Ezel / Agency Decisions / 12661-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 12661 Decided July 21, 1977 Citations affirmed

William Bender, d/b/a William Bender Construction

Commission affirms that the respondent was an employer under the OSH Act

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1977, 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 1977
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

William Bender, doing business as William Bender Construction, sought review of an administrative law judge's conclusion that the business was an employer under the Occupational Safety and Health Act when the worksite was inspected. The Commission found that the judge had properly decided the case and adopted the judge's decision. It therefore affirmed the ruling that Bender was an employer covered by the Act. The short Commission decision does not identify a specific cited safety standard, describe the underlying citation, or state a penalty amount.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (the Occupational Safety and Health Act); no specific safety standard is identified in the Commission decision.
  • Outcome: Affirmed. The Commission adopted the judge's decision and affirmed the conclusion that the respondent was an employer under the Act at the time of inspection.
  • Key point: A respondent may be treated as an employer covered by the OSH Act when the record supports the administrative law judge's conclusion, although this brief decision supplies no additional reasoning.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 12661

WILLIAM BENDER, d/b/a WILLIAM BENDER CONSTRUCTION

OSHRC Docket No. 12661

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

July 21, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before: BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Henry Mahlman, Reg. Sol., USDOL

Richard P. Rausch, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION: This case is before the Commission for review by direction of former Commissioner Robert D. Moran.
�
The respondent filed a petition in which it sought review of the Judge's conclusion that it was an employer within the meaning of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 * at the time its worksite was inspected by a representative of the Department of Labor.

                                  • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  • 29 U.S.C. �
    �
    651 et seq., 84 Stat. 1590.

                                • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Commission finds that the Judge properly decided the case and adopts his decision.
�
The Judge's decision is therefore affirmed.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1977. 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.