Custom Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Commission decision, April 10, 1984)

Plain-English summary

The judge approved a settlement agreement between the Secretary and Custom Electrical Contractors. The employer then objected, alleging that it had been misled during the negotiations and had good cause to set the settlement aside. The Commission treated the employer's petition as a motion to reinstate its notice of contest, vacated the approval order, and remanded for the judge to consider the allegations and rule on the motion. Commissioner Cleary dissented, reasoning that an opposing lawyer's view of the likely outcome was not a basis for undoing the settlement and that the employer had received materials explaining the Commission's independence from the Labor Department.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The official release does not identify an OSHA standard.
• Outcome: Settlement approval vacated and case remanded for a ruling on the employer's motion to reinstate its notice of contest.
• Key point: The Commission required the judge to consider the employer's allegations before deciding whether its notice of contest should be reinstated.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 83-1032

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

CUSTOM ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 83-1032

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 661(i), an order of James A. Cronin, Jr., approving a settlement agreement between the parties is hereby directed for review.

Respondent has filed a petition for review, objecting to the judge's order and asserting that there is good cause to set aside the settlement agreement. Treating the petition as a motion for reinstatement of Respondent's notice of contest, we vacate the judge's order and remand to the judge for consideration of Respondent's contentions and for ruling on the motion.

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H. Darling, Jr.

Executive Director

DATED

CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting

I would not remand this case.  I do not believe the Respondent has stated a basis upon which the Commission should approve Respondent's withdrawal from the settlement.  He indicates he was misled by the Secretary's counsel who indicated that Respondent could not win on the merits, and/or that he had no case.  This is not necessarily misleading, and there is certainly no basis for overturning a settlement because one party expresses a view as to the possible outcome of the case during settlement negotiations.  I know of no stricture which prohibits an expression of opinion by counsel.

Further, Respondent had no basis for assuming the Secretary of Labor and this Commission were one and the same.  He was furnished with written material advising him of his rights and procedures.  In the Guide to Procedures of the Commission, which is furnished, it is pointed out on the first page that the Review Commission is an independent agency, and that "[i]t is not connected in any way with the Department of Labor or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

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).