Bill Echols Trucking Company

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Bill Echols Trucking Company for a serious failure to provide reverse signal alarms on vehicles with obstructed views and proposed a $600 penalty. It also issued an other than serious citation with no proposed penalty. The company promptly wrote that it had installed the signaling device and asked that the penalty be abated, but the Secretary waited about 43 days before forwarding the letter to the Commission and then argued that it was not a notice of contest. The Commission treated the letter as a valid notice of contest and reinstated the case after confirming that the company had complied with posting requirements. Because Commission rules required the Secretary to transmit a notice of contest within seven days, the Commission vacated the citation and penalty notification as a procedural sanction.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Not identified in the release
• Outcome: The Commission reinstated the notice of contest, denied the Secretary's motion to strike, and vacated the citation and notification of proposed penalties.
• Key point: A reasonable employer letter can constitute a notice of contest, and a flagrant delay in transmitting it to the Commission can warrant vacating the enforcement action.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

��������������������������������������������
Complainant,

������������������������ v.

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1589

BILL ECHOLS TRUCKING COMPANY,

SUPPLEMENTAL
ORDER

January 26, 1973

Before MORAN,
Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners

BURCH,
COMMISSIONER:

On
November 20, 1972, respondent�s notice of contest in this case was dismissed by
the Commission for failure to comply with the Commission�s Rules of Procedure
regarding certification of service (by posting or otherwise) of the notice of
contest. (Commission rule 2200.7.)

Thereafter,
on December 1 respondent wrote to the Commission objecting to the disposition
of the case on the grounds that the company had, in fact, complied with the
Commission�s service requirements for the notice of contest by posting same
within 24 hours of being apprised of that requirement and that certification of
such posting was timely forwarded to the Commission. Having verified that fact
through review of the record in this case, we will, therefore, construe
respondent�s December 1 letter as a motion for reinstatement and grant same,
thereby setting aside our final order.

Further
review of the record discloses that on August 23, 1972, respondent was issued a
citation for an alleged serious violation of the Act for failure to provide
reverse signal alarms on vehicles with an obstructed view, together with a
notification of proposed penalty of $600. A citation for an alleged other than
serious violation was also issued respondent for which no penalty was proposed.

By
letter dated September 5 (received by the Secretary�s Area Director on
September 6) respondent stated:

This is to inform
you that the signaling device has been installed within the three day period
after the citation. We request that the penalty be abated since corrective
action has been taken well within the time allotted [sic].

�

The
Secretary deferred forwarding this letter to the Commission until October 16
(some 43 days later), at which time he filed a motion to strike respondent�s
letter as not constituting a notice of contest. No explanation for the delay in
forwarding that letter has been offered by the Secretary.

Imparting
a reasonable interpretation to that letter, we believe it constituted a notice
of contest and it should have been construed as such by the Secretary.
Commission rule 2200.32 provides:

The Secretary shall,
within 7 days of receipt of a notice of contest, transmit the original to the
Commission, together with copies of all relevant documents.

�

The
Commission has in the past vacated the Secretary�s citations and notification
of proposed penalties for flagrant failure to comply with this rule, and we
believe the facts of record herein warrant the same disposition of this case.
Secretary of Labor v. Lennox Industries, Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 1106, Secretary
of Labor v. Pleasant Valley Packing Company, Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 464. The
Commission will, therefore, deny the Secretary�s motion to strike and sua
sponte dispose of this matter in accordance with previous Commission precedent.

�

Accordingly, it
is ORDERED that respondent�s motion for reinstatement is granted, the final
order of the Commission is set aside, the notice of contest is reinstated, the
Secretary�s motion to strike is denied and the citation and notification of
proposed penalties are vacated.

UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

��������������������������������������������
Complainant,

������������������������ v.

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1589

BILL ECHOLS TRUCKING COMPANY,

ORDER
OF DISMISSAL

November 20,
1972

By the
Commission:

Dismissal
of notice of contest. Respondent was advised by a written communication dated
October 24, 1972, of the Commission�s Rules of Procedure with respect to
service (posting or otherwise) of the notice of contest. Since respondent has
failed to furnish the required certification of compliance with these Rules
within the time specified, the notice of contest is dismissed.