Appeal from the Order of the Department of Labor and Industry Industrial Board, in the case of In Re: One Hour Martinizing -- Tae Ho Cho, Industrial Board Case No. 689 -- BS -- S.
Kevin J. McKeon, Malatesta, Hawke, McKeon & Morris, for petitioners.
Joan J. Miller, Assistant Counsel, with her, Peter C. Layman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Doyle, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 361]
This is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Dry Cleaners and Launderers Association and Dale I. Kaplan Inc., t/a Capen Careful Cleaners (petitioners) from an order of the Industrial Board (Board) which, inter alia, declared that Sections 5(b) and 8(d) of the Dry Cleaning and
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 362]
Dyeing Law, Act of May 14, 1949, P.L. 1342, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 1269.5(b), 1269.8(d) (Law) were unreasonable as applied to One Hour Martinizing dry cleaning (Martinizing) and its franchisee, Mr. Tae Ho Cho (Mr. Cho).
The Board made the following relevant findings. Martinizing is located in a one-story building composed of non-combustible materials and is a Class IV dry cleaning and dyeing plant.*fn1 It utilizes a closed dry cleaning system*fn2 and there are relatively low levels of perchlorethylene*fn3 vapors present in the plant. Based upon these findings, the Board determined that a requirement that Martinizing and Mr. Cho comply with Sections 5(b) and 8(d) of the Law was unreasonable and hence it excused such compliance.*fn4
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 363]
No room used for dry cleaning or dyeing shall be used for any other purpose or occupancy than spotting, spunging, brushing, reclaiming of solvents and the ...