Boise Cascade Corporation

Plain-English summary

Boise Cascade and the United Paperworkers' union sought interlocutory review of ALJ orders governing employee participation in settlement discussions. The Commission granted review of six questions, including whether employee representatives had to attend all settlement discussions, what input they could provide, and whether the parties had to disclose settlement materials. It scheduled later oral argument instead of additional briefing. The Commission also stayed all further proceedings before the ALJ and all settlement discussions until it ruled on the designated issues. The order does not identify the OSHA standards underlying the citations.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the order
• Outcome: Interlocutory review granted; ALJ proceedings and settlement discussions stayed pending a Commission ruling.
• Key point: The Commission accepted immediate review of an ALJ's controls on employee-representative participation in settlement negotiations.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION OSHRC Docket Nos. 89–3087 & 89–3088

UNITED STATES
OF
AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket Nos. 89–3087 & 89–3088

BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Respondent

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 2144, Affected Employees

UNITED PAPERWORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 900, Affected Employees

November 29, 1990

ORDER

On October 30, 1990, Respondent filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review of two Orders entered by Administrative Law Judge Delbert R. Terrill, Jr. on October 23, 1990, and September 7, 1990, respectively. Also on October 30, 1990, the United
Paperworkers
International Union, Local 900, an employee representative herein, filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review of Judge Terrill’s Order of October 23, 1990. Given the circumstances of this case, the Commission finds that each of the said petitions meets the requirements of Commission Rule 73(a)(1), 29 C.F.R. §   2200.73(a)(1). Accordingly, the petitions are granted and the following issues are designated for review:

1. Whether the administrative law judge erred in considering the employee representative’s challenge, as to the extent of its participation in settlement discussions, prior to the filing of an executed settlement agreement by the parties?

2. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ruling that the right of affected employees to provide input to the Secretary of Labor and the employer, concerning a proposed
   settlement agreement, requires the presence of the said employees or their representatives at or during all settlement discussions engaged in by the Secretary and the employer?

3. If the presence of affected employees or their representatives at or during all settlement discussions is required, did the administrative law judge err in limiting their role to that of silent observers?

4. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ruling that the affected employees or their representatives should be given an opportunity to provide input to the Secretary, prior to the filing of any executed settlement agreement, on “any and all matters at issue in addition to the reasonableness of the period [for] abatement?”

5. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ordering the Secretary and the employer to disclose all materials describing the substance of settlement discussions which they engaged in on June 12, 1990, and in ordering their lead counsel to submit affidavits containing a chronology of all settlement discussions occurring after issuance of the citations?

6. Whether the administrative law judge erred in ruling that the parties may not engage in settlement discussions prior to 15 days after full compliance with his Order of October 23, 1990?

The Commission has determined that its adjudication of the above issues would be aided by the presentation of oral argument by the parties hereto, rather than by their filing of additional briefs. Accordingly, by subsequent order, the Commission will schedule such oral argument. See Commission Rule 2200.95, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.95.

One additional matter remains for disposition at this time. On October 30, 1990, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay of Judge Terrill’s Order of October 23, 1990, and of all further proceedings before the judge in this case, pending the Commission’s disposition of Respondent’s Petition for Interlocutory Review. The motion for stay is granted in part; all further proceedings before Judge Terrill, and any and all settlement discussions between the parties, are stayed until the Commission rules upon the issues designated for review.

Edwin G.
Foulke , Jr.

Chairman

Velma Montoya

Commissioner

Donald G. Wiseman

Commissioner

November 29, 1990

"