Filed: Feb. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60222 _ PHOENIX ROOFING INC, Petitioner, versus OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondents. _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (90-2148) _ February 15, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner, Phoenix Roofing Inc. (Phoenix) appeals the decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (C
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60222 _ PHOENIX ROOFING INC, Petitioner, versus OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondents. _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (90-2148) _ February 15, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner, Phoenix Roofing Inc. (Phoenix) appeals the decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Co..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60222
__________________
PHOENIX ROOFING INC,
Petitioner,
versus
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION;
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Respondents.
______________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission
(90-2148)
______________________________________________
February 15, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner, Phoenix Roofing Inc. (Phoenix) appeals the
decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
(Commission) which upheld a sanction against Phoenix for a
violation of 29 C.F.R. ยง 1926.500(b)(4). After examining the
record and the briefs and considering the same, we conclude: that
the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the regulation at issue
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
is reasonable; that the Administrative Law Judge's factual findings
are supported by the record; that Phoenix has failed to show that
the conclusions of the Commission are either arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the
law; and that Phoenix had reasonable notice of the Secretary's
interpretation of the regulation by which it was sanctioned.
No reversible error being shown by Phoenix, the order of the
Commission is AFFIRMED.