Diaz Corporation

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Diaz Corporation for eight alleged serious violations after inspecting a worksite in Waterville, Maine. During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that the judge approved. The agreement withdrew one item, reclassified two items as other-than-serious, combined two hazard-communication subitems into one serious violation, and affirmed the remaining specified items. The approved penalties total $7,950, and Diaz did not admit the citation allegations outside proceedings under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1200(e)(1), 1910.1200(h), 1926.151(a)(3), 1926.153(g), 1926.651(k)(1), 1926.652(a)(1), 1926.652(c)(4)(ii), and 1926.701(b)
• Outcome: The settlement affirmed seven grouped or individual items, withdrew one item, and assessed $7,950.
• Key point: The order incorporates the parties' negotiated reclassifications, grouping, withdrawal, and penalties as the final disposition.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

            Complainant,

                      v.                                        DOCKET NO. 02-0876

DIAZ CORPORATION,

            Respondent.

APPEARANCES:
Christine T. Eskilson, Esq. David M. Lipman, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor of Labor Lipman, Katz & McKee, P.A.
U.S. Department of Labor Augusta, Maine
Boston, Massachusetts For Respondent
For Complainant

BEFORE: MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD
Administrative Law Judge

                           AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER


    This amended Decision and Order is issued pursuant to Rule 90(b)(3), 29 C.F.R. §

2200.90(b)(3) to correct an error arising through oversight in the Decision and Order in this matter
dated July 25, 2003.

Procedural History
This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the
Commission”) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §
651 et seq. (“the Act”). Following an OSHA inspection of a work site in Waterville, Maine, which ended
on April 24, 2002, the Secretary issued to The Diaz Corporation (“Daiz”) a citation alleging eight (8)
serious violations of various safety and health standards appearing in Parts 1910 and 1926 of Title 29 of
the Code of Federal Regulations and proposed civil penalties totaling $ 16,800.
After several prior attempts at settlement, the case came on for hearing in Augusta, Maine, on July
15, 2003. 1 During the course of the hearing, the parties, after diligent negotiations, reached a settlement

    1
        No affected employees or representatives of affected employees have requested party status at
                                                                                      (continued...)

of all issues and placed into the record the terms of that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Diaz admits that it is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce and is an employer
within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act.

Discussion
The Settlement Agreement between the parties meets the criteria of Rule 100, 29 C.F.R. §2200.100
and is approved.

                 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                                              AND
                                             ORDER

    1. Respondent was, at all times pertinent hereto, an employer within the meaning of section

3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (1970).
2. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case.
3. The terms of the settlement agreement entered into the record are approved and
incorporated as part of this Decision and Order.
4. Under the terms of that settlement:
a. Citation 1, Item 1, is AFFIRMED as amended to allege an other-
than-serious violation of 29 C.F.R. §1926.151(a)(3) for which no
penalty is assessed.
b. Citation 1, Item 2, is AFFIRMED as a serious violation of 29
C.F.R. § 1926.153(g) for which a penalty of $750 is assessed.
c. Citation 1, Item 3, is AFFIRMED as an other-than-serious
violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k)(1) for which a penalty of $1,500
is assessed.

    1
    (...continued)

any time.

                                                -2-

d. Citation 1, Item 4, is AFFIRMED as a serious violation of 29
C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for which a penalty of $3,000 is assessed.
e. Citation 1, Item 5 (as amended), is AFFIRMED as a serious
violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(c)(4)(ii) for which a penalty of
$1,500 is assessed.
f. Citation 1, Item 6, is WITHDRAWN.
g. Citation 1, Item 7, is AFFIRMED as serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
§ 1926.701(b) for which a penalty of $ 450 is assessed.
h. Citation 1, Items 8a and 8b are AFFIRMED as a single serious
violation of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1200(e)(1) and 1910.1200(h) for
which a penalty of $ 750 is assessed.
i. None of the foregoing agreements, stipulations, and actions taken
by Respondent shall be deemed an admission by Respondent of the
allegations contained within the Citations, Notification of Penalties
and the Complaint herein. The agreements, statements, stipulations,
findings and actions taken herein are made for the purpose of settling
this matter economically and amicably and they shall not be used for
any purpose, except for proceedings and matters arising under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651, et seq.).

                                               /s/
                                               Michael H. Schoenfeld
                                               Judge, OSHRC

Date: August 13, 2003
Washington, D.C.

                                         -3-