Quad Manufacturing Corp.

Plain-English summary

Quad Manufacturing operated a Wisconsin machine shop where an OSHA follow-up inspection found chain slings without readable identification, missing sling-inspection records, and improperly labeled chemical containers. The proposed failure-to-abate penalties totaled $60,000, while Quad still owed $3,000 from the original 1998 citation. Before the E-Z Trial hearing, Quad explained its abatement steps and financial condition, including removal of the slings and lockout of their crane. The parties agreed that Quad would label the remaining containers and pay $6,000 total in 24 monthly installments of $250 without interest. Judge Stanley M. Schwartz approved the agreement and affirmed the failure-to-abate notification on those terms.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.184(e)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.184(e)(3)(ii); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(f)(5)
• Outcome: Failure-to-abate notification affirmed under settlement; $6,000 total penalty payable over 24 months.
• Key point: E-Z Trial can resolve abatement and ability-to-pay issues at a prehearing conference while preserving specific corrective commitments.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,

                           v.                               OSHRC DOCKET NO. 99-1554

QUAD MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
Respondent.

APPEARANCES:

      For the Complainant:
               Lisa R. Williams, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Chicago, Illinois

      For the Respondent:
               Richard Holder, Quad Manufacturing Corp., Cudahy, Wisconsin

Before: Administrative Law Judge: Stanley M. Schwartz

                                          DECISION AND ORDER

      This proceeding arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.

Section 651 et seq.; hereafter called the “Act”).
Respondent, Quad Manufacturing Corporation (Quad), at all times relevant to this action
maintained a place of business at 2129 East Birchwood Avenue, Cudahy, Wisconsin ,where it operated
a machine shop. Respondent admits it is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce and is
subject to the requirements of the Act.
On August 31, 1998 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an
inspection of Quad’s Cudahy work site. As a result of that inspection, on September 3, 1998, Quad
was issued citations alleging violations of the Act together with proposed penalties. On July 14-22,
1999, OSHA conducted a follow-up inspection, and a notification of failure to abate alleged violations
was issued on August 16, 1999. By filing a timely notice of contest Quad brought this proceeding
before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission).
On December 7, 1999, an E-Z trial hearing was to be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Prior to
the start of the hearing, however, a pre-trial conference was held, during which the merits of the
Secretary’s case and the current state of abatement were discussed. In addition, Richard Holder,
Quad’s owner, provided information regarding Quad’s size, net worth, and ability to pay any penalties
assessed. Following that conference, the parties reached a settlement on the failure to abate
notification. That agreement was entered into the record, as set forth below.
Alleged Failure to Abate
Citation 1, item 3 alleges:

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(1): Alloy steel sling(s) did not have permanently affixed durable identification
stating size, grade, rated capacity, and reach:
Steel chain slings that were in use did not have the required identification on the tag.

Additional information observed during follow-up investigation:
Steel chain slings did not have tags attached stating size, grade, or rated capacity. One sling did
have a tag, but was not legible.

   Citation 1, item 4 alleges:

29 CFR 1910.184(e)(3)(ii): Records of the most recent month in which each alloy steel chain sling was
thoroughly inspected were not available for examination:
Records of inspections for the slings was not maintained and was not available for examination.

Additional information observed during follow-up investigation:
Inspections had not been performed in the year since the original inspection.

   Citation 1, item 10 alleges:

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in
the workplace was marked, tagged or labeled with the identity of the contents of the container and the
appropriate hazard warning:

   Numerous containers throughout the plant, containing oils, solvents, and cleaners were not
   marked or labeled properly.

Additional information observed during follow-up investigation:

   An unlabeled soft-drink container containing cutting oil, and an unlabeled laundry detergent
   container containing oil were used in the workplace.

                                     Settlement Agreement
   Holder testified that the slings which are the subject of items 3 and 4 have been removed from

the Cudahy work site, and the crane to which they belonged has been disconnected and locked out (Tr.
47). Holder agreed to label a Coke can containing tapping fluid, and a laundry detergent container
containing Way Lube oil with the names of the chemicals contained therein, the hazards associated

                                                2

with those chemicals, and any immediate first aid treatment required (Tr. 49). Coffee cans containing
water would also be labeled (Tr. 50).
The Secretary agreed to accept a penalty of $6,000.00 dollars, to include the $3,000.00 Quad
owes on the original 1998 citation, none of which has, thus far, been paid (Tr. 45). The $6,000.00 is to
be paid in 24 monthly installments of $250.00, beginning February 1, 2000; no interest shall accrue
(Tr. 34, 42, 52). The Respondent is allowed a ten-day grace period and, if desired, may personally
deliver the monthly payment to the OSHA Area Office located in downtown Milwaukee. The
agreement includes an acceleration clause; in the event Quad misses any payments, the entire amount
becomes due (Tr. 42).
The Commission’s E-Z Trial proceedings have been in effect for some time. In this case, the
proposed penalties for Respondent’s failure to abate totaled $60,000.00. The record establishes, that if
assessed, the proposed penalty would have forced Quad to cease operations. OSHA’s pretrial attempts
to discuss settlement, document abatement and/or reduce the proposed penalties were unsuccessful for
various reasons.
Nevertheless, because the Commission instituted E-Z Trial proceedings, which do not require
pre-trial pleadings, discovery, and do not contemplate the filing of motions for default judgments, the
Respondent was able to appear, without representation, to air his version of the events and his
concerns. A pre-hearing conference, required under §2200.207 of the Commission Rules, was held
immediately prior to the scheduled hearing and Quad was able to explain his good faith efforts to abate
the cited violations and demonstrate his inability to meet the payment schedule first suggested by
OSHA. It is noted that Respondent's President, Richard Holder, as well as OSHA Compliance Officer
Galen Lemke, were both extremely credible and professional in their candid exchanges during the
conference portion of the hearing. Both parties, as well as OSHA's counsel, should be commended for
their ability to arrange a reasonable payment schedule while insuring that the specifics of abatement of
the cited hazards were clearly set forth in the transcript.
In my view this case stands for a very important principle. The Commission's E-Z Trial
proceedings work. They allow initial mistakes to be corrected, where, as here, all parties agree to avail
themselves of the flexibility allowed, even after a false start. The Secretary and Respondent stayed
focused on the mutual goal of achieving abatement of the hazards and also insuring that the penalty
assessed meets the purposes of the Act. In my view, justice prevailed.

                                                  3

ORDER

1. The notification of failure to abate previously cited violations of 29 CFR 1910.184(e)(1),
   1910.184(e)(3)(ii) and 1910.1200(f)(5) is AFFIRMED, and a total penalty of $6,000.00, payable in
   installments of $250.00/mo., as set forth in the record, is ASSESSED.

                                                  Stanley M. Schwartz
                                                  Judge, OSHRC
   

Dated: January 18, 2000

                                               4