Vecco Concrete Construction, Inc.

Plain-English summary

This is a short Commission order in a case involving Vecco Concrete Construction, Inc. After an Administrative Law Judge ruled on the case, a Commissioner brought it up for review on the Commission's own motion (a sua sponte order for review). Neither side filed objections or asked the Commission to change the judge's decision. Because no party raised a dispute and the order pointed to no compelling public interest, the Commission declined to review the merits and affirmed the judge's decision. The underlying ALJ decision is not included in this release, so the specific standard cited, the violation, and the penalty 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 shown, the Commission declines to modify the judge's decision, which then carries the weight of an unreviewed judge's decision.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 76-1210

Vecco Concrete Construction, Inc.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 76-1210

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

Marshall H. Harris, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Charles A. Roberts, Vice President, Vecco Construction Industries, Inc., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte other 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. 20,237 (No. 4090, 1976).

It is ORDERED that the decision be affirmed.
�