Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (ALJ decision, June 3, 1994)

Plain-English summary

Southwestern Bell and the Secretary submitted a settlement agreement, and the Communications Workers of America local serving as the authorized employee representative did not object. Robert Krueger, an intervener who apparently filed the complaint leading to the inspection, submitted several objections. The judge explained that employees and their representatives may object to a settlement only as to whether the abatement period is reasonable because enforcement discretion belongs to the Secretary. Krueger did not object to the abatement period. The judge therefore approved the settlement and incorporated it into the order.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Not identified in the decision.
• Outcome: Settled. The agreement was approved and incorporated despite the intervener's objections.
• Key point: In an OSHRC settlement, an employee or representative may object only to the reasonableness of the abatement period.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

UrNED STATESOF AMERICA I
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION ROOM 7811, FEDERAL BUILDING
1100 COMMERCE STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242-0791

PHONE: FAX:
COM(214)767-5271
COM(214)767-
FE (214) 767-5271
Fi5 (214) 767-m

..

SECRETARY            OF LABOR,                             ..

..
Complainant,
0.
..
v. .. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 92-2335
..
SOUTHWESTERN BELL
..
‘TELEPHONE COMPANY,
..
..
Respondent.
..
l
.

.
.

CWA OF AMERICA,               LOCAL 6222,                   ..

-.
..
Authorized Employee
l
.
Representative.
.0
.
0
.

ROBERT          DAVID KRUEGER,                              l

.

.
.

Intervener.
..
..

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. 0 651 et seq. (“the Act”).
My office is in receipt of a settlement agreement which has been executed by
representatives of Complainant and Respondent. My office is also in receipt of a letter
written by Robert Krueger, an intervener in this matter, in which Mr. Krueger makes a 2

number of objections to the agreement. ’ In the letter transmitting the agreement, the Complainant states that the Communication Workers of America, Local 6222, the authorized employee representative in this case, has no objections to the agreement.
Commission precedent is well settled that although employees and their
representatives have a role in the settlement process that role is limited due to the fact that prosecutorial discretion in the Act’s enforcement is vested solely in the Secretary. It is also well settled that the Secretary may reach agreement with the employer despite the contrary views of employees or their representatives, and 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 period set for abatement. See Boise Cascade Coyp., 14 BNA OSHC 1993, 1991 CCH OSHD ll 29,222 (NOS. 89-3087 & 89-3088, 1991); Natio& Steel & Shipbuilding CO., 14 BNA OSHC 1866, 1987-90 CCH OSHD ll 29,127 (Nos. 88-277 et a/., 1990); General Elec. Co., 14 BNA OSHC 1763,1987X) CCH OSHD ll 29,072 (No. 88-2265, 1990); and cases cited therein.
It is clear from his letter that Mr. Krueger is not objecting to the reasonableness
of
the period set for abatement. The undersigned judge is therefore constrained to approve the agreement and has no authority to entertain any other objections; however, Mr. Krueger may petition for review of this matter according to the instructions in the cover letter to this decision if he so desires. The settlement agreement is hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.

Administrative Law Judge

Date: ‘#‘R 2 6 1994

‘Mr. Krueger, apparently the individual who filed the complaint which resulted in the inspection, has not worked for Respondent since fall of 1992.