“Docket No. 84-1115 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.MARTIN WRIGHT ELECTRIC COMPANY Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-1115ORDER The parties’ Stipulation and Settlement Agreement as to the serious citation isapproved. The administrative law Judge’s decision is therefore set aside as to the seriouscitation alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R.?1926.500(d)(1). The settlement agreement makesno mention of the 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 COMMISSION RAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Dated: September 15, 1986WILLIAM E. BROCK, SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.MARTIN WRIGHT ELECTRIC CO.,Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET No. 84-1115STIPULATIONS AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTIThe parties have reached agreement on a full and complete settlement of the instant matterwhich is currently pending before the Commission.IIThe parties stipulate as follows:(a) The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereinafter \”theCommission\”) has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to section 10(c) of theOccupational 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 its place of businesslocated in San Antonio, Texas. It is engaged in the business its employees perform varioustasks in the nature of installing electrical equipment. During the course of its business,respondent uses materials and equipment which its receives from places located outside SanAntonio, Texas. Respondent, as a result of the aforesaid activities, is an employerengaged in a business affecting commerce as defined by section 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act,and has employees as defined by section 3(6) of the Act, and is subject to therequirements of the Act.(c) As a result of an inspection conducted on September 26, 1984, at respondent’sworkplace at the Carlyle condominium project, San Antonio, Texas, a citation alleging oneserious violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1926.500(d)(1), with a Proposed Penalty of$250.00 and a citation alleging one non-serious violation of 29 CFR 1926.400(h)(1), with,no Proposed Penalty, was issued to respondent on October 17, 1984 pursuant to section 9(a)of the Act.(d) Respondent submitted a notice of contest dated October 30, 1984, informing Complainantof its intention to contest the alleged violations and the Proposed Penalty. The notice ofcontest was received by the Austin, Texas Area Director, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, on November 1, 1984. Thereafter, the parties duly filed a complaint and ananswer.(e) On March 22, 1985, a hearing was held before Commission Administrative Law JudgeStanley M. Schwartz on respondent’s notice of contest. On June 27, 1985, Judge Schwartzissued his Decision and Order in which he affirmed the serious citation alleging aviolation of 29 CFR 1926.500(d)(1) and vacated the non-serious citation alleging aviolation of 29 CFR 1926.400(h)(1). The Judge also assessed a penalty of $75.00.Thereafter, respondent filed a timely Petition for Discretionary Review to the Commissionand on August 21, 1985, Commissioner Rader granted review of the issues raised inrespondent’s petition. The Commission issued a Briefing Notice on April 30, 1986.Respondent submitted its brief to the Commission on June 6, 1986.IIINow, the Secretary of Labor and Martin Wright Electric Co., in order to conclude thismatter 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 andthat the worksite at issues is no longer in existence.VThe Secretary hereby withdraws its Citation for alleged violation of 1926.500(d)(1), withprejudice, issued to respondent on October 17, 1984. The Secretary believes that thejudge’s decision was correctly decided. However, particularly in view of the fact that theworksite which was the subject of the citation is no longer active, the Secretaryhas determined that further litigation of this case is not merited. Accordingly, theSecretary requests the Commission set aside the judge’s decision.VIRespondent and Complainant agree that each party shall bear its own costs.VIIRespondent agrees to post this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in accordance withCommission Rule 7.WHEREFORE, the parties request that this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement be approvedby the Commission.ORLANDO J. PANNOCHIA Attorney for the Secretary of Labor.PAY SARY CHURAK, ESQ. Tom Jospeh, P.C. The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format. Toobtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office bye-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone(202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).”