & 77-4175 \u00a0 ITT THOMPSON INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT, and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and its Local 1635 AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE, \u00a0 \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0April 14, 1978\u00a0ORDERAPPROVING SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIES\u00a0??????????? Respondent, byletters dated December 7, 1977, timely contested several citations issued to iton November 16 and 17, 1977. The following citations were issued to respondenton November 16, 1977, alleging the violations stated and proposing penalties asindicated:\u00a0 Citation \u00a0 Citation No. \u00a0 Standard Allegedly Violated \u00a0 Proposed Penalty \u00a0 Serious \u00a0 1 \u00a0 29 C.F.R. ?1910.217(d)(9)(iv) \u00a0 $ 700.00 \u00a0 repeated \u00a0 2 \u00a0 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.22(a)(2) \u00a0 $2,00.00 \u00a0 \u00a0??????????? The citations issued on November 16, 1977, were docketedas case number 77?4175.??????????? On November 17, 1977, respondent was issued a willfulcitation which alleged the following violations and proposed the penaltiesindicated:\u00a0 Item No. \u00a0 Standard Allegedly Violated \u00a0 Proposed Penalty \u00a0 1 \u00a0 29 C.F.R.? 1910.217(e)(l)(ii) \u00a0 $7,000.00 \u00a0 1 2a \u00a0 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.217(e)(3) \u00a0 $7000.00 \u00a0 2b \u00a0 29C.F.R.? 1910.217(f)(2) \u00a0 Included above \u00a0 \u00a0??????????? The willful citation was docketed as case number 77?4174.??????????? Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties advised thatall matters in dispute had been amicably resolved. On April 13, 1978, astipulation and settlement agreement was received from the parties. Thesettlement agreement having been read and considered, it is??????????? ORDERED: ??????????? 1. That the agreement is approved and incorporated as apart of this order;??????????? 2. That item 2b of the willful citation issued torespondent on November 17, 1977, is vacated and item 2a is modified to allege aserious violation in lieu of a willful violation;??????????? 3. That item one of the willful citation issued in docketnumber 77?4174 is affirmed;??????????? 4. That the following penalties are assessed for theviolations affirmed in docket number 77?4174: Item No. \u00a0 Assessed Penalty \u00a0 1 \u00a0 $3,500 \u00a0 2a \u00a0 $ 100 \u00a0 \u00a0??????????? 5. That the serious citation issued to respondent onNovember 16, 1977, and docketed as case number 77?4175 is affirmed and apenalty of $350.00 is assessed for the violation; and??????????? 6. That the repeated citation issued to respondent onNovember 16, 1977, and docketed as case number 77?4175 is affirmed and apenalty of $500.00 is assessed.Dated this 14th day of April1978.JAMES D. BURROUGHSJudge\u00a0[1]AdministrativeProcedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ? 556(c)(9) (1977); Commission Rules 20(a) and 66(m),29 C.F.R. ?? 2200.20(a) and 66(m).[2]CommissionRules 7, 20(a), 100(c), 102; 29 C.F.R. ?? 2200.7, 2200.20(a), 2200.100(c),2200.102.”