Skyline Tower Manufacturing Co.

Plain-English summary

This is a short Commission order in consolidated cases involving Skyline Tower Manufacturing Co. After an Administrative Law Judge ruled on the cases, the Commission brought them up for review on its own motion. Neither party objected to the judge's decision or otherwise asked the Commission to change it. Because no party raised a dispute and the review order identified no compelling public interest issue, the Commission declined to examine the merits and affirmed the judge's decision. The underlying ALJ decision is not included in this release, so the cited standards, alleged violations, and penalties are not stated here.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Not stated in this release.
• Outcome: The Administrative Law Judge's decision was affirmed without merits review.
• Key point: When no party objects and no compelling public interest is identified, the Commission may leave the judge's decision unchanged with the significance of an unreviewed judge's decision.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket Nos. 76-892; 76-924

SKYLINE TOWER MANUFACTURING CO.
�

OSHRC Docket Nos. 76-892; 76-924

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 2, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

William S. Kloepfer, Assoc. Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Frank Batdorff, Manager, Skyline Manufacturing Co., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review.
�
This 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 [*2]
�
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.
�