Eyelet Specialty Company (Commission decision, September 27, 1982)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary of Labor and Eyelet Specialty submitted a settlement proposal to then Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Hassenfeld. The judge had already held a telephone conference with the Secretary, the company and United Steelworkers Local 8298, at which the settling parties reported agreement and the union said it had some problem with it. The judge ordered the union to file written objections by August 17, 1981. The settlement itself reached the judge on August 10, 1981 and was approved the same day.

The union mailed its objection letter on August 13, 1981. It did not arrive until August 19, but under Commission Rule 8(c), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.8(c), filing is effected at the time of mailing, so the objections were timely. They should have been considered before the settlement was approved. The Commission remanded. A footnote records that the judge wrote to the union after filing her decision, and that the Commission treated her letter as addressing only the union's right to raise objections before the Commission, not the merits of those objections.

Chairman Rowland dissented from the remand. On the reasoning of his dissent in Mobil, he would confine review of a settlement to any union objection to the reasonableness of the abatement period. Because this union's objection did not concern the abatement period, he would have affirmed the judge.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Not identified in this order.
• Outcome: The judge's approval of the settlement was remanded so that the union's timely objections can be considered.
• Key point: The union mailed its objection within the judge's deadline, and Rule 8(c) made it timely filed; the judge had approved the settlement before that deadline passed.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 81-503

EYELET SPECIALTY COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 81-503

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

September 27, 1982

[*1]

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

COUNSEL:

Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Albert H. Ross, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Diana Garfield, for the employer

George Prenatt, (Adolph Schwartz, Director), U.S.W.A. Safety & Health Dept., for the employer

James F. Chieppo, Rep. District #1, Sub-Dist. #4, U.S. Steelworkers of America, for the employer

Judith Delgado, President, Local Union 8298, U.S. Steelworkers of America, for the employer

OPINION:

ORDER OF REMAND

BY THE COMMISSION:

The Secretary of Labor and Eyelet Specialty Company submitted to former Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Hassenfeld a settlement proposal.

Judge Hassenfeld had earlier participated in a telephone conference with representatives of the Secretary, Eyelet Specialty and the United Steelworkers of America Local Union 8298.

There, the Secretary and Eyelet Specialty informed the judge that they had reached agreement but the union stated that it "had some problem" with the agreement.

The judge then ordered "that the union file its written objections . . . by August 17, 1981." (Emphasis in the original.) The settlement was received by the judge on August 10, 1981, and was approved on the same [*2]

day.

The Union represents that it had mailed its letter of objections to the settlement proposal on August 13, 1981.

Although the letter was not received until August 19, 1981, it was nevertheless timely filed because, under Commission Rule 8(c), 29 C.F.R.

2200.8(c), "[f]iling is deemed effected at the time of mailing." The union's objections should have been considered before the judge approved the settlement proposal.

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

n1 After Judge Hassenfeld filed her decision approving the settlement, she responded to the union by letter.

We do not consider the views expressed in her letter to relate to the merits of the union's objections, but only to the union's right to raise those objections before the Commission.

n2 Chairman Rowland dissents from this order of remand.

For the reasons explained in his dissenting opinion in Mobil, the Chairman believes that consideration of the settlement agreement should be limited to any objection the union may have to the reasonableness of the abatement period agreed to by the Secretary and Eyelet Specialty.

Since the union's objection does not pertain to the reasonableness of the abatement period in the settlement, a remand for consideration of the adequacy of the settlement is inappropriate.

Chairman Rowland would therefore affirm the judge's decision on this ground.

[*3]

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

SO ORDERED.