29 U.S.C. § 659

Enforcement procedures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notification of employer of proposed assessment of penalty subsequent to issuance of citation; time for notification of Secretary by employer of contest by employer of citation or proposed assessment; citation and proposed assessment as final order upon failure of employer to notify of contest and failure of employees to file notice

If, after an inspection or investigation, the Secretary issues a citation under section 658(a) of this title, he shall, within a reasonable time after the termination of such inspection or investigation, notify the employer by certified mail of the penalty, if any, proposed to be assessed under section 666 of this title and that the employer has fifteen working days within which to notify the Secretary that he wishes to contest the citation or proposed assessment of penalty. 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, and no notice is filed by any employee or representative of employees under subsection (c) within such time, 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.

(b) Notification of employer of failure to correct in allotted time period violation for which citation was issued and proposed assessment of penalty for failure to correct; time for notification of Secretary by employer of contest by employer of notification of failure to correct or proposed assessment; notification or proposed assessment as final order upon failure of employer to notify of contest

If the Secretary has reason to believe that an employer has failed to correct a violation for which a citation has been issued within the period permitted for its correction (which period shall not begin to run until the entry of a final order by the Commission in the case of any review proceedings under this section initiated by the employer in good faith and not solely for delay or avoidance of penalties), the Secretary shall notify the employer by certified mail of such failure and of the penalty proposed to be assessed under section 666 of this title by reason of such failure, and that the employer has fifteen working days within which to notify the Secretary that he wishes to contest the Secretary’s notification or the proposed assessment of penalty. If, within fifteen working days from the receipt of notification issued by the Secretary, the employer fails to notify the Secretary that he intends to contest the notification or proposed assessment of penalty, the notification and assessment, as proposed, shall be deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by any court or agency.

(c) Advisement of Commission by Secretary of notification of contest by employer of citation or notification or of filing of notice by any employee or representative of employees; hearing by Commission; orders of Commission and Secretary; rules of procedure

If an employer notifies the Secretary that he intends to contest a citation issued under section 658(a) of this title or notification issued under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, or if, within fifteen working days of the issuance of a citation under section 658(a) of this title, any employee or representative of employees files a notice with the Secretary alleging that the period of time fixed in the citation for the abatement of the violation is unreasonable, the Secretary shall immediately advise the Commission of such notification, and the Commission shall afford an opportunity for a hearing (in accordance with section 554 of title 5 but without regard to subsection (a)(3) of such section). The Commission shall thereafter issue an order, based on findings of fact, affirming, modifying, or vacating the Secretary’s citation or proposed penalty, or directing other appropriate relief, and such order shall become final thirty days after its issuance. Upon a showing by an employer of a good faith effort to comply with the abatement requirements of a citation, and that abatement has not been completed because of factors beyond his reasonable control, the Secretary, after an opportunity for a hearing as provided in this subsection, shall issue an order affirming or modifying the abatement requirements in such citation. The rules of procedure prescribed by the Commission shall provide affected employees or representatives of affected employees an opportunity to participate as parties to hearings under this subsection.

(Pub. L. 91–596, § 10, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1601.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 251 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Elaine M. Chao, Sec'y of Labor v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elaine M. Chao, Sec'y of Labor v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002). · cites it 12× “29 U.S.C. § 659 (a). An employer may contest a citation or proposed penalty by filing a notice of contest with the Secretary within fifteen working days after receiving notice of the citation.”

Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int'l Union & Its Local 4-23, 718 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 8× “5 After the employer had filed the notices of contest, but before each hearing, the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Worker’s International Union and its Local 4-23 (the Union) exercised the employees’ right under § 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659 (c), to participate as parties to…”

Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 534 F.2d 541 (3rd Cir. 1976). · cites it 5× “Petitioners filed notices of contest, 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a), which resulted in a hearing before the Commission’s Administrative Law Judge.”

Sturm Ruger Co Inc v. Chao, Elaine, 300 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “Both employers and the Secretary may seek review of OSHRC orders in the courts of appeals. Id. § 660(a), (b). 1 In 1996, OSHA launched an annual survey called the Data Collection Initiative (DCI).”

Beall Constr. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 507 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1974). · cites it 9× “These citations and proposed penalties totalling $1,275 became final and nonre-viewable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a) when Petitioner failed to contest them within the prescribed 15 day period.”

D.R.T.G. Builders v. OSHC, 26 F.4th 306 (5th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “2 The 1 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a). 2 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a).”

Marshall v. Sun Petroleum Prods. Co., 622 F.2d 1176 (3rd Cir. 1980). · cites it 13× “On February 8, 1977, the ALJ conducted a prehearing conference during which both Sun and the Secretary asserted that the union’s right to object to the settlement agreement was limited by 29 U.S.C. § 659 (c) to challenging the reasonableness of the time for abatement…”

F. Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor v. B. W. Harrison Lumber Co., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 569 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 6× “Although the procedures for a citation and a failure-to-correct notification are very similar, compare 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a) with id. § 659(b), larger penalties may be imposed under a failure-to-eorrect notification.”

Slingluff v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 425 F.3d 861 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Slingluff timely contested the citation on June 18, 2003, see 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a), challenging OSHA’s jurisdiction by asserting that he did not qualify as an “employer” under OSHA, i.”

Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Interstate Glass Co., 487 F.2d 438 (8th Cir. 1973). · cites it 6× “12 I SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW The Commission is granted the power to review either the citation or the proposed penalty or both under 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a) and (c). The scope of such .”

Robert Reich, Sec'y of Labor v. Andrew Manganas & Manganas Painting Co., Inc., 70 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 1995). · cites it 6× “Before this court, the defendants contend that § 10(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659 (b), excuses such compliance while the employer is awaiting an administrative decision on earlier alleged violations of the Act.”

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “But the court always reserves the power to test feasibility again later — in reviewing denial of a temporary variance or, where an employer found such a variance insufficient, in judicial review of an enforcement proceeding under 29 U.S.C. § 659 (1976). In the temporary variance…”

Show all 251 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 659(a) — 2 cases

Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Interstate Glass Co., 487 F.2d 438 (8th Cir. 1973). “12 I SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW The Commission is granted the power to review either the citation or the proposed penalty or both under 29 U.S.C. § 659 (a) and (c). The scope of such .”

Lance Roofing Co. v. Hodgson, 343 F. Supp. 685 (N.D. Ga. 1972).

— 29 U.S.C. § 659(c) — 2 cases

Sturm Ruger Co Inc v. Chao, Elaine, 300 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Both employers and the Secretary may seek review of OSHRC orders in the courts of appeals. Id. § 660(a), (b). 1 In 1996, OSHA launched an annual survey called the Data Collection Initiative (DCI).”

Stockwell Mfg. Co. v. William J. Usery, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor, 536 F.2d 1306 (10th Cir. 1976).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.