Norwich Laboratories, Inc. (ALJ decision, July 29, 1994)

Plain-English summary

Norwich Laboratories, based in Amherst, Massachusetts, was inspected by OSHA between January and February 1993 after a complaint. In March 1993 the company received a serious citation with five items (a proposed $600 penalty on each, $3,000 total) and one "other" item ($300). The company contested, but its representation fell apart: the people who had spoken for it withdrew or declined to appear, and by the hearing date the company had, in the judge's words, become a "ship without a captain." With no defense presented, the OSHA compliance officer testified to each item, and Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Hassenfeld-Rutberg found the violations proven and affirmed the citations. The full proposed penalties of $3,000 for the serious citation and $300 for the "other" citation were assessed, for a total of $3,300.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision affirms the cited items without naming specific standard numbers in its text.
• Outcome: All items affirmed; $3,000 on the five serious items and $300 on the "other" item, $3,300 total.
• Key point: When an employer stops participating and offers no defense, the Secretary's evidence on each cited item can carry the case and the citation is affirmed as issued.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Editorial note: the source PDF at this URL bundles two unrelated decisions. Only the Norwich Laboratories, Inc. decision (Docket 93-1008) is reproduced below; the second decision contained in the same file, Interstate Erectors, Inc. (Docket 93-1160), is a separate matter published on its own.

UNITED STATES Of AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N,\N. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

I
.

SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 934008
NORWICH LABORATORIES, INC.
Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKETING
-- - ~~~
OF ADMINISTRATLVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Re rt in the above referenced cue was
docketed with the Commission on June !!?!$l!W4. The decision of the Judge will become a final order of the Commission on July 29,1994 unlcs~~a 0 Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE . COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIE’K Any such tition should be received by the Executive Secrc on or befbe July 19 l& m ’ order to ermit sufficient time for its review.YL e Co&ion Rule 91,29 E .F.R. 2200.91. All further pleadings or communiCafions regarding this case shall be addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 200363419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOc
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washingto.n, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party havrng questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive Secretary or call (202) 6063400.

Dater. June 29, 1994
 DOCKET NO. 934008
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

Daniel J. Mick, m. counsel for Re ‘onal Trial Liti tion office of the so%kitor, U.S. Dcfit
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210 -

Albert H. Ross, Esq.
Re lonal Solicitor
Ofike of the Solicitor US DOL
One Congress Street, ilti3 ‘noor
P.O. Box 8396
Boston, MA 02114-

Nina Inchardi f
. c o Norwich I&oratories, Inc.
50 North Pleasant Street
Amherst, MA 01002

Barbara Hassenfeld-Rutberg
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an cf Health
Review Commission
McCormack Post O&e and
Courthouse, Room 420
Boston, MA 02109 4501

00017825845:Ol
 .

UNITED STATESOf AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION JOHN W. McCORMACKPOSTOFFICEAND COURTHOUSE ROOM 420
BOSTON, hAA=cl=NJsETTS02109-4501

?tONE: FAX:
COM(01?)22%SW . COM (617) 223-100$
Fls (617) 223-9746
FTS (617) 223-4004

-- ~- ~ - ~~
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant
v. OSHRC Docket No. 934008
NORWICHLABORATORIES,INC.
Respondent

Appearances:

DavidBaskin, Esq.
NinaInchardi .
office of the solicitor
NorwichLaboratories
U.S. Departmentof Labor
Amherst,m
ForComplainant
ForRespondent

Before: AdministrativeLaw Judge Beara
L. HassenMd-Rutberg

This is a proceeding under section 10(c) of the Occupational Safii and Health @!
Act of 1970,29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., (the Act).
..
On March 3,1993, Respondentwas cited in a “serious” citation for 5 items, with a proposed penalty of $600.00 each, for a total of $3000.00, and in an “other”citation for 1 item with a proposed penalty of $300.00. The citation was issued as a result of inspections conducted @omJanuary 20,1993 to February 23,1993 by Samuel W. King, a compliance officer (CO) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in response to a complaint filed with the OSHA Area office.

A hearing was held in this case on May 13,1994 in Boston, Massachusetts, presided over by Judge Barbara L. Hassenfeld-Rutberg. The history of who actually represents or represented the Respondent in this case is quite confounded. At the time of the hearing, neither Nina Richardi nor Ronald Lavigne appeared; both having at one time held themselves out as the representative of the Respondent. At the time of the inspection, Nina Inchardi dealt with the CO as the representative and indicated to him that she was the company president. Ronald Lavigne filed the Notice of Contest, but later on deferred back to Nina Inchardi as the correct person to represent the company, and she filed an Answer on behalf of the Respondent. She proceeded in settlement negotiations with Mr. Baskin, the attorney representing the Complainantand terms were agreed to and the original trial date of March l&l994 was cancelled on the basis that there was a settlement. When the agreement was not signed by Ms. Inchardi, the undersigned set the case for trial on April 12, 1994, but again that date was postponed in hopes of a finalizedsettlement agreement. When none was forthcoming, a third trial date was set for May 13, 1994. Two copies of the’Notice of Hearing were sent to Ms. Inchardi; she apparently received the one set by regular mail as she responded in an undated letter received by the undersigned on May lo,1994 that she could not represent the Respondent anymore “on advice of council (sic)“. (She nerer picked up the certified one). Since Mr. Lavigne had already withdrawn any participation, it appears that the Respondent is a “ship without a captain”.

Mr. King testified to each of the items in the citation, and this judge is satisfied that the Respondent violated the standards alleged. Thus, the citation is AFFIRMED.

All findings of fact relevant and necessary to a determination of the contested issues have been found specially and appear herein. See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Serious citation 1, items 1 through 5 are AFFIRMED and a penalty of $3000.00 is assessed.

Other citation 2, item 1 is AFFIRME D and a penalty of $300.00 is assessed.

June 23, 1994
Judge, OSHRC
Date:
Boston, Massachusetts