Thomco, Inc.

Plain-English summary

This is a short procedural order in the consolidated cases of Thomco, Inc. (Docket Nos. 76-1498 and 76-1402). The case came to the Commission on its own (sua sponte) order for review, but neither party filed objections, a petition for discretionary review, or any expression of dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge's decision. Because there was no appeal and the order for review identified no compelling public interest issue, the Commission declined to pass upon, modify, or change the judge's decision and ordered it affirmed. The Commission gave the decision the weight of an unreviewed ALJ decision. This release contains only the Commission's order and not the underlying ALJ decision, so the specific citations, standards, and penalty are not stated here. The practical effect is that the ALJ's decision stands as the final disposition of the case.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None stated in this order; the underlying ALJ decision is not part of this release.
• Outcome: Affirmed. Finding no compelling public interest, the Commission declined to disturb the ALJ decision and ordered it affirmed, giving it the weight of an unreviewed ALJ decision.
• Key point: When a case is directed for review but no party objects and no compelling public interest issue is raised, the Commission will decline to review and let the ALJ decision stand.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket Nos. 76-1498; 76-1402

THOMCO, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket Nos. 76-1498; 76-1402

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

Ronald M. Gaswirth, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Oscar E. Davis, Jr., 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 dissatistaction 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 of an unreviewed Judge's decision.
�
[*2]
�
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.
�