Champion International Corp.
Machine-guarding item vacated after employee notice
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1975, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Champion International contested only item 8 of a 13-item nonserious citation. The Secretary moved to dismiss that item because the facts did not establish a violation of the point-of-operation guarding standard, and the judge vacated it. The Commission reviewed whether affected employees had received proper notice of the motion. It affirmed after finding that the employees had been personally informed and had an opportunity to be heard. The remaining uncontested citation items were affirmed as a final order.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii)
- Outcome: Contested item 8 vacated; uncontested items 1 through 7 and 9 through 13 affirmed
- Key point: Informal personal notice was sufficient where affected employees knew of the dismissal motion and had an opportunity to respond.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
��������������������������������������������
Complainant,
������������������������ v.
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 7725
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
���������������������������������������������
Respondent.
DECISION
March 14, 1975
CLEARY,
COMMISSIONER:
The
decision of Judge Chaplin in this case is before the full Commission on my
order of review that was issued under section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. � 651 et seq., hereinafter referred to as
�the Act�). The decision was ordered for review on the issue of whether the
motion to dismiss item 8 was served upon affected employees in accordance with
the Commission�s requirements for such service.
An
examination of the full record indicates that the affected employees were
informally and personally informed of the motion to dismiss, and had an
opportunity to be heard thereon. This being so, we find no prejudicial error in
the Judge�s disposition, and his decision is hereby affirmed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
��������������������������������������������
Complainant,
������������������������ v.
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 7725
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
���������������������������������������������
Respondent.
October
3, 1974
CHAPLIN,
JUDGE:
The
respondent was issued a citation for non-serious violations by the Secretary of
Labor on April 8, 1974 for alleged violations of 29 CFR 1910. A penalty of $30 was
proposed for item no. 4 and no penalty for the other items through item no. 13.
The
respondent filed notice of contest as to item no. 8 of the citation.
On
September 23, 1974 there was received the Secretary of Labor�s motion for
dismissal of the citation respecting item no. 8 on the ground that the facts do
not specify a violation of the standard at 1910.212(a)(3)(ii). Granting the
motion would not be inconsistent with the purposes of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970.
It
is therefore ORDERED that petitioner�s motion to dismiss item no. 8 of the
citation dated April 8, 1974 is granted. Item no. 8 of the citation is vacated.
The Secretary�s citation respecting items no. 1 through 7 and 9 through 13,
which were not contested, are affirmed in all respects and deemed a final order
of the Commission.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1975. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.