Equipco Contractors, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Equipco Contractors contested a serious citation and proposed $500 penalty, then asked to withdraw before the scheduled hearing. The company stated that it had completed abatement, tendered the penalty, and would continue to comply with the Act. It served the motion on the parties and employee representatives and later certified workplace posting. The Secretary confirmed immediate abatement and payment and supported withdrawal, and no other party objected. The Commission approved the withdrawal and amended the judge's order to expressly affirm the citation and penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard number is identified in the decision.
• Outcome: The serious citation and $500 proposed penalty were affirmed after Equipco withdrew its contest.
• Key point: The uncontested withdrawal was approved after abatement, payment, service, and posting were documented.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 1192

EQUIPCO CONTRACTORS, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 1192

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

November 6, 1972

�
[*1]
�

Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners

OPINIONBY: BURCH

OPINION:

�
BURCH, COMMISSIONER: On October 2, 1972, Judge Thomas J. Donegan issued an order granting a "Motion to Withdraw Notice of Contest of Citation and Proposed Penalty" in this case.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Members of the Commission by section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651
et seq.,
84 Stat. 1590), I hereby direct that the Judge's recommended order be reviewed by the Commission in order to conform the decision herein with established Commission policy.

Accordingly, the Judge's order is amended to provide that the respondent's motion to withdraw notice of contest is granted and the citation and the penalty proposed by the Secretary are affirmed.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

DONEGAN, JUDGE, OSAHRC: This case is before the Judge for hearing upon assignment by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

On September 22, 1972, prior to the date set for hearing, the Respondent filed a "Motion to Withdraw Notice of Contest of Citation and Proposed Penalty" together with a Certificate of Service on the parties of
��
[*2]
�
record, including authorized employee representatives.
�
In this Motion the Respondent asserts that abatement of the violation has been completed, a tender of the proposed penalty has been made and assurance of continuing compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
�
On September 28, 1972 the Respondent filed a Certificate of Positing of a copy of the "Motion to Withdraw Notice of Contest of Citation and Proposed Penalty"

On September 22, 1972 the undersigned Judge issued to all parties of record a "Notice of Cancellation of Hearing" and a "Notice of Review of Respondent's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Contest." A period of seven (7) days from the date of this Notice was granted for replies to the Respondent's Motion.

On September 26, 1972 the Secretary of Labor responded to Respondent's Motion to Withdraw stating that tender of the payment of the penalty of $500.00 has been made and the serious violation for which the Respondent was cited was abated immediately.
�
The Secretary of Labor concurs in the Respondent's Motion and filed with his response a Certificate of Service on all parties of record together with Notice of the Posting requirements of 29 C.F.R. 2200.7(i)(1),
�
[*3]
�
under the Rules of Procedure applicable at the time.

Based upon the representations of the Respondent in his "Motion to Withdraw Notice of Contest," the representations and concurrence of the Secretary of Labor in the response to the Respondent's Motion, and no objection or response of any other party having been received; it is found that the Respondent's "Motion to Withdraw Notice of Contest" in the above
�
named case (OSAHRC Docket No. 1192) should be granted, and it is so ordered.

There being no further contest in the above-captioned case (OSAHRC Docket No. 1192), it is recommended that this order be made the order of the Commission.
�