Horn & Gladden Lint Cleaner Co., Inc.

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Horn & Gladden Lint Cleaners for repeated and nonserious machine-guarding violations involving belts, shafts, and a fan. The Administrative Law Judge vacated all three citations because the Secretary did not prove that employees were exposed to the alleged hazards. Neither party sought Commission review, and the Commission found no compelling public interest requiring reconsideration. It affirmed the judge's decision without review and gave it only the precedential value of an unreviewed ALJ decision.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219(e)(3)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(5); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219(c)(2)(i)
• Outcome: All three machine-guarding citations remained vacated.
• Key point: The Commission declined review where neither party sought it and no compelling public interest warranted reconsidering the ALJ's exposure findings.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 76-4378

HORN & GLADDEN LINT CLEANERS

OSHRC Docket No. 76-4378

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

September 28, 1979

�
[*1]
�

Before: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

James E. White, Reg. Sol., USDOL

E. Warren Goss, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

A decision of Administrative Law Judge Dee C. Blythe dated March 3, 1977, is before the Commission for review under section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. � �
�
651-678 ("the Act").
�
In his decision, Judge Blythe vacated citations alleging repeated violations of 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.219(e)(3)(i) and 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.212(a)(5) and also vacated a citation alleging a nonserious violation of 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.219(c)(2)(i).
�
Judge Blythe found that:

(1) Respondent's notice of contest placed in issue the alleged violations as well as the proposed penalties.

(2) Respondent should not be held liable for the repeated nonserious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(e)(3)(i) due to the Secretary's failure to prove employee exposure to the alleged hazards of unguarded machine belts and shafts.

(3) Respondent should not be held liable for the repeated nonserious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(5) due to the Secretary's failure to prove employee exposure to [*2]
�
the alleged hazard of an improperly guarded fan.

(4) Respondent should not be held liable for the nonserious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(c)(2)(i) due to the Secretary's failure to prove employee exposure to the alleged hazards of unguarded machine belts and shafts.

Commissioner Moran directed that Judge Blythe's decision be reviewed for error.
�
However, neither party has expressed any interest in having the judge's decision reviewed by the Commission.
�
Moreover, there is no compelling public interest in reconsidering the issues resolved at the administrative hearing.
�
Accordingly, the case will not be reviewed and the judge's decision is affirmed.
�
See Water Works Installation Corp., 76 OSAHRC 61/B8, 4 BNA OSHC 1339, 1976-77 CCH OSHD P20,780 (No. 4136, 1976); Abbott-Sommer, Inc., 76 OSAHRC 21/A2, 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH OSHD P20,428 (No. 9507, 1976).
�
The decision is accorded the precedential value of an unreviewed judge's decision.
�
Leone Construction Company, 76 OSAHRC 12/E6, 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH OSHD P20,387 [*3]
�
(No. 4090, 1976), appeal withdrawn, (No. 76-4070 (2nd Cir., May 17, 1976).
�