Professional Masonry, Inc.
Settlement fixed penalties at $1,600
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1994, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An administrative law judge dismissed Professional Masonry's notice of contest after the company did not answer the complaint or respond to a show-cause order. After review was directed, the parties filed a stipulation resolving all outstanding issues. The company represented that all cited violations had been and would remain abated, withdrew its contest, and agreed to pay amended penalties totaling $1,600 in four installments. The Commission incorporated the stipulation, set aside inconsistent parts of the judge's decision, and entered the settlement as its final order. The public release does not identify the cited standards.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): Not identified in the public release.
- Outcome: Settled. Two citation items remained affirmed under the stipulation, with penalties reduced to $500 and $1,100.
- Key point: A Commission-directed review can conclude through a joint stipulation that replaces inconsistent portions of the judge's ruling and becomes the final order.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
PHONE:
COM (202) 60%5100
Frs(202)6064100
..
..
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
..
Complainant, ..
..
v. .. Docket No. 941687
..
..
PROFESSIONAL MASONRY, INC.,
..
Respondent. ..
.1
This matter is before the Commission on a direction for review entered by Stuart E.
Weisberg, Chairman, on October 17, 1994. The parties have now filed a stipulation and
joint motion disposing of all outstanding issues.
Having reviewed the record, and based upon the representations appearing in the
stipulation and joint motion, we conclude that this case raises no matters warranting further
review by the Commission. The terms of the stipulation and joint motion do not appear to
be contrary to the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
08 651-678, and are in compliance with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
Accordingly, we incorporate the terms of the stipulation and joint motion into this
order, and we set aside the Administrative Iaw Judge’s decision and order to the extent that
it is inconsistent with the stipulation and joint motion. This is the final order of the
Commission in this case.
BY DIRECIION OFTHE COMMISSION
Dated December 2, 1994
Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Docket No. 94-1687
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mi& Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Associate Regional Solicitor
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Chambers Bldg, Highpoint OfEce Center
Suite 150, 100 Centerview Drive
Birmingham, AL 35216
Douglas L Key, Esq.
Key, Frawley & Bulgarella
Post office Box 360345
Birmingham, AL 35236
Irving Sommer
. Administrative Law Judge
Occupational Safety and Health
. Review Commission
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, Suite 990
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR, 1 OSHRC DOCKET NO.
1
Complainant, 1 94-1687
1
v. 1 REGION IV
1
PROFESSIONAL MASONRY, INC., 1
1
Respondent. 1
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION
The parties stipulate and agree as follows:
10 Complainant hereby amends his Notifications of
Penalty for violations alleged in the Citations issued May 18,
1994, so that they are as follows:
CITATION NO. ITEM NO. PROPOSED PENALTY
1 1 $ 500
2 1 $1,100
2 l Respondentrepresentsthatallviolations alleged in
the Citations and Notifications of Penalty issued on May 18, 1994,
have been and will remain abated.
3 l Respondentherebywithdrawsthe Notice of Contest as
to such Citations and Notifications of Penalty. Respondent states
that this withdrawal was not induced by a promise of any other
party hereto except as may appear herein.
4 l Respondent will pay the amended penalty of $1,600 in
four equal installments. The first payment of $400 will be due on
November 15, 1994. The remaining payments of $400 each will be due
on December 15, 1994, January 15, 1995 and February 15, 1995.
50 Affected employees herein are not represented by a
certified bargaining representative.
60 Each party hereby agrees to bear its own fees
(including attorney fees) and other expenses incurred by such party
in connection with any stage of this proceeding.
7 l Respondent certifies that on// -/5- 77 I
notice of the foregoing was given to employees by posting a true
copy (as executed by respondent) of this Stipulation, in accordance
with Commission% Rule 7(g) [29 C.F.R. 2200.7(g)].
ACCORDINGLY, the parties jointly move the Commission for
an Order appropriate for final disposition of this matter.
This # dayof A)oll!/qqy 0
THOMAS S. WILLIAMSON, JR.
Solicitor of Labor
JAYLYNN K. FORTNEY
Regional Solicitor
CYNTHIA WELCH BROWN
AssociateRegionalSolicitor
Att!&neys for the Secretary
of Labor, United States
Department of Labor.
SOL Case No. 9400807
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing Stipulation and Joint Motion was
served on this 22nd day of November, 1994, by mailing a true copy
thereof by postage prepaid, first-class mail, to the following:
Douglas L. Key, Esquire
KeYI Frawley, Bulgarella & Key
Post Office Box 360345
Birmingham, AL 35236
(A#sociate Regional Solicitor
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
FAX:
PHONE
COM (202) 6o64oso
COM (202) 606-5100
m(202)-
m (202) 6owmO
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainarl~
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 94-1687
PROFESSIONAL MASONRY, INC.
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAMlJUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on September 16, 1994. The decision of the Judge
wih become a final order of the Commission on October 17, 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 PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
Any such etition should be received b the Executive Secretary on or before
October s 1994 in order to ermit sllfi cient time for its review. See
Commission Rule 91,29 C.Ip.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shah be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419
Petitioning parties shah also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOY
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
having questions about review rights may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMMISSION
L? *, -J- )/l&a-
Date: September 16, 1994 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 94-1687
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DO5&
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Associate Regional Solicitor
Office of the Solicitor
Chambers Bldg., Highpoint Office
Center, Suite 150
100 Ceriterview Drive
Birmingham, AL 35216
Harry E. Townley, III, Esquire
Professional Masonry, Inc.
P.O. Box 170035
Birmingham, AL 35217
Irvin Sommer
Chic f Administrative Law Judge
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 990
Washington, DC 20036 3419
00109188094:04
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant)
V.
;
. Docket No. 94-1687
.
.
PROFESSIONAL MASONRY, INC .
.
..
l
Respondent)
..
..
ORDER
On S/l /94 the undersigned issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to the
Respondent as to why his Notice of Contest should not be dismissed for failure to file
an answer to the complaint as required by the Commission Rules of Procedure. The
Respondent failed to reply to the ORDER. His actions demonstrate either that he has
abandoned the case or treats the Rules of Procedure of the Commission with disdain.
This cannot be countenanced as it seriously impedes the administration of justice.
Accordingly, the Notice of Contest filed by the Respondent is dismissed. The
SecretaryIs citation(s) and proposed penalties are AFFIRMED in all respects.
f“--.
\ A
I/ I
IRVING SOMMER
Judge
au-*2 .::
32 *i cTc
DATE:
Washington, D.C.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1994. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.