General Roofing Company

Plain-English summary

The Commission placed General Roofing’s case under review on its own initiative, but no party objected to the judge’s decision or expressed dissatisfaction with it. The Commission declined to decide the merits independently and affirmed the judge’s ruling. Commissioner Moran’s separate opinion states that the judge vacated a charge under the crane standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.550(d)(1) and affirmed another charge. The available official HTML says the judge’s decision is attached, but the fetched text does not contain that attachment, so it does not identify the other standard, the facts, or the penalty result.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.550(d)(1); the available release does not identify the standard for the other charge.
• Outcome: The judge’s mixed ruling, vacating the identified crane charge and affirming another charge, was affirmed.
• Key point: With no party objection or compelling public-interest issue, the Commission left the judge’s mixed disposition unchanged without addressing its merits.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 14922

GENERAL ROOFING COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 14922

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

February 18, 1977

�
[*1]
�

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

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Marshall Harris, Reg. Sol., USDOL

Ira J. Smotherman, Jr., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review.
�
The parties have filed no objections to the Administrative Law Judge's decision, either by way of petitions for discretionary review or response to the order for review.
�
Accordingly, there has been no appeal to the Commission, and no party has otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

In these circumstances, the Commission declines to pass upon, modify or change the Judge's decision in the absence of compelling public interest.
�
Abbott-Sommer, Inc., 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); Crane Co., 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976); see also Keystone Roofing Co., Inc., v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 960, 964 (3d Cir. 1976). The order for review in this case describes no compelling public interest issue.

The Judge's decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's decision.
�
[*2]
�
Leone Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).

It is ORDERED that the decision be affirmed.
�

CONCURBY: MORAN (In Part)

DISSENTBY: MORAN (In Part)

DISSENT:

MORAN, Commissioner, Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part:

Judge Chodes' reasons for vacating the 29 C.F.R. �
�
1926.550(d)(1) charge are correct.
�
However, vacation of that charge, as well as the one he affirmed, is unwarranted because of complainant's failure to issue the citations with reasonable promptness as required by 29 U.S.C. �
�
658(a).
�
Secretary v. Jack Conie & Sons Corp., OSAHRC Docket No. 6794, June 25, 1976.
�
Furthermore, for the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in Secretary v. Schultz Roof Truss, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 14046, December 20, 1976, I disagree with the manner in which my colleagues are disposing of this case and with their views regarding the significance of decisions rendered by Review Commission Judges.

Since my colleagues do not address any of the matters covered in Judge Chodes' decision, his decision is attached hereto as Appendix A so that the law in this case may be known.
�