OSHRC Commission decision Docket 81-2018 Decided February 10, 1984 Settled

Gerard Chimney Company

Willful items settled as repeated violations

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 Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary amended two citation items from willful to repeated violations: one under section 1926.28(a) and one covering two subitems under section 1926.451(a)(4). Gerard Chimney withdrew its notice of contest, represented that the conditions had been and would remain abated, and agreed to pay $1,000 for each item. The parties agreed to bear their own costs, and the Commission approved the settlement.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(a)(4).
  • Outcome: Repeated violations affirmed by settlement; total penalty $2,000.
  • Key point: The approved agreement reduced both disputed items from willful to repeated and resolved the case through abatement commitments and payment.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 81-2018

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

GERARD CHIMNEY COMPANY,

Respondent.

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 81-2018

ORDER

The parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is approved.

FOR THE COMMISSION

RAY H. DARLING, JR.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Dated:  FEB 10 1984

RAYMOND J. DONOVAN, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

GERARD CHIMNEY COMPANY,

Respondent.

OSHRC DOCKET

No. 81-2018

STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Complainant, Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor and respondent Gerard
Chimney Corporation, by and through their counsels, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1.  Complainant hereby amends Citation 2, item 1 to allege a repeated
violation of 29 CFR � 1926.28(a) rather than a willful violation.  Complainant
proposes a penalty of $1,000 for such violation.

2.  Complainant hereby amends Citation 2, item 2(a) and (b) to allege a repeated
violation of 29 CFR � 1926.451(a)(4) rather than a willful violation.  Complainant
proposes a penalty of $1,000 for such violation.

3.  Respondent hereby withdraws its notice of contest to the above citations as
amended and submits that the violations have been abated and shall remain abated.  
Respondent further agrees to payment of the above penalties in the amount of $2000.00.

4.  Respondent and Complainant agree that each party shall bear its own costs.

5.  Respondent agrees to post this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in accordance
with Commission Rule 7.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the
parties stipulate that this action should be and hereby is dismissed.

LINTON W. HENGERER

Attorney for Complainant

U.S. Department of Labor

JEROME R. MANDELSTAMM

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).

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1984. 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.