Sauer-Sundstrand Corporation

Plain-English summary

Sauer-Sundstrand and the Secretary settled the contested OSHA citations, and an ALJ approved their agreement. The ALJ's order affirmed Citation 1 as amended, assessed $1,880, and stated without qualification that Citation 2 was affirmed. The settlement, however, withdrew Item 8 of Citation 2 and mistakenly described that item as serious rather than other than serious. The Commission corrected the characterization, granted the employer's motion for clerical relief, and changed the order to affirm Citation 2 only as amended. The settlement approval otherwise remained in effect.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the decision.
• Outcome: Settlement order affirmed after clerical corrections; Citation 1 carried a $1,880 penalty and Citation 2 was affirmed only as amended.
• Key point: The final order was corrected to reflect both the withdrawal and the proper characterization of Citation 2, Item 8.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 89-1174

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

SAUER-SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 89-1174

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

The parties in the above-cited action entered into a Settlement
Agreement dated May 9, 1990, which was received by the Commission's Atlanta Office on May
17, 1990. On May 18, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Paul L. Brady issued an order
approving the said Settlement Agreement. That Order was docketed with the Commission on
May 25, 1990. On May 23, 1990, Respondent filed with the Commission a Motion for Relief
From Clerical Mistakes.

Based on an examination of the official record, and pursuant to
29 U.S.C. � 661(j) and Commission Rule 92(a), 29 C.F.R. � 2200.92(a), the aforementioned
order is directed for review.

In withdrawing Citation 2, Item 8, in the Settlement Agreement,
the parties refer to the said citation as serious in characterization. See
Introductory Paragraph (a). In the original Citation and Notification of Penalty, however,
the said citation was characterized as other than serious. It appearing to the Commission
that an error was thus made by the parties in the Settlement Agreement, the same is hereby
noted and deemed to be corrected.

The aforesaid Judge's Order affirmed Citation 2. That citation,
however, had been amended by the parties in the Settlement Agreement to withdraw Item 8
thereof. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Relief from Clerical Mistakes is granted and
the aforesaid Order is modified to read as follows:

4. Citation No. 2, as amended, is hereby affirmed.

WHEREFORE, with the modifications noted above, the Judge's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement is affirmed.

Edwin G.Foulke, Jr.

Chairman

Velma Montoya

Commissioner

Donald G. Wiseman

Commissioner

Dated: June 12, 1990

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

SAUER-SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 89-1174

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLERICAL MISTAKES

NOW COMES the Respondent, SAUER-SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, and
respectfully requests that the Commission amend the Order Approving Settlement (the
"Order") as follows:

The Order provides that Citation No. 2 is affirmed. The parties
agreed that Sub-Item 8 of Citation No. 2 would be withdrawn. Accordingly, the order should
read that Citation No. 2, as amended, is hereby affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

David L. Miller, One of the

attorneys for Respondent,

Sauer-Sundstrand Corporation

David L. Miller

KOVAR NELSON BRITTAIN SLEDZ & MORRIS

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

SUNSTRAND-SAUER CORPORATION,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 89-1174

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

A settlement agreement was filed in this case which adequately
resolves the issues pending before the Commission.

The agreement provides for the amendment of Citation No. 1 and
the proposed penalty and allows respondent to withdraw its notice of contest.

Respondent represents that the alleged violations have been or
will be abated by a date certain; that it will pay the proposed penalty, as amended; and
that it has conformed with the applicable posting and service requirements as fixed by the
rules of the Commission.

Therefore, it is ORDERED:

1. The agreement of the parties is hereby approved and
   incorporated as part of this order.

2. The notice of contest is hereby dismissed.

3. Citation No. 1, as amended, is affirmed and a penalty in the
   amount of $1,880.00 is hereby assessed.

4. Citation No. 2 is hereby affirmed.

Dated this 18th day of May, 1990.

PAUL L. BRADY

Judge