Ezel / Agency Decisions / 76-1460

Tom Stewart Construction Co., Inc. (Commission decision, May 11, 1977)

Commission declines review and lets the judge's decision stand

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
76-1460
Decided
May 11, 1977
Outcome
Citations affirmed
Precedential status
Not precedent (judge's decision affirmed without review)
Checked against source
2026-07-23
Official source
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1977 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent say, 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.
Judge's decision affirmed without review, not precedent
The Commission declined to review the merits and affirmed the judge's decision, which therefore carries only the weight of an unreviewed judge's decision: it binds the parties but is not Commission precedent.
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 agency's own release.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

This is a short Commission order in a case involving Tom Stewart Construction Co., a construction employer. 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. 76-1460

TOM STEWART CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 76-1460

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

May 11, 1977

[*1]

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Norman Winston, Assoc. Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

Thomas L. Stewart, President, Tom Stewart Construction Co., Inc., 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 [*2]

is accorded 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.

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace