Dunlop v. Haybuster Mfg. Co., 75-1086
| Decision Date | 20 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1086,75-1086 |
| Citation | 524 F.2d 222 |
| Parties | 3 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1594, 1975-1976 O.S.H.D. ( 20,088 John T. DUNLOP, Secretary of Labor, Petitioner, v. HAYBUSTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William J. Kilberg, Benjamin W. Mintz, Michael H. Levin and Marc R. Hillson, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Herman Weiss, Jamestown, N. D., for respondent, Haybuster Mfg. Co.
Before LAY, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
This petition by the Secretary of Labor to review and set aside an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission requires interpretation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., with respect to certain enforcement provisions. The specific question presented is whether the Review Commission erred in holding that the Secretary can neither require abatement of prescribed safety hazards in less than 15 working days nor reinspect for nonabatement within that period. We hold that the Review Commission erred in so holding.
Haybuster Manufacturing Company is a corporation engaged in manufacturing farm equipment in Jamestown, North Dakota. On August 31, 1972, a compliance officer of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted a routine inspection of Haybuster's plant. As a result of that inspection, a citation was issued on September 19, 1974, charging Haybuster with 13 violations of safety standards promulgated pursuant to OSHA. 1 A notice of a proposed penalty in the amount of $315 accompanied the citation.
Haybuster paid the penalty and did not file a contest within the 15 working days allowed for such challenges by section 10(a) of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 659(a). Accordingly, the validity of the citation of September 19, 1974, and the $315 penalty is not in issue. The present controversy, however, does arise out of four of the violations contained in the aforesaid citation: (1) failure to mount properly a portable fire extinguisher; (2) failure to provide a durable tag showing the recharge date of another fire extinguisher; (3) failure to cover properly live parts of a large punch press operating at over 50 volts; and (4) failure to ground a drill press, an oil pump, and two electrical outlets. The citation issued on September 19, 1974, allowed Haybuster until September 29, 1974, to abate the four violations enumerated above. On October 3, 1974, a reinspection was made which disclosed that those violations had not been corrected. Accordingly, on October 12, 1974, a new citation for nonabatement of those four violations was issued, along with a notice of a proposed additional penalty in the amount of $1,730 for the continuing violations during the period from September 29 to October 3, 1975.
Haybuster filed a timely contest to the citation and notice of proposed penalty of October 12, 1974, and the case was submitted on a joint stipulation of facts to the Administrative Law Judge, who reduced the penalty to $975 but otherwise upheld the nonabatement citation. Thereafter, Commissioner Moran directed review of the Administrative Law Judge's order by the full Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. On December 6, 1974, the Commission, by a 2-1 margin, reversed the Judge's order and vacated the nonabatement notice and penalty based on its earlier decision in Secretary v. Kesler and Sons Construction Co., 9 OSAHRC Reports 1033 (1974), reversed sub nom., Brennan v. Occupational Safety and Health Commission, 513 F.2d 553 (10th Cir. 1975). In Secretary v. Kesler the Commission had ruled that OSHA provides for a 15 working day grace period following receipt of a citation, during which abatement may not be required, and that any reinspection within that time and any additional penalties arising therefrom are without force and effect.
The Secretary of Labor filed a timely petition to review the Commission's order. 2 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 11(b) of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 660(b).
The issue raised in this case is whether under OSHA the Secretary of Labor has the authority to require abatement of cited safety hazards within less than 15 working days from the date of receipt of the citation and may reinspect for nonabatement during that period where no timely contest to the original citation is filed. For reasons discussed infra, we hold that the Secretary has such authority, and therefore the Commission's order must be set aside.
We note at the outset that the issue posed is a question of law, and therefore this court is free to make an independent determination of the issue. See Lewis v. Butz, 512 F.2d 681, 683 (8th Cir. 1975); American Smelting and Refining Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,501 F.2d 504, 508 (8th Cir. 1974).
The Act does not expressly resolve the question of the minimum time allowable for abatement where no contest to the original citation is filed. OSHA merely authorizes the Secretary of Labor to issue citations for violations of standards set pursuant to the Act and provides that "the citation shall fix a reasonable time for the abatement of the violation." 29 U.S.C. § 658(a). The statute further provides:
If, within fifteen working days from the receipt of the notice issued by the Secretary the employer fails to notify the Secretary that he intends to contest the citation or proposed assessment of penalty * * * the citation and the assessment, as proposed, shall be deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by any court or agency.
29 U.S.C. § 659(a). Finally, the Act states:
If the Secretary has reason to believe that an employer has failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local 395 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Hatco, Inc.
...92 Ariz. 63, 373 P.2d 370 (1962); Tovrea Land & Cattle Co. v. Linsenmeyer, 100 Ariz. 107, 412 P.2d 47 (1966); Dunlop v. Haybuster Mfg. Co., 524 F.2d 222 (8th Cir.1975); Grassetti v. Weinberger, 408 F.Supp. 142 (N.D.Cal.1976). On the record before us we conclude that there is reasonable evid......
-
Dakota Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo
...stage of the proceedings, is subject to correction in an appeal to this court. Dunlop v. Haybuster Manufacturing Co. & Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, 524 F.2d 222, 224 (8th Cir. 1975). The district court relied on the Supreme Court opinion, Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 93 S......