M.P. Dory Co.

Plain-English summary

M.P. Dory Co., a stucco construction employer in Columbus, Ohio, was inspected by OSHA and issued a citation for three serious violations of construction safety standards. The company contested all of them, but before the hearing concluded the parties reached a settlement, which they placed on the record. Under the agreement, the training violation was affirmed with a $1,000 penalty, and the other two items were dropped. The judge found the settlement met the Commission's requirements and approved it. This order simply approves that settlement; it does not decide the contested violations on their merits.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2)
• Outcome: Settlement approved; Citation 1, Item 1 affirmed ($1,000); Items 2 and 3 vacated.
• Key point: The parties settled the case, and the judge approved the agreement under Commission Rule 100.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
        OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

                Complainant,
                   v.                                       OSHRC DOCKET No. 01-1082

M. P. DORY CO.,
Respondent.

Appearances: Mary Bradley
Office of the Solicitor of Labor
U. S. Department of Labor
Cleveland, OH
For Complainant

                  Douglas J. Suter, Esq.
                  Issac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor
                  Columbus, OH
                          For Respondent

Before: MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD, Judge

                              DECISION AND ORDER

Background and Procedural History
This case arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678
(1970) (“the Act”). On May 28, 2001, a Compliance Officer (“CO”) from the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) inspected Respondent’s work site in Columbus, Ohio.
As a result of the inspection, OSHA issued a citation to Respondent on May 18, 2001, alleging three
serious of violations of construction safety standards appearing in Title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (“CFR”). Respondent timely contested all citations. A hearing was held in Columbus,
Ohio, on October 16, 2001. No affected employees sought party status.

Jurisdiction
Complainant alleges and Respondent does not deny that it is an employer engaged in stucco
construction work. Respondent does not deny that it uses tools, equipment and supplies which have
moved in interstate commerce and conducts a business affecting interstate commerce.
Based on the above finding, I conclude that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
section 3(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the
Commission”) has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter

Discussion
At the hearing, the parties announced that a settlement had been reached. See, Rule 100(a),
29 CFR § 2200.100(a).
The terms of the settlement have been entered into the record. Pursuant to the agreement of
the parties, Citation 1, Item 1, alleging a serious violation of the standard at 29 C.F.R. §
1926.21(b)(2) is AFFIRMED. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00 is assessed. Citation 1,
Items 2 & 3 are VACATED.
The terms of the settlement meet the requirements of Commission Rule 100(b), 29 C.F.R.
§ 2200.100(b). Accordingly, the settlement is approved under 5 U.S.C. § 554(c)(1) and Commission
Rule 100. The terms of the stipulated settlement are incorporated, in their entirety, by reference in
this order.

     SO ORDERED.




                                                          /S/
                                                   Michael H. Schoenfeld
                                                   Judge, OSHRC

Dated: November 26, 2001
Washington, D.C.