UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
�������������������������������������������� Complainant,
������������������������ v.	OSHRC DOCKET� NOS. 13078, 13079, 13579 and 13580
ALATEX, INCORPORATED,
��������������������������������������������� Respondent.

January 5, 1977

DECISION

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.

����������� This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review. The parties have filed no objections to the Administrative Law Judge�s decision, either by way of petitions for discretionary review or response to the order for review. Accordingly, there has been no appeal to the Commission, and no party has otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge�s decision.

����������� In these circumstances, the Commission declines to pass upon, modify or change the Judge�s decision in the absence of compelling public interest. Abbott-Sommer, Inc., 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975�76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); Crane Co., 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975�76 CCH OSHD para. 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976); see also Keystone Roofing Co., Inc., v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 960, 964 (3d Cir. 1976). The order for review in this case describes no compelling public interest issue.

����������� The Judge�s decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge�s decision. Leone Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975�76 CCH OSHD para. 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).

����������� It is ORDERED that the decision be affirmed.

�

DATED: January 5, 1977

FOR THE COMMISSION:

William S. McLaughlin

Executive Secretary

(SEAL)

�

MORAN, Commissioner, Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part:

����������� Since respondent agreed that the decision in Secretary v. Van Raalte Company, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 5007, April 19, 1976, would be dispositive of the instant case, I agree with the Judge�s affirmance of the contested citations. However, for the reasons given in my dissenting opinion in Van Raalte, these violations should not be classified as de minimis. Furthermore, for the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in Secretary v. Schultz Roof Truss, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 14046, December 20, 1976, I disagree with the manner in which my colleagues are disposing of this case and with their views regarding the significance of decisions rendered by Review Commission Judges.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
�������������������������������������������� Complainant,
������������������������ v.	OSHRC DOCKET� NOS. 13078, 13079, 13579 and 13580
ALATEX, INCORPORATED,
��������������������������������������������� Respondent.

April 23, 1976

ORDER

Chalk, Judge

����������� On motion of Respondent, the proceedings in these consolidated cases were stayed by the Commission on August 22, 1975, pending its decision in Secretary v. Van Raalte, Incorporated, Docket Number 5007, April 19, 1976. In said motion, Respondent averred that the sole issue in each case was the applicability of 29 CFR 1910.219 to the power transmission apparatus of industrial sewing machines and agreed that the Commission�s decision in Van Raalte would be dispositive here.

����������� In Docket Number 13078, item 2 of Citation number 1 for nonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimus violation, is affirmed. In Docket Number 13079, item number 7 of Citation number 1 for nonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimus violation, is affirmed. In Docket Number 13579, item number 1(a) of Citation number 1 for nonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimus violation, is affirmed. In Docket Number 13580, item number 7(a) of Citation number 1 for nonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimus violation, is affirmed.

�

So ORDERED.

�

JOSEPH L. CHALK

Judge, OSHRC

Dated: April 23, 1976

�

Washington, D.C.