United Steelworkers of America v. Auchter
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
763 F.2d 728 (1985)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
In 1983, acting under § 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (act), the United States secretary of labor (secretary) promulgated the Hazard Communication Standard (standard), which, among other things, required employers in the manufacturing sector to provide employees with information and training about hazardous chemicals in their work areas. The standard was based, in part, on the secretary’s finding that inadequate communication was a hazard that could be mitigated with direct communication to employees. The standard was limited to the manufacturing sector, which represented 32 percent of workers but more than 50 percent of reported illnesses due to chemical exposure. Although other employment sectors were also exposed to hazardous chemicals, the secretary decided to regulate first in the area that was viewed as having the greatest need. The result, however, was that the standard covered spray painters in the manufacturing sector, for example, but not spray painters who used the same materials in the construction industry. The United Steelworkers of America (plaintiff) and other labor groups sought judicial review of the standard in an action against Thorne Auchter (defendant), assistant secretary of labor. Several states with their own hazard-disclosure laws also filed petitions for review, and the cases were consolidated. Under the act, § 6 standards expressly preempted state laws on the same subject unless the state submitted a plan for the development, enforcement, and financing of its own standards. Section 8 of the act authorized the secretary to issue regulations requiring employers to maintain records and inform employees about exposure to potentially toxic materials. Regulations issued under § 8 did not expressly preempt state disclosure laws. The states, whose disclosure requirements were in some respects stricter than those adopted by the secretary, argued that the challenged rule should be classified as a § 8 regulation rather than a § 6 standard and that the limitation of the standard’s coverage to the manufacturing sector was improper.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibbons, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.