Ezel / Agency Decisions / 00-1643-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 00-1643 Decided November 9, 2000 Remanded

Interstate Brands, Inc.

Commission remands motion challenging an order that vacated the contest

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2000, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2000
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Chief Administrative Law Judge granted the Secretary's motion to vacate Interstate Brands' notice of contest. Interstate Brands then moved under Commission Rule 90(b)(3) to vacate that decision, arguing in part that the order may have resulted from oversight or inadvertence. The Commission directed the case for review and concluded that the Chief Judge should decide the company's motion. It remanded the matter for further proceedings without resolving the motion itself.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): No OSHA standard is identified in this procedural order.
  • Outcome: The case was directed for review and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to rule on the employer's motion.
  • Key point: A motion alleging that an ALJ order resulted from oversight or inadvertence should first be addressed by the issuing judge on remand.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 00-1643 Interstate Brands, Inc.

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,
v. OSHRC Docket No. 00-1643

INTERSTATE BRANDS, INC.
Respondent.

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND REMAND ORDER
On October 30, 2000, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order granting the
Secretary's Motion to Vacate Notice of Contest and on the same day the Executive Secretary
issued a Notice of Docketing of Administrative Law Judge's Decision. The Respondent
subsequently filed a Motion Under Commission Rule 90(b)(3) to Vacate Decision arguing in part
that the Judge's Order may have been issued through oversight or inadvertence.

The Commission has reviewed this matter and concludes that the Judge should rule on
the Respondent's Motion Under Commission Rule 90(b)(3) to Vacate Decision. Accordingly,
this case is directed for review and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further
proceedings.

So Ordered.

Date: November 9, 2000
/s/

Thomasina V. Rogers

Chairman

/s/

Gary L. Visscher

Commissioner

/s/

Stuart E. Weisberg

Commissioner

00-1643

NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

Daniel J. Mick, Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL

Room S4004

200 Constitution Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

Michael A. Stabler, Regional Solicitor

Kathleen Butterfield, Attorney

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL

1210 City Center Square

1100 Main Street

Kansas City, MO 64105

Mark S. Dreux, Esq.

McDermott, Will & Emery

600 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3096

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 2000. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.