Champion International Corp. (Commission decision, March 14, 1975)

Machine-guarding item vacated after employee notice

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
7725
Decided
March 14, 1975
Outcome
Mixed result
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-07-29

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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1975
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.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
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

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.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation 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