Banner Engineering Corporation

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Banner Engineering for nine non-serious violations and proposed a $30 penalty for item 1. The company did not dispute the violations and reported that it had corrected all items, but it challenged the penalty because it had little time to correct the conditions before inspection. The parties stipulated that all violations were timely abated, the company would continue to comply, and the Secretary would vacate the penalty. The agreement was posted for employees and no objection was filed. The Commission affirmed the single citation containing all nine items, vacated item 1's $30 penalty, and corrected the judge's mistaken references to nine separate citations.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard number is identified in the decision.
• Outcome: All nine non-serious items were affirmed, and the only proposed penalty of $30 was vacated.
• Key point: The settlement preserved every violation but eliminated the penalty after timely abatement and employee notice.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 794

BANNER ENGINEERING CORPORATION

OSHRC Docket No. 794

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

October 26, 1972

�
[*1]
�

Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners

OPINIONBY: BURCH

OPINION:

�
BURCH, COMMISSIONER: On September 20, 1972, Judge Harry F. Martin, Jr. issued an order in this case affirming the citations in this case while vacating the $30 penalty proposed for citation no. 1.

Pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651,
et seq.,
84 Stat. 1590, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), I am hereby directing that the Judge's decision be reviewed by the Commission.

The commission has reviewed the record in this case noting that on April 5, 1972, respondent was issued one citation for nine other than serious violations of the Act together with a notification of proposed penalty of $30 for item 1 thereof.

In his order disposing of this case, Judge Martin inadvertently refers to the alleged violations as constituting nine citations and the violation set forth as item 1 in the citation, for which a $30 penalty was proposed, as citation no. 1.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Judge's order is amended to provide that the Secretary's citation is affirmed and the penalty proposed for item 1, thereof is vacated.

�
[The Judge's decision [*2]
�
referred to herein follows]

MARTIN, JUDGE, OSAHRC: This case is properly before the undersigned Judge upon assignment for hearing by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
�
It involves nine non-serious citations, one of which called for a proposed penalty of $30.00.
�
Respondent did not contest any of the alleged violations, stating that all of the items had been corrected.
�
However, he did protest the penalty proposed for Citation No. 1 because of an insufficient opportunity to correct all of the violations between the time he was aware of said violations and the date of the inspection.

Following the tentative scheduling of this case for hearing, the parties entered into a joint stipulation whereby respondent reported that it had abated all of the violations on or before the respective abatement dates assigned by complainant and promised to comply in the future with all safety and health standards promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and subject to Commission approval, the parties agreed to the dismissal of the complaint and answer and to the vacation of the $30.00 penalty.

No employee or union representative was involved.
�
However, respondent [*3]
�
has certified that the aforementioned stipulation was posted on the employee bulletin board on September 11, 1972.
�
A reasonable time has elapsed since the posting of said document and no objection has been received from any interested party.

Based upon the correspondence and pleadings filed herein and the joint settlement agreement, it is apparent to the undersigned that the parties intended to terminate this matter without the expense of a formal
�
hearing, since respondent did not enter a protest as to any of the alleged citations and in view of the complainant's willingness to vacate the proposed penalty. The settlement agreement is therefore deemed to be in the nature of a motion by respondent to withdraw its notice of contest of the allegations and a motion by complainant to vacate the penalty proposed for Citation No. 1.
�
The undersigned, after due consideration, is of the opinion that the stipulation and representations are consistent with the purposes and intent of the aforementioned Act.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1.
�
The citations referred to in the complaint be and the same are hereby affirmed.

2.
�
The $30.00 penalty proposed in connection with Citation [*4]
�
No. 1 be and the same is hereby vacated.

3.
�
This proceeding be and the same is hereby discontinued.
�