Tackett Tank, Inc. (ALJ decision, April 6, 1994)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary and Tackett Tank submitted a settlement agreement in a case arising from an accident that caused an employee's death. The employee's father, acting as an authorized employee representative, submitted documents objecting to the settlement. The judge explained that Commission precedent limits employee objections to whether the agreed abatement period is reasonable. Because the objections did not concern the abatement period and the agreement stated that the cited conditions had already been corrected, the judge lacked authority to consider the other objections. He approved and incorporated the settlement agreement. The decision does not identify the cited standards, penalties, or other settlement terms.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard is identified in the decision.
• Outcome: Settled. The settlement was approved and incorporated into the order despite the employee representative's objections.
• Key point: In a Commission settlement, employees or their representatives may object only to the reasonableness of the abatement period.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

UNITED STA-S Of AMERICA
--I w OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMlSSlON One Lafayette Cents
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

FAX:
-W-W
-ma-
W8WWloO
-w-
SECRETARY OF LABOR
complainant
OSHRC DOCKET
v. NO. 92-2248
TACKE’ITT INC.,
ANKk espondent,
DENNIS J. GRADY,
Authorized Employee
Representative.

NOTICE OF DOCKEIWG
OF ADMINIm- LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Re rt in the above referermcd case was ’ 4 1994. The decision of the Judge docketed with the Commission on Ap npo will become a final order of the Commission on May 6 1994 unless a Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE COMMISSION MUST FILE A PET’ITIONFOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.

All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational safety and Health
Rmew Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
_. Washington DC. 200363419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick Esq.
Counsel for Re l onal Trial Liti ation
Office of the So1 ‘&or, U.S. Dck
Room MOO4
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington,D.C. 20210
DOCKET NO. 924248

If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission,then the Counsel for Re#od Trial I&i tion will representthe Department of I&or. Any party havmg questioas ai! ut review nghtS may contact the Commission’s Executive secretary or call (202) 6064400.
FOR THE COMMISSION
p4r,H
Date: April 6, 1994
Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 92-238
NOTICE IS GWEN TO THE FOWWING:

Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Re 'onal Trial Liti ation
Office of the Soc l citor, U.S. lxk
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C 20210

James E. White, Esq.
Re ‘onal Solicitor
d ce of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
525 Griffin Square Bldg., Suite 501
Streets izlEg !hii!?i%

Kevin W. Weaver, Esq.
Weaver & Craig
65 Germantown Court, Suite 110
Cordova, TN 38018

Mr. Dennis J. Grady
Route Yl, Box 185
Houston, TX 72070

Louis G. Mkcchia
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational safety an B Health
Rewew &n&won
Federal Building,, Room 7Bll
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242 0791
 UNITED STATES Of AMERICA
OCCUPATONAL SAFtrv AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION ROOM 7811, FEDERAL BUILDING
1100 COMMERCE STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242-0791

PHONE: FM:
COM (214) m-5271
COM (214) ?67-
FE (214) 167-5271
f=R (214) 767-fx350

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 92-2248-S

TACKETT TANK, INC.,
l
l

Respondent.

DENNIS J. GRADY,

Authorized Employee
Representative.

DECISION AND ORDER

      This is a proceeding       brought before the Occupational      Safety and Health Review

Commission (“the Commission”)
pursuant to section 10 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Q 651 et seq. (“the Act”).
By order of January 7,1994, Dennis J. Grady was granted party status and was asked
to submit a letter stating any and all objections to the settlement agreement executed by the Secretary and the Respondent and filed with this office on October 22, 1993. In response, Mr. Grady has filed various documents presenting a tragic story in regard to the accident which caused the death of his son and initiated the proceedings in this matter.
The undersigned is cognizant of the circumstances of this case and sympathizes with
Mr. Grady’s loss. However, as pointed out in the January 7 order, Commission precedent is well settled that the only objections employees or their representatives may make to a settlement agreement before the Commission is in regard to the reasonableness of the 2
period set for abatement. It is clear fkom the documentation submitted that Mr. Grady b not object@ to the reasonableness of the period set for abatement. It is also clear that no such objectionscan be made in any case because the settlement agreement specifically states that the cited conditions have been abated. The undersigned is therefore constrained to approve the agreement and has no authority to entertain any other objections; however, Mr.
Grady can, should he so desire, petition for review of this matter pursuant to the instructions set out in the cover letter to this decision, The settlement agreement is hereby approved and is incorporated herein by reference.

his G. L&cchia
Administrative Law Judge

. fate: BAR24 jy14