Ezel / Agency Decisions / 80-1653-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 80-1653 Decided November 26, 1980 Remanded

General Divers Company

Rule 60(b) relief request remanded

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1980, 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 1980
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 Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Commission construed the employer's letter as a motion for relief from a final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because the record lacked enough information to determine whether relief was warranted, it remanded so the employer could present its basis for relief and the judge could rule. The short order does not identify the underlying citation or standards.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not identified in the Commission order.
  • Outcome: Request for relief remanded for factual development and a ruling.
  • Key point: A pro se letter seeking to reopen a final order may be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion when the record must be developed before deciding entitlement to relief.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 80-1653

1 of 202 DOCUMENTS

TURNER COMPANY

A. SCHONBEK & CO., INC.
�

NORANDA ALUMINUM, INC.
�

GENERAL MOTORS CORP., GM ASSEMBLY DIV.
�

ALLIED PLANT MAINTENANCE CO. OF OKLAHOMA, INC.
�

CLEMENT FOOD COMPANY

MILLCON CORPORATION

FWA DRILLING COMPANY, INC.
�

CCI, INC.
�

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION

THE BRONZE CRAFT CORPORATION

CARGILL, INC.
�

CHAPMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
�

GALLO MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
�

SPECIAL METALS CORPORATION

WILLAMETTE IRON AND STEEL COMPANY

NASHUA CORPORATION

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION

RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC.
�

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CO.
�

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CO.
�

BUNKOFF CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
�

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FRIGIDAIRE DIVISION

HARRIS BROTHERS ROOFING CO.
�

GENERAL DIVERS COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 80-1653

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

November 26, 1980

COUNSEL:

�
[*1]
�

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Daniel W. Teehan, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Ronald L. Kallinen and Joe M. Buchl, General Diver Co., for the employer

OPINION:

ORDER

The Commission treats Respondent's letter as a motion for relief from a final order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
�
Because the record does not contain sufficient information on which to determine whether Respondent is entitled to relief, the Commission remands to the Judge to permit Respondent the opportunity to establish it is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) and for a ruling by the Judge.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1980. 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.