Holman Steel Company

Plain-English summary

An OSHRC judge dismissed Holman Steel Company's notice of contest, affirmed a citation, and assessed a $1,500 penalty after the company did not respond to an order. The Secretary asked the Commission to review the default because the parties had executed a settlement agreement. Her petition stated that the procedural failure followed the death of Thomas N. Holman and a delay in appointing someone to handle his estate. The Commission could not approve the filed agreement because it was not an original copy. It granted relief from the default and remanded the case so the parties could submit the original executed settlement agreement to the judge for consideration.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the decision.
• Outcome: Default order set aside and case remanded for consideration of the original executed settlement agreement.
• Key point: The Commission may grant relief from a default to permit settlement, but the parties must submit an original executed agreement for approval.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 91-1341

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant

v.

HOLMAN STEELWORKS, INC.

Respondent.

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 91-1341

ORDER

Respondent having failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the order entered on
December 10, 1991, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �2200.41(a)*, it is

ORDERED that respondent's notice of contest is dismissed, the April 23, 1991, citation is
affirmed, and a penalty of $1,500 is assessed.

RICHARD DeBENEDETTO

Judge, OSHRC

Dated: February 12, 1992

Boston, Massachusetts

LYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

H0LMAN STEEL COMPANY,   

Respondent.      

OSHRC Docket No. 91-1341   

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

The Secretary has filed a petition for review in which she asks that the Commission direct
for review the order of Administrative Law Judge Richard DeBenedetto, dismissing the
notice of contest, affirming the citation, and assessing a penalty of $1,500. The
Secretary also requests that the Commission accept "the settlement agreement being
filed herewith." Because the agreement filed is not an original copy, it cannot be
approved.

Accordingly, this case is directed for Review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 2200.92(a). Upon
review, relief is granted pursuant to Commission Rule 41(b) and the case is remanded to
Judge DeBenedetto. The parties are hereby requested to submit the original executed
settlement agreement to Judge DeBenedetto for his consideration.[[1]]

DATED. 3/23/92

VELMA MONTOYA

COMMISSIONER

DONALD G. WISEMAN

COMMISSIONER

LYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

H0LMAN STEEL COMPANY,   

Respondent.      

OSHRC Docket No. 91-1341    

SECRETARY'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Complainant, the Secretary of Labor, moves for
direction of this case and acceptance of the settlement agreement being filed herewith. As
grounds for this motion the Secretary states as follows:

1. On January 21, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Richard DeBenedetto issued an order
   dismissing respondent's notice of contest after respondent failed to file an answer to the
   Secretary's complaint and failed to respond to the judge's order of December 10, 1991,
   regarding that failure.

2. The undersigned has been advised orally that the procedural mishandling of the case was
   occasioned by the death of Thomas N. Holman, and a subsequent delay in the appointment of
   a legal representative to handle the affairs of the estate of Mr. Holman.

3. Both parties are willing to settle all matters raised by respondent's notice of contest
   and have executed an agreement to that effect.

4. The judge's decision was docketed on February 21, 1992, and the notice states that the
   decision will become a final order on March 23, 1992, unless directed for review.

5. Review is requested an order that it will be clear that the order dismissing
   respondent's notice of contest has not become a final order. This case may then be
   disposed of by the Commission based upon the executed settlement agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

MARSHALL J. BREGER

Solicitor

CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD

Associated Solicitor for

Occupational Safety and Health

DONALD G. SHALHOUB

Deputy Associate Solicitor for

Occupational Safety and Health

DANIEL J. MICK Counsel for Regional

Trial Litigation

FOOTNOTE

[[1]]Chairman Foulke would vote to direct review of
this case, but he would not remand this case to the judge.

• 29 C.F.R. �2200.41 Failure to obey rules.

(a) Sanctions. When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by
these rules or as required by the Commission or Judge, he may be declared to be in default
either: (1) on the initiative of the Commission or Judge, after having been afforded an
opportunity to show cause why he should not be declared to be in default; or (2) on the
motion of a party. Thereafter, the Commission or Judge, in their discretion, may enter a
decision against the defaulting party or strike any pleading or document not filed in
accordance with these rules.