Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Fourth Circuit

Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

557 F.2d 1045, 5 BNA OSHC 1678, 1977 CCH OSHD 21,952, 5 OSHC (BNA) 1678, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 1977

Docket75-1314

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 557 F.2d 1045 (Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 557 F.2d 1045, 5 BNA OSHC 1678, 1977 CCH OSHD 21,952, 5 OSHC (BNA) 1678, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719 (4th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This petition for review of a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission involves two issues: first, whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 denied the petitioner, Floyd Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc., a trial by jury in violation of the Seventh Amendment, and, second, whether the violation of safety standards by the petitioner’s foreman could be imputed to the petitioner. *

Since the question of the Act’s constitutionality was pending before the Supreme Court, we deferred disposition of the petition until the Court decided this issue. The Court has now ruled that the Seventh Amendment is not a bar to the imposition of civil penalties by an administrative tribunal as authorized by the Act.

In the meantime, while this petition for review was pending before us, the Commission decided Secretary v. Engineers Construction, Inc., 20 OSAHRC Rep. 348 (1975). There, the Commission ruled that an employer is not responsible for its supervisor’s unauthorized acts. That decision appears to be inconsistent with the law previously applied to this case. Indeed, one commissioner has suggested that Engineers seems to overrule the decision in this case that a foreman’s violations can be imputed to his *1046 employer. See Engineers, 20 OSAHRC Rep. at 352 (Cleary, Commissioner, dissenting). See also Ocean Electric Corp., OSHRC Docket No. 5811, 1975-76 OSHD 23,992, 23,993-994, n.5 (dictum).

We, therefore, vacate the commissioner’s judgment and remand this case for reconsideration in light of Engineers. If the Commission decides to reaffirm, it should explain (a) why the case does not conflict with Engineers; or (b) if the case cannot be reconciled, why it adheres to its ruling. If it decides that its judgment should be modified, it should explain the reasons for its change of view.

Vacated and remanded.

*

The Commission’s decision is reported as Secretary v. Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc., 15 OSAHRC Rep. 302 (1975).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This petition for review of a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission involves two issues: first, whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 denied the petitioner, Floyd Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc., a trial by jury in violation of the Seventh Amendment, and, second, whether the violation of safety standards by the petitioner’s foreman could be imputed to the petitioner. *

Since the question of the Act’s constitutionality was pending before the Supreme Court, we deferred disposition of the petition until the Court decided this issue. The Court has now ruled that the Seventh Amendment is not a bar to the imposition of civil penalties by an administrative tribunal as authorized by the Act.

In the meantime, while this petition for review was pending before us, the Commission decided Secretary v. Engineers Construction, Inc., 20 OSAHRC Rep. 348 (1975). There, the Commission ruled that an employer is not responsible for its supervisor’s unauthorized acts. That decision appears to be inconsistent with the law previously applied to this case. Indeed, one commissioner has suggested that Engineers seems to overrule the decision in this case that a foreman’s violations can be imputed to his *1046 employer. See Engineers, 20 OSAHRC Rep. at 352 (Cleary, Commissioner, dissenting). See also Ocean Electric Corp., OSHRC Docket No. 5811, 1975-76 OSHD 23,992, 23,993-994, n.5 (dictum).

We, therefore, vacate the commissioner’s judgment and remand this case for reconsideration in light of Engineers. If the Commission decides to reaffirm, it should explain (a) why the case does not conflict with Engineers; or (b) if the case cannot be reconciled, why it adheres to its ruling. If it decides that its judgment should be modified, it should explain the reasons for its change of view.

Vacated and remanded.

*

The Commission’s decision is reported as Secretary v. Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractor, Inc., 15 OSAHRC Rep. 302 (1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 F.2d 1045, 5 BNA OSHC 1678, 1977 CCH OSHD 21,952, 5 OSHC (BNA) 1678, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-s-pike-electrical-contractor-inc-v-occupational-safety-and-health-ca4-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack