Ezel / Agency Decisions / 15694

Cagle's, Inc. (Commission decision, June 15, 1977)

Commission declines review and affirms the judge's decision

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
15694
Decided
June 15, 1977
Outcome
Citations affirmed
Precedential status
Not precedent (judge's decision affirmed without review)
Checked against source
2026-07-28
Official source
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1977 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent say, 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.
Judge's decision affirmed without review, not precedent
The Commission declined to review the merits and affirmed the judge's decision, which therefore carries only the weight of an unreviewed judge's decision: it binds the parties but is not Commission precedent.
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 agency's own release.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Cagle's, Inc. case reached the Commission through a former Commissioner's order directing review. Neither party challenged the administrative law judge's disposition. The Commission therefore declined to review the case and stated that the judge's decision would have the significance of an unreviewed judge's decision. It affirmed that decision without discussing the underlying citations, any specific safety standard, or a penalty amount.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard is identified in the Commission order.
  • Outcome: Affirmed. The Commission declined substantive review because neither party disputed the judge's disposition, then affirmed the judge's decision.
  • Key point: When the parties do not take issue with an administrative law judge's disposition, the Commission may decline review and leave the decision with the significance of an unreviewed judge's decision.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 15694

CAGLE'S, INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 15694

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 15, 1977

[*1]

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Counsel for Regional Litigation, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Walter O. Lambeth, Jr., for the employer

OPINION:

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION: This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review by former Commissioner Moran.

The parties have not taken issue with the Judge's disposition of the case.

In these circumstances, the Commission will not review the case.

See Water Works Installation Corp., 76 OSAHRC 61/B8, 4 BNA OSHC 1339, 1976-77 CCH OSHD para. 20,780 (No. 4136, 1976); Crane Co., 76 OSAHRC 37/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975-76 CCH OSHD, 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976).

The Judge's decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's decision.

Leone Constr. Co., 76 OSAHRC 12/E6, 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).

Accordingly, the Judge's decision is affirmed.

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace