Willamette Iron & Steel Company (Commission decision, May 31, 1984)

Union objection to settlement classification rejected

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
78-4198
Decided
May 31, 1984
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-07-26

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1984, 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 1984
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

Willamette Iron & Steel agreed to withdraw its contest of three citations and the associated penalties. The settlement changed one violation from willful to serious and reduced penalties for two violations, while requiring immediate abatement. The employees' union objected only to changing the classification from willful to serious. Applying its Pan American decision, the Commission held that a union party could object to a settlement only on the reasonableness of the abatement period. It therefore affirmed approval of the settlement. Commissioner Cleary dissented for the reasons stated in Pan American.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The official release does not identify the standards in the settled citations.
  • Outcome: Settlement approved; one item changed from willful to serious and two proposed penalties reduced.
  • Key point: A union party could not challenge a settlement's violation classification when it did not object to the reasonableness of the abatement period.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 78-4198

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

WILLAMETTE IRON & STEEL COMPANY,

Respondent.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS

& ALLIED TRADES LOCAL UNION No.10,

Authorized Employee Representative.

OSHRC Docket No. 78-4198

DECISION

Before:  ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and BUCKLEY, Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission under 29 U.S.C. 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651-678 ("the Act").  The Commission is an adjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  It was established to resolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatory functions.  See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 659(c).

The question for decision is whether an authorized representative of affected employees may object to a change in the characterization of a violation in a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and an employer.

The Secretary of Labor and Willamette Iron & Steel Company entered into a settlement agreement in which Willamette agreed to withdraw its notice of contest of three citations and the accompanying proposed penalties.  The citations required immediate abatement of the alleged violations.  The Secretary moved in the settlement agreement to amend the characterization of one violation from "willful" to "serious" and to reduce the proposed penalties for two violations.  The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local No. 10, which had elected party status, objected to this change in characterization but not to the reduction of proposed penalties.  Administrative Law Judge Jerry Mitchell held a hearing, concluded that the union's objection lacked merit, and approved the settlement agreement.

On review, the union continues to maintain that the violation should have been characterized as "willful."  The Secretary and Willamette argue, however, that the union may not object to the characterization of the violation in a settlement agreement.

In Pan American World Airways , No. 83-249 (May 31, 1984), we reexamined Commission precedent on the rights of union-parties to object to settlement agreements in light of several recent appellate court decisions and held that a union-party may object only to the reasonableness of the abatement period prescribed in a settlement agreement.  Inasmuch as the objections by the union here do not pertain to the reasonableness of the abatement period in the settlement agreement, the judge's decision approving the agreement is affirmed.

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H. Darling, Jr.

Executive Secretary

DATED:  MAY 31 1984

CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Pan American World Airways , No. 83-249, supra .

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format.  To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected]
), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).

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