“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.MARTIN WRIGHT ELECTRIC COMPANYRespondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-1115ORDERThe parties’ Stipulation and Settlement Agreement as to the seriouscitation is approved. The administrative law Judge’s decision istherefore set aside as to the serious citation alleging a violation of29 C.F.R.?1926.500(d)(1). The settlement agreement makes no mention ofthe citation for an other than serious violation of 29 C.F.R. ?1926.400(h)(1). The judge’s decision to vacate that citation is affirmed.FOR THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDated: September 15, 1986WILLIAM E. BROCK, SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.MARTIN WRIGHT ELECTRIC CO.,Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET No. 84-1115_STIPULATIONS AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT_IThe parties have reached agreement on a full and complete settlement ofthe instant matter which is currently pending before the Commission.IIThe parties stipulate as follows:(a) The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereinafter\”the Commission\”) has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to section10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590;29 U.S.C. ? 651 et seq.) (hereinafter \”the Act\”).(b) Respondent, Martin Wright Electric Co., is a corporation with itsplace of business located in San Antonio, Texas. It is engaged in thebusiness its employees perform various tasks in the nature of installingelectrical equipment. During the course of its business, respondent usesmaterials and equipment which its receives from places located outsideSan Antonio, Texas. Respondent, as a result of the aforesaid activities,is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce as defined bysection 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act, and has employees as defined bysection 3(6) of the Act, and is subject to the requirements of the Act.(c) As a result of an inspection conducted on September 26, 1984, atrespondent’s workplace at the Carlyle condominium project, San Antonio,Texas, a citation alleging one serious violation of the standard at 29CFR 1926.500(d)(1), with a Proposed Penalty of $250.00 and a citationalleging one non-serious violation of 29 CFR 1926.400(h)(1), with, noProposed Penalty, was issued to respondent on October 17, 1984 pursuantto section 9(a) of the Act.(d) Respondent submitted a notice of contest dated October 30, 1984,informing Complainant of its intention to contest the alleged violationsand the Proposed Penalty. The notice of contest was received by theAustin, Texas Area Director, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, on November 1, 1984. Thereafter, the parties duly fileda complaint and an answer.(e) On March 22, 1985, a hearing was held before CommissionAdministrative Law Judge Stanley M. Schwartz on respondent’s notice ofcontest. On June 27, 1985, Judge Schwartz issued his Decision and Orderin which he affirmed the serious citation alleging a violation of 29 CFR1926.500(d)(1) and vacated the non-serious citation alleging a violationof 29 CFR 1926.400(h)(1). The Judge also assessed a penalty of $75.00.Thereafter, respondent filed a timely Petition for Discretionary Reviewto the Commission and on August 21, 1985, Commissioner Rader grantedreview of the issues raised in respondent’s petition. The Commissionissued a Briefing Notice on April 30, 1986. Respondent submitted itsbrief to the Commission on June 6, 1986.IIINow, the Secretary of Labor and Martin Wright Electric Co., in order toconclude this matter without the necessity of further litigation,stipulate and agree as follows:IVRespondent hereby states that the alleged violation of 1926.500(d)(1)has been abated and that the worksite at issues is no longer in existence.VThe Secretary hereby withdraws its Citation for alleged violation of1926.500(d)(1), with prejudice, issued to respondent on October 17,1984. The Secretary believes that the judge’s decision was correctlydecided. However, particularly in view of the fact that the worksitewhich was the subject of the citation is no longer active, the Secretaryhas determined that further litigation of this case is not merited.Accordingly, the Secretary requests the Commission set aside the judge’sdecision.VIRespondent and Complainant agree that each party shall bear its own costs.VIIRespondent agrees to post this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement inaccordance with Commission Rule 7.WHEREFORE, the parties request that this Stipulation and SettlementAgreement be approved by the Commission.ORLANDO J. PANNOCHIAAttorney for the Secretary of Labor.PAY SARY CHURAK, ESQ. Tom Jospeh, P.C.————————————————————————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).”