Ezel / Agency Decisions / 12667-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 12667 Decided July 21, 1975 Procedural

Acchione & Canuso, Inc.

Citations dismissed after investigation found no employee exposure

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1975, 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 1975
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

OSHA issued one serious and one nonserious citation to Acchione & Canuso. After further investigation, the Secretary determined that the company's employees had not been exposed to the alleged hazard. The Secretary moved to dismiss both citations. The judge granted the motion. On review, the Commission confirmed that the Secretary had complied with the rules requiring notice to affected employees and that no one objected. It affirmed dismissal of the case.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not stated in the public release
  • Outcome: The serious and nonserious citations were dismissed.
  • Key point: The case was dismissed after further investigation showed no employee exposure and affected employees received proper notice.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 12667

ACCHIONE & CANUSO, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 12667

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

July 21, 1975

�
[*1]
�

Before MORAN, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner

OPINIONBY: CLEARY

OPINION:

�
CLEARY, COMMISSIONER: The decision of Judge William E. Brennan granting the Secretary of Labor's motion to dismiss was directed for review pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. �
�
651
et seq.
The issue on review is whether respondent's employees were notified of the motion to withdraw as required by Commission Rules of Procedure.

It appearing that the Secretary has complied with the notice requirements, and there being no objection, it is hereby ORDERED that the Judge's order granting the Secretary's motion to dismiss is affirmed.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

BRENNAN, JUDGE: This matter comes on for determination pursuant to Sections 10(c) and 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.
(hereinafter the Act) upon Complainant's Motion to Dismiss the Citations herein, filed with the Commission on May 23, 1975, upon the grounds that, ". . . upon further investigation it was determined that respondent's employees were not exposed to the alleged hazard," which are set forth in a Citation for Serious Violation,
�
[*2]
�
and a Citation for Nonserious Violation, issued to respondent on March 10, 1975.

Now, therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to these proceedings by 29 U.S.C. 661(f), it is ORDERED:

That Complainant's Motion is GRANTED.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1975. 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.