Dole v. United Steelworkers of America
By: LN on May 02, 2012 10:02:30 AM

Citation:  494 U.S. 26, 110 S.Ct. 929, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990).

Summary:  Respondent DOL formulated standards for the health and safety measures at work places. Petitioner OMB rejected all requirements except three provisions. Respondent filed suit claiming that petitioner did not have authority. Petitioner claimed that it had authority under the act.

Facts:  In 1983 Department of Labor (DOL) was authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) for setting the health and safety standards at workplaces. The standard imposed various requirements. Later on, DOL issued a revised hazard communication standard that applied to work sites to all sectors of the economy. DOL submitted the standard for review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB approved three provisions and rejected the other requirements. DOL filed suit in the third circuit court which ordered OMB for reinstating the provisions and holding that OMB had no authority under the Act. Petitioners sought review of the decision passed by the third circuit court.

Issue:  Whether the third circuit court was correct in holding that OMB lacked authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act for disapproving the provisions?

Holding:  Yes, the appellate court was correct in holding that OMB lacked authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act for disapproving the provisions.

Procedure:  Judgment of the third circuit court was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.

Rule:  The Act prohibits federal agency from adopting regulations which were imposed by the Paperwork requirements on the public unless the information is available to the agency from another source within the federal government and the agency has to formulate a plan for tabulating that information.

Rationale:  The statute was considered wholly and it was concluded that the statute clearly expressed the intention of the congress. In such circumstances the court declined to defer OMB's interpretation. The traditional deference was not applied to the cases in which the intention of the congress was clear.

Dissent:  Two judges in dissent opined that the statute itself was not clear and unambiguous and the legislative history was muddy. The OMB had given the statute a proper construction and hence they did not agree to the judgment.

 

View Comments


Leave Comment
After logging in, you can add comments
Michael Mordechai YadegariReviewsout of 83 reviews