International Union, United Automobile Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Occupational Safety
& Health Administration case brief summary
938 F.2d 1310
CASE FACTS
Petitioner unions challenged a regulation promulgated by respondent Occupational Safety and Health Administration which was designed to reduce injuries caused by ordinary industrial equipment that might suddenly move and injure a worker. The Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout) regulation contained two procedures designed to reduce such injuries. Petitioners contended that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act), provided the statutory criteria for the lockout rule. Petitioners claimed that the hazard involved was a harmful physical agent as that term was used in the Act.
DISCUSSION
The court upheld respondent's conclusion that § 655(b)(5) did not govern occupational safety standards that regulated hazards causing immediately noticeable physical harm.
OUTCOME
The court upheld respondent Occupational Safety & Health Administration's ruling that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act) did not provide the statutory criteria for the lockout rule of the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources regulation. The Act did not govern occupational safety standards that regulated hazards causing immediately noticeable physical harm.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
938 F.2d 1310
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner unions sought review of an
order of respondent Occupational Safety & Health Administration,
ruling that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.S.
§ 655(b)(5), did not provide the statutory criteria for the lockout
rule of the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources, 54 Fed. Reg.
36,644, regulation.CASE FACTS
Petitioner unions challenged a regulation promulgated by respondent Occupational Safety and Health Administration which was designed to reduce injuries caused by ordinary industrial equipment that might suddenly move and injure a worker. The Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout) regulation contained two procedures designed to reduce such injuries. Petitioners contended that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act), provided the statutory criteria for the lockout rule. Petitioners claimed that the hazard involved was a harmful physical agent as that term was used in the Act.
DISCUSSION
The court upheld respondent's conclusion that § 655(b)(5) did not govern occupational safety standards that regulated hazards causing immediately noticeable physical harm.
OUTCOME
The court upheld respondent Occupational Safety & Health Administration's ruling that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act) did not provide the statutory criteria for the lockout rule of the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources regulation. The Act did not govern occupational safety standards that regulated hazards causing immediately noticeable physical harm.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment