Chicago Bridge & Iron Company

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Chicago Bridge & Iron for failing to keep suitable fire-extinguishing equipment immediately available and ready for use in a work area. The judge affirmed the citation as a serious violation. The Commission initially vacated the citation because it considered the citation untimely, without reaching the merits. The Seventh Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded the case for a merits decision. On remand, the Commission agreed with the judge's serious classification. It gave greater weight to the company's good faith and reduced the penalty by $150, assessing $450.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.352(d)
• Outcome: The serious citation was affirmed and a $450 penalty was assessed after a $150 reduction.
• Key point: After the court rejected the Commission's timing dismissal, the underlying requirement for immediately available, ready fire-extinguishing equipment was enforced.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 744

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 744

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

July 31, 1975

�
[*1]
�

Before MORAN, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner

OPINION:

�
BY THE COMMISSION: This case is again before the Commission following a remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit..
Brennan v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Company and OSAHRC,
514 F.2d 1082 (7th Cir. 1975). In his decision rendered on January 8, 1973, n1 Review Commission Judge Sidney J. Goldstein had affirmed the complainant's citation alleging that the respondent violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 n2 by failing to comply with the occupational safety standard codified at 29 C.F.R. �
�
1926.352(d). n3 On review, a divided Commission concluded that the citation had not been issued with reasonable promptness as required by 29 U.S.C. �
�
658(a).
�
The citation was vacated, and the merits were not reached. n4 The circuit court reversed our ruling and remanded to us for a decision on the merits.

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

n1 His decision is reported at 6 OSAHRC 265.

n2 29 U.S.C. �
�
651
et seq.,
84 Stat. 1590.
�
We note that while the Judge correctly states that the complainant's charge was framed under 29 U.S.C. �
�
654(a)(2) he erroneously cites �
�
654(a)(1) in concluding that the violation was serious in nature.
�
This case does not involve the question whether the hazard is "recognized" as that term is used in �
�
654(a)(1).

n3 This standard requires that "[s]uitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available in the work area and shall be maintained in a state of readiness for instant use."

n4 6 OSAHRC 244 (1974).

�
[*2]
�

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

Other than the reasonable promptness question, the only issue on which review was directed was whether the nature of the violation should be reduced to nonserious.
�
Commissioner Cleary agrees with Judge Goldstein's disposition of this issue for the reasons given by the Judge.
�
Chairman Moran concurs for the purpose of disposing of this case since in his view there is no practical difference between a "serious" and a "nonserious" violation.
�
Secretary v. Portland Stevedoring Company,
3 OSAHRC
�
1077, 1079-80 (1973);
Secretary v. California Stevedore and Ballast Company,
4 OSAHRC 642, 647-48 (1973).

Noting that this is one of the early cases contested before it, the Commission concludes that the Judge's penalty assessment gave insufficient weight to the respondent's good faith.
�
Considering this and the entire record in conjunction with the factors enumerated in 29 U.S.C. �
�
666(i), the Commission finds that a $150 reduction in the penalty is appropriate.

Accordingly, the citation is affirmed and [*3]
�
a penalty of $450 is assessed therefor.

[See 6 OSAHRC 244]