Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division)
Party name corrected in settlement order
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2003, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Sanderson Farms and the Secretary settled a contested serious citation. The settlement vacated, reclassified, amended, and affirmed citation items according to the parties' stipulation, assessed a $250 penalty, and allowed the company to withdraw its contest. The Commission directed review to substitute Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division) as the correct respondent and otherwise allowed the settlement order to become final as scheduled.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): Not specified in the order.
- Outcome: The Commission corrected the respondent's name and left the settlement order, including a $250 penalty, to become final.
- Key point: The Commission used review to correct the named party without changing the substance or finality date of the settlement.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
Sanderson Farms, Inc.,(Processing Division). Docket No. 03-1127
Walter, J. David
Normal
Walter, J. David
2
0
2018-08-02T19:10:00Z
2018-08-02T19:10:00Z
1
404
2306
19
5
2705
16.00
false
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.
OSHRC Docket No. 03-1127
SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
(PROCESSING DIVISION),
Respondent .
DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER
This
case has previously been captioned with a title naming Sanderson Farms, Inc. as
the Respondent. The Respondent has filed a motion to substitute parties noting
that the complaint and citation issued by the Secretary of Labor should have
been issued to Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division) rather than to
Sanderson Farms, Inc. The Secretary has been informed of the Respondent’s
intent to substitute parties and has indicated no objection. Accordingly, we
direct review of this case and grant the Respondent’s motion to substitute
parties. The Administrative Law Judge’s Order, as amended by this Direction for
Review and Order, shall
become
the final order of the Commission on November 26, 2003, as originally
scheduled. So Ordered.
Date: November 25,
2003 /s/
W.
Scott Railton, Chairman
/s/
James
M Stephens, Commissioner
/s/
Thomasina
V. Rogers, Commissioner
Secretary of
Labor,
Complainant,
V.
OSHRC Docket No. 03-1127
Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
Respondent.
Order Approving Settlement
Respondent,
by letter dated June 17, 2003, contested a serious citations issued to it on
May 22, 2003.
On
October 22, 2003, an executed stipulation and joint motion was received from
the parties. The stipulation and joint motion having been considered, it is
ORDERED:
1. That
the terms of the stipulation and joint motion are approved and incorporated
herein as part of this order;
2. That
the citation and proposed penalties issued to respondent on May 22, 2003, are
vacated, reclassified, amended and affirmed in accordance with the terms of the
stipulation and joint motion and a penalty in the amount of $250.00 is
assessed; and
3. That
respondent’s motion to withdraw its notice of contest, pursuant to the terms of
settlement, is granted.
/s/
Judge
Nancy J. Spies
Date: October 24, 2003
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2003. 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.