Ezel / Agency Decisions / 16023-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 16023 Decided June 10, 1977 Citations affirmed

Seattle Stevedore Company

Commission finds no compelling reason to review the judge's decision

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1977, 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 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.
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

The Seattle Stevedore Company case reached the Commission through an order directing review. Neither party objected to the administrative law judge's decision or otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with it. The Commission found that the review order identified no compelling public-interest issue, so it declined to pass upon or change the judge's decision. It affirmed the decision and gave it the significance of an unreviewed judge's decision. The Commission release does not identify 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 decision.
  • Outcome: Affirmed. The Commission declined substantive review and affirmed the administrative law judge's decision.
  • Key point: The Commission may leave an unchallenged judge's decision undisturbed when an order for review presents no compelling public-interest issue.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 16023

SEATTLE STEVEDORE COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 16023

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 10, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Robert A. Friel, Assoc. Regional Solicitor

Jack P. Hogan, Director of Safety Seattle Stevedore Company

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 [*2]
�
Judge's decision.
�
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.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1977. 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.