Acchione & Canuso, Inc. (Commission decision, July 21, 1975)

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.
�