Englehard Industries (Commission decision, August 30, 1982)

Plain-English summary

The decision resolved two related Englehard proceedings. In docket 78-2880, the employees' union objected to a settlement provision reducing a violation from willful to serious. The Commission affirmed the judge's ruling that the union had a right to be heard and remanded that docket for further proceedings. In docket 78-3251, all parties supported the settlement, so the Commission severed the case and approved the agreement.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the Commission decision.
• Outcome: Docket 78-2880 remanded for union objections; docket 78-3251 severed and settled.
• Key point: An employee union may be heard on a settlement objection to reclassification, while an uncontested companion settlement can proceed separately.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket Nos. 78-2880; 78-3251

ENGLEHARD INDUSTRIES

OSHRC Docket Nos. 78-2880; 78-3251

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

August 30, 1982

[*1]

Before ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners.

COUNSEL:

Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

George D. Palmer, Assoc. Reg. Sol., USDOL

Wade V. Mallard, Jr., for the employer

Salvatore J. Falletta, General Counsel, International Chemical Workers Union, for the employees

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

An order of Administrative Law Judge John S. Patton is before the Commission on interlocutory appeal.

In Docket No. 78-2880, Judge Patton ruled that the International Chemical Workers Union had a right to be heard on its objections to a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and Englehard Industries.

The judge's ruling is consistent with our decision in Mobil Oil Corp., Docket No. 77-4386 (Aug. 6, 1982).

Accordingly, we affirm the judge's ruling. n1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Chairman Rowland dissents from the affirmance of the judge's ruling in No. 78-2880.

In his view, the Commission lacks authority to consider employee objections to settlement agreements that are not related to the period for abatement.

Mobil Oil Corp., supra (Rowland, Chairman, dissenting).

In this case, the Union objects to the reclassification of a violation from "willful" to "serious." As that objection is unrelated to the abatement period, Chairman Rowland would approve the agreement without affording the Union a hearing on its objection.

[*2]

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Docket No. 78-3251, all the parties agree that the settlement should be approved and the case severed from No. 78-2880.

Accordingly, the two cases are severed.

29 C.F.R.

2200.10.

In Docket No. 78-2880, the judge's ruling is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Chief Judge n2 for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In Docket No. 78-3251, the settlement agreement is approved.

29 C.F.R.

2200.100.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 Judge Patton has retired.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SO ORDERED.