Keystone Forging Company
Letter treated as notice of contest
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1973, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Keystone Forging sent a June 1 letter concerning a non-serious citation and requested additional time to abate several items. Earlier orders treated the letter as an abatement-extension request. The Commission instead treated the letter as a notice of contest under section 10(a) of the Act. It vacated its prior order, declared the judge's August 6 order ineffective, and referred the case for a hearing and decision on the merits.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): None identified in the decision.
- Outcome: Prior orders were vacated and the case was remanded for a merits hearing.
- Key point: The company's June 1 letter was treated as a notice of contest, allowing the citation dispute to proceed.
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. 3269
KEYSTONE
FORGING COMPANY,
���������������������������������������������
Respondent.
ORDER
OF REMAND
September 7, 1973
Before MORAN, Chairman;
VAN NAMEE and CLEARY, Commissioners
VAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER:
The
Commission hereby vacates its order of August 25, 1973, and refers this case
for a hearing and decision on the merits. Judge Herbert E. Bates� order of
August 6, is of no force and effect. Secretary of Labor v. Singleton Sheet
Metal Works , OSHRC Docket No. 878 (October 19, 1972). The matter is to
proceed on the basis that the Company�s letter of June 1 is a notice of contest
filed under section 10(a) of the Act.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY
OF LABOR,
��������������������������������������������
Complainant,
������������������������ v.
OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 3269
KEYSTONE
FORGING COMPANY,
���������������������������������������������
Respondent.
August 6, 1973
BATES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:
Ruling on petition for
modification of abatement. In view of the Petitioner�s clarification of his
June 1, 1973, petition for abatement extension, my order dated July 25, 1973,
is hereby rescinded and the Petitioner�s application for extended time to abate
as outlined in the said letter, (such time periods to run consecutively) is
hereby granted and is so ordered.
�
July 23, 1973
BATES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:
The Petitioner�s
unopposed application for extensions of time (as itemized below) to abate the
items specified in Non-Serious Citation issued on May 11, 1973 is hereby
granted.
It
is accordingly ORDERED that the aforesaid Citation be amended to reflect the
abatement periods as outlined below:
Item
Abatement Date
Extension
Requested
1
June 9, 1973
12 days
2
49 days
3
24 days
4
14 days
5
30 days
6
86 days
7
186 days
10
May 24, 1973
36 days
11
June 9, 1973
16 days
12
23 days
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1973. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.