“\ufeff\t\tSNIDER INDUSTRIES, INC., OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78-0452\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; color:WindowText; } p { font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; } p.style_Normal { } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } table.style_TableGrid { } p.style_FootnoteText { line-height:1; font-size:10pt; } .style_FootnoteText span { } span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; } .style_FootnoteTextChar span { } span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} .style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} p.style_Header { line-height:1; } span.style_HeaderChar { } p.style_Footer { line-height:1; } span.style_FooterChar { } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t78-0452\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSNIDER INDUSTRIES, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAugust 29, 1980\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDECISION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBefore: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE, Commissioner.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBY THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThis case is before the Commission pursuant to section 12(j), 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 661(i), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 651\u2013678 (\u2018the Act\u2019). Administrative Law Judge Paul L. Brady issued an order approving a settlement agreement\t\t\t\t\t\tentered into\t\t\t\t\t\tby the parties. Commissioner\t\t\t\t\t\tCottine\t\t\t\t\t\tgranted Respondent\u2019s petition for discretionary review placing before the Commission the issue of \u2018[w]hether\t\t\t\t\t\tthe administrative law judge erred in concluding that the Respondent violated the cited standards as alleged.\u2019\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\u00a0At a hearing on October 3, 1978, the parties entered into the record a series of stipulations which, in effect, constituted a settlement of all issues in the case. That settlement, in part, provides as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent agrees to withdraw its notice of contest with respect to those items and instances which have previously been described by [the Secretary] for the purpose of effectuating the settlement of Secretary vs. Snider Industries, Inc., No. 78\u20130452, and it is expressly agreed and stipulated that Respondent does not admit any violation of Williams-Stigert\t\t\t\t\t\t(Sic.), Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 Code of Federal Regulations.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDespite the agreement quoted above, the judge\u2019s order approving the settlement stated that \u2018the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the following standards were violated as alleged in the citation . . ..\u2019\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn review Respondent argues that due to the settlement, and the absence of a factual record and findings of fact, the judge could not properly conclude that Respondent violated the Act. Respondent asserts that finding it in violation of the Act is inconsistent with the stipulation and is not \u2018a necessary prerequisite\t\t\t\t\t\tfor affirming the citations and penalties.\u2019 Respondent requests the Commission to modify the judge\u2019s order to delete his conclusion that Respondent violated the Act and affirm the judge\u2019s order as modified.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Secretary seeks affirmance of the judge\u2019s order arguing that the judge\u2019s \u2018interpretation\u2019 of the stipulation results in the entry of an unambiguous final order and that the Commission decision in\t\t\t\t\t\tMatt J.\t\t\t\t\t\tZaich\t\t\t\t\t\tConstruction Co., 73 OSAHRC 55\/D4, 1 BNA OSHC 1225, 1973\u201374 CCH OSHD \u00b616,867 (No. 756, 1973), precludes approval of a settlement agreement containing a \u2018non-admission\u2019 clause such as in this case. For the reasons which follow, we remand the case to the judge.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\u00a0The Commission has held that it will not abrogate one term of a stipulation while leaving the remainder of the agreement intact.\t\t\t\t\t\tSeaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 76 OSAHRC 125\/G4, 3 BNA 1760, 1975\u201376 CCH OSHD \u00b620,184 (No. 10541, 1975),\t\t\t\t\t\tappeal dismissed, No. 76\u20131058 (D.C. Cir., March 15, 1976); Cf.\t\t\t\t\t\tConnecticut\t\t\t\t\t\tAersols,\t\t\t\t\t\tinc.,\t\t\t\t\t\t80 OSAHRC \u2014\u2014, 8 BNA 1052, 1980 CCH OSHD \u00b624,257 (No. 78\u201325, 1980) (settlement agreement which modified portions of citation which had become final order due to lack of timely contest rejected in its entirety). Further, after the issuance of the judge\u2019s order in this case, the Commission held that settlement agreements which otherwise meet the requirements set out in\t\t\t\t\t\tDawson Brothers-Mechanical Contractors, 72 OSAHRC 5\/B8, 1 BNA OSHC 1024, 1971\u201373 CCH OSHD \u00b615,039 (No. 12, 1972) and Commission Rule 100,1\t\t\t\t\t\twill be approved by the Commission even if they contain exculpatory language.\t\t\t\t\t\tFarmer\u2019s Export Co., 80 OSAHRC \u2014\u2014, 8 BNA OSHC 1655, 1980 CCH OSHD \u00b6 24,569 (No. 78\u20131708, June 27, 1980). To the extent that\t\t\t\t\t\tZaich, supra, was inconsistent with Farmer\u2019s Export, it was overruled.2\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission Rule 100, which essentially codifies the criteria set forth in\t\t\t\t\t\tDawson Brothers-Mechanical Contractors, supra, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRule 100 Settlement.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(b) Requirements. Every settlement proposal submitted to the Judge or Commission shall include, where applicable, the following:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(1) A motion to amend or withdraw a citation, notification of proposed penalty, notice of contest, or petition for modification of abatement;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(2) A statement that payment of the penalty has been tendered or a statement of a promise to pay; and\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(3) A statement that the cited condition has been abated or a statement of the date by which abatement will be accomplished.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(c) Filing; service and notice. When a settlement proposal is filed with the Judge or Commission, it shall also be served upon represented and unrepresented affected employees in the manner prescribed for notices of contest in $2200.7. Proof of service shall accompany the settlement proposal. A settlement proposal shall not be approved until at least 10 days following service of the settlement proposal on affected employees.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe settlement in this case fails to meet the criteria set forth in Commission Rule 100(c), supra, because it has not been served upon employees. Rule 100(c) makes no distinction between settlement agreements arrived at during a hearing and at other\t\t\t\t\t\ttimes, but\t\t\t\t\t\trequires all settlements to be served on affected employees. In order to effectuate this requirement, the parties on remand should reduce to writing the settlement agreement which was orally presented to the judge. Moreover, the judge\u2019s order does not set forth the agreement of the parties as to all citation items nor in all instances accurately reflect the agreement of the parties as to those citation items that are set forth.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, this case is remanded to the judge in order to have the settlement reduced to writing, served upon the affected employees, and for further proceedings consistent with Commission Rule 100(c).3\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSO\t\t\t\t\t\tORDERED.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRAY H. DARLING, JR.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEXECUTIVE SECRETARY\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDATED: AUG 29, 1980\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t78-0452\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSNIDER INDUSTRIES, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 19, 1978\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn October 3, 1978, prior to commencement of the hearing scheduled in this cause, the parties, in attempting to resolve certain issues, reached a settlement of the matters pending before the Commission.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTherefore, it is ORDERED:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Serious citation number one is affirmed and a penalty in the amount of $3,500.00 is hereby assessed. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the following standards were violated as alleged in the citation, except where indicated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) Section 5(a)(1) of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(b) 29 C.F.R. 1910.22(a) (nonserious)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(c) 29 C.F.R. 1910.23(a)(8) (nonserious)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(d) 29 C.F.R. 1910.23(c)(1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(e) 29 C.F.R. 1910.23(d)(1)(iii)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(f) 29 C.F.R. 1910.10(g)(3)(v)(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(g) 29 C.F.R. 1910.106(b)(2)(ii)(a) (de\t\t\t\t\t\tminimus)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(h) 29 C.F.R. 1910.213(g)(1) (abatement date extended 60 days from date of final order)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(i) 29 C.F.R. 1910.213(g)(3) (abatement date extended 60 days from date of final order)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(j) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(b)(2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(k) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(c)(4)(i) (nonserious)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(l) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(d)(1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(m) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(e)(1)(i)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(n) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(e)(3)(i)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(o) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(f)(3)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(p) 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(i)(2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(q) 29 C.F.R. 1910.265(d)(4)(iii)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(r) 29 C.F.R. 1910.265(c)(10)(i)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(s) 29 C.F.R. 1910.265(c)(26)(iii) (de\t\t\t\t\t\tminimus)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(t) 29 C.F.R. 1910.265(c)(26)(viii)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(u) 29 C.F.R. 1910.265(e)(1)(iv)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(v) 29 C.F.R. 1910.265(e)(4)(ii)(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(w) 29 C.F.R. 1910.309(a)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(x) 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Citation number two is affirmed and a penalty in the amount of $100.00 is hereby assessed. The following standards were violated as alleged in the citation:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) 29 C.F.R. 1904.5(a)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(b) 29 C.F.R. 1910.22(a)(1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(c) 29 C.F.R. 1910.106(g)(8)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(d) 29 C.F.R. 1910.141(a)(3)(i) (de\t\t\t\t\t\tminimus)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(e) 29 C.F.R. 1910.141(d)(2)(iv) (de\t\t\t\t\t\tminimus)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(f) 29 C.F.R. 1910.141(d)(2)(ii) (de\t\t\t\t\t\tminimus)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(g) 28 C.F.R. 1910.179(b)(5)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(h) 29 C.F.R. 1910.179(h)(2)(v) (de\t\t\t\t\t\tminimus)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(i) 29 C.F.R. 1910.215(a)(d)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(j) 29 C.F.R. 1910.215(b)(9)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(k) 29 C.F.R. 1910.252(a)(2)(ii)(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(l) 29 C.F.R. 1910.252(a)(ii)(d)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(m) 29 C.F.R. 1910.309(a)\u2014Section 110\u201322, National Electrical Code, NFPA 70\u20131971\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(n) 29 C.F.R. 1910.309(a)\u2014Section 250\u201345(d)(3) National Electrical Code, NFPA 70\u20131971\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(o) 29 C.F.R. 1910.309(b)\u2014Section 350\u20134 National Electrical Code, NFPA 70\u20131971\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(p) 29 C.F.R. 1910.309(b)\u2014Section 370\u201318(c) National Electrical Code, NFPA 70\u20131971\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDated this 19th day of\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober,\t\t\t\t\t\t1978.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPAUL L. BRADY\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge\t\t\t\t\t\t\” \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1 \t\t\t\t\t29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.100. This rule was revised by the Commission on December 5, 1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 70,106, 70,112 (1979).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2 \t\t\t\t\tIn Commissioner\t\t\t\t\t\tCottine\u2019s view, a settlement agreement can be approved only when it complies with Commission Rule 100(a).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(a) Policy . . .. A settlement proposal shall be approved when it is consistent with the provisions and objectives of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.100(a). In his view, an agreement containing exculpatory language that attempts to limit the use of affirmed violations in future proceedings under the Act is inconsistent with the provisions and objectives of the Act and under Commission Rule 100(a) should not be approved.\t\t\t\t\t\tFarmer\u2019s Export Co., supra\t\t\t\t\t\t(dissenting opinion).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3 \t\t\t\t\tThe judge\u2019s order unnecessarily found that Respondent violated the Act. The withdrawal of a notice of contest by a Respondent results in the affirmance of those portions of a citation which were included within the scope of the withdrawn notice of contest. Those portions of a citation to which a contest has been withdrawn as part of a settlement agreement are thus final orders upon the Commission\u2019s approval of the agreement regardless of the inclusion of exculpatory language in the Settlement.\t\t\t\t\t\tFarmer\u2019s Export Co., supra.\t\t\t”