Louis P. Anesi d/b/a Anesi Packing Company

Plain-English summary

Louis P. Anesi, representing himself, did not file a formal answer to the Secretary's complaint. The judge dismissed his notice of contest and affirmed the citation and proposed penalties. The Commission found that Anesi had timely sent the Secretary a letter denying every citation identified in the complaint. Although the letter did not follow formal pleading rules, it clearly stated his position. The Commission set aside the dismissal, denied the Secretary's motion, and reinstated the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the decision.
• Outcome: The dismissal was reversed and the notice of contest was reinstated for further proceedings.
• Key point: A clear denial from a self-represented employer could be treated as an answer despite technical pleading defects.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

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

������������������������ v.

OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 3133

LOUIS
P. ANESI, d/b/a/ ANESI PACKING COMPANY

���������������������������������������������
Respondent.

DIRECTION
FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

September 10, 1973

Before MORAN, Chairman;
VAN NAMEE and CLEARY, Commissioners

VAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER:

On
August 9, 1973, Judge Herbert E. Bates issued an order granting the
Complainant�s motion to dismiss Respondent�s notice of contest and affirming
the citation and penalties proposed therefor. The motion was predicated on the
ground that Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint as required by
the Commission�s Rules of Procedure.

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. 651 et seq., 84 Stat.
1590), I am herewith directing that the Judge�s order be reviewed by the
Commission. For the reasons given below we reverse and reinstate the contest.

We
have reviewed the record and note that Complainant (but not the Commission)
received a letter from Respondent during the period for filing an answer to the
complaint. Complainant�s counsel indicates that the letter is a response to the
complaint but is not an �answer� within the meaning of the Commission Rule
33(b).

The
following appears in the letter: �I�m denying all citations that you have
referred to in your [complaint].� Respondent is appearing pro se.

Obviously,
Respondent�s letter does not conform with the technical aspects of what is
recognized as good pleading practice. However, the letter leaves no doubt as to
the substance of Respondent�s position. He denies those allegations of the
complaint whereby it is averred that he violated the Act. Under these
circumstances we believe that procedure should give way to substance and that
Respondent should be allowed his day in court.

Accordingly,
it is ORDERED that: (1) the Judge�s order be and the same is hereby set aside,
(2) Complainant�s motion to dismiss is denied, and (3) the case is reinstated
for further proceedings.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

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

������������������������ v.

OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 3133

LOUIS
P. ANESI, d/b/a/ ANESI PACKING COMPANY

���������������������������������������������
Respondent.

August 9, 1973

BATES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:

The
Respondent, after having been expressly notified that failure to answer the
Complaint in the captioned case may result in dismissal of his Notice of Contest,
failed to file an Answer to the Complaint served by the Secretary on June 12,
1973, which failure contravened Commission Rule 33(b).

The
Complainant consequently filed a motion that the Respondent�s Notice of Contest
be dismissed because of this failure. No response has been entered by the
Respondent to that motion.

In
view of the foregoing, the Complainant�s motion is granted, and it is ORDERED
that the Respondent�s Notice of Contest be, and is, vacated and the Citation
issued on May 22, 1973, and its attendant Notification of Proposed Penalty be,
and are, affirmed in all respects.