Madison Foods, Inc. v. Marshall

Citation630 F.2d 628
Decision Date18 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-2062,79-2062
Parties8 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 2029, 1980 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 24,780 MADISON FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor; and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

James E. Culp, for respondents.

Smith, Smith & Boyd by Wayne E. Boyd, South Sioux City, Neb., for petitioner.

Before ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Madison Foods, Inc., petitions this court for review of a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) (1970). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that Madison Foods (Madison) had violated sections 5(a)(1) and (2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) and various regulations promulgated thereunder. The decision of the ALJ was not reviewed by the Commission within 30 days and thus the ALJ's decision became the final order of the Commission. See 29 U.S.C. § 661(i) (1970). We hold that the findings of the ALJ are supported by "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole." 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) (1970). Therefore, we affirm.

Madison operates a hog processing plant in Madison, Nebraska. In November 1978, following a plant inspection, the Secretary of Labor issued a citation to Madison alleging three separate violations of OSHA. The citation charged Madison with failing to maintain a proper maintenance program for its hoisting equipment, failing to provide a standard guardrail and failing to guard two of its grinders. Madison contested the citation in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 659(a) and an administrative hearing was held.

The ALJ found a violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Act based on Madison's failure to maintain a proper maintenance program for its hoisting equipment. Since Madison had abated or was in the process of abating the conditions involving the hoists the ALJ assessed a penalty of $100. The second violation concerned failing to provide a guardrail on a hog-shaving platform as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1). The ALJ found the guardrail violation to be nonserious and assessed no penalty. The third violation concerned failing to provide tongue guards on two grinders as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1910.243(c) (3). The ALJ affirmed the citation as serious and assessed a $50 penalty.

Madison devoted the majority of its argument to challenging the guardrail violation. In reference to the guardrail violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c) (1) 1 the ALJ made the following findings of fact:

At three work stations workers shave excess hair from the hams of the suspended hogs.

The six-foot high station platform is the only one in contest.

The platform, located against a wall, is 24 to 30 inches wide and 15 feet long. It consists of expanded metal which could become wet and greasy.

There is no toe board or barricade on the platform.

The two workers working at the edge of the platform move down the platform as the conveyor moves the hogs which are spaced on three-foot centers.

The workers were not wearing any restraints or harnesses.

The workers could slip or fall off the platform.

The ALJ noted that "(w)orking six feet above the floor while standing on a surface that could be slippery with grease and water exposes the worker, in his activity described here, to the fall hazard." Additionally, "workers could have tied off to the wall behind the platform. Safety belts with lanyards could constitute feasible compliance with this regulation."

We have carefully reviewed the record and the arguments of Madison regarding each of the three violations. 2 Although there was conflicting testimony in many areas, we hold that the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole and are therefore conclusive. 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) (1970). The order of the Commission is affirmed.

* The Honorable DIANA E. MURPHY, United States District Judge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • RSR Corp. v. Donovan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 26, 1984
    ...challenges to OSHA standards are barred unless brought within section 6(f)'s sixty day review period. Madison Falls, Inc. v. Marshall, 630 F.2d 628, 629 n. 2 (8th Cir.1980); National Industrial Constructors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 583 F.2d 1048, 1052-53 (8......
  • International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 89-1563
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 13, 1990
    ...Daniel International Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 656 F.2d 925, 929 (4th Cir.1981); Madison Foods, Inc. v. Marshall, 630 F.2d 628, 629 n. 2 (8th Cir.1980); Noblecraft Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 614 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.1980); National Industrial Cons......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT