Jess Howard Electric Co.
Unopposed judge decision affirmed
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.
Plain-English summary
The Commission placed this case on review on its own initiative. Neither party objected to the judge's decision or otherwise sought a change. The Commission identified no compelling public-interest issue requiring substantive review. It affirmed the decision without passing on or modifying its merits. The release states that the ruling retains the significance of an unreviewed judge decision and does not identify the cited standards, underlying facts, outcome details, or penalties.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): Not identified in the Commission release
- Outcome: Judge's decision affirmed without substantive Commission review
- Key point: An unopposed judge decision may stand without merits review when the Commission identifies no compelling public-interest issue.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
Docket No. 76-491
JESS HOWARD ELECTRIC COMPANY
OSHRC Docket No. 76-491
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
August 24, 1977
�
[*1]
�
Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.
COUNSEL:
Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL
William S. Kloepfer, Associate Regional Solicitor, USDOL
Jesse E. Howard, President, Jess Howard Electric Company, 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 [*2]
�
the significance of an unreviewed 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.