General Motors Corporation, GM Assembly Division
Late complaint accepted
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1980, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The judge denied the Secretary's motion to file a late complaint and vacated the citation. Applying its rule that late filing does not justify vacatur without contumacious conduct or prejudice, the Commission found the Secretary's explanation sufficient and no employer prejudice established. It reversed the vacatur, accepted the complaint, severed this docket from four consolidated cases, and remanded for further proceedings.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): Not identified in the Commission order.
- Outcome: Citation restored; late complaint accepted; case remanded.
- Key point: A citation should not be vacated solely because the Secretary filed the complaint late when the delay was not contumacious and the employer was not prejudiced.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
Docket No. 79-7196
1 of 202 DOCUMENTS
TURNER COMPANY
A. SCHONBEK & CO., INC.
�
NORANDA ALUMINUM, INC.
�
GENERAL MOTORS CORP., GM ASSEMBLY DIV.
�
OSHRC Docket No. 79-7196
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
December 30, 1980
COUNSEL:
�
[*1]
�
Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL
James E. White, Reg. Sol., USDOL
Vincent Candiello, General Motors Corporation, for the employer
John C. Harrington, Jr., for the employer
David B. McCall and Steve Walker, FWA Drilling Co., Inc., for the employer
Gary Klingel, Health and Safety Rep., UAW Local 1999, for the employees
OPINION:
ORDER OF REMAND
A decision of Administrative Law Judge Quentin P. McColgin n1 is before the Commission pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. � �
�
651-678.
�
In that decision, Judge McColgin denied the Secretary's motion to file pleading out of time and vacated a citation issued to respondent for the Secretary's failure to file a timely complaint.
�
For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Judge's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
n1 Judge McColgin consolidated docket Nos. 79-7196, 80-168, 80-607, 80-610, and 80-1031 for purposes of his decision.
�
The cases are hereby severed for purposes of our review and further proceedings consistent with our decision.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -End [*2]
�
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -End [*2]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Commission has recently held that the failure of the Secretary to file a timely complaint does not justify vacating a citation absent a finding that the failure either was the result of the Secretary's contumacious conduct or resulted in prejudice to the employer.
�
The Secretary's explanation for not filing a timely complaint in this matter is substantially similar to that in Boardman Co., supra. As we found in Boardman, the Secretary's explanation is sufficient to preclude a finding of contumacious conduct.
�
Moreover, at this time respondent has not established any prejudice resulting from the Secretary's failure to file a timely complaint.
Accordingly, we reverse Judge McColgin's decision vacating the citation.
�
We grant the Secretary's motion to file pleading out of time and accept the complaint filed with the motion.
�
The case is remanded to the Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
�
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1980. 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.