Daniel Construction Company

Plain-English summary

An administrative law judge found that Daniel Construction Company violated construction safety standards issued by the Secretary of Labor. Daniel argued that the standards had been invalidly promulgated under the Construction Safety Act and therefore could not be enforced under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Commission stated that it had resolved the identical issue in an earlier Daniel Construction case and had held the standards valid. That earlier ruling controlled, so the Commission affirmed the judge's decision. This short release does not identify the specific standards or state the penalty result.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision refers to construction safety standards but does not identify their specific C.F.R. sections.
• Outcome: Affirmed. The Commission upheld the judge's conclusion that the cited construction standards were validly promulgated.
• Key point: The Commission applied its prior Daniel Construction ruling that the construction standards were valid and enforceable under the OSH Act.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 15230

DANIEL CONSTRUCTION CO.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 15230

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

July 8, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Ronald M. Gaswirth, Reg. Sol., USDOL

Gregory B. Tobin, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

Administrative Law Judge James A. Cronin, Jr. found that Respondent violated certain of the Secretary's construction safety standards.
�
He rejected Respondent's contention that those standards had been invalidly promulgated under the Construction Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. 333, and were therefore not enforceable under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
�
29 U.S.C. 651. The only issue before us is whether the Judge correctly concluded that the standards were validly promulgated.

The identical issue was presented in Daniel Construction Co., 77 OSAHRC 21/A2, 5 BNA OSHC 1005, 1976-77 CCH OSHD para. 21,521 (No. 7734, 1977).
�
We determined that the standards are valid, and our decision controls the disposition of this matter. n1 Accordingly, the Judge's decision is affirmed.

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

n1 Although Commissioner Cleary dissented on other grounds in the earlier Daniel case, he agreed with Chairman Barnako that, if the Commission had the authority to consider the validity of standards, the standards at issue here were validly promulgated.
�
See 5 BNA OSHC at 1012, n. 16, 1976-77 CCH OSHD at p. 25,827.

�
[*2]
�

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