International Union, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
938 F.2d 1310 (1991)
- Written by Susie Cowen, JD
Facts
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (defendant) issued a regulation entitled “Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout).” The terms “lockout” and “tagout” in the regulation referred to two procedures designed to reduce workplace injuries. The regulation applied to virtually all equipment in almost all industries. OSHA took the position that it could impose any restriction it chose to as long as the restriction was feasible. It based this position on the text of § 3(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act), which provides that OSHA may issue standards that are “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.” Section 6(b)(5) of the Act limits OSHA’s discretion when promulgating standards that deal with toxic materials or harmful physical agents. Representatives of labor and industry (plaintiffs) challenged the regulation in federal court on the ground that the Act was an invalid delegation of legislative authority with respect to rules issued under § 6(b) of the Act, but not covered by § 6(b)(5).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
