I. Steinman & Sons

Plain-English summary

I. Steinman & Sons did not file a timely answer to the Secretary's complaint. It also failed to respond to the Commission's request for proof that its contest had been served on affected employees or their representative. The judge dismissed the contest and affirmed the citation. The Commission agreed with the default and amended the order to make clear that the proposed penalty was affirmed along with the citation.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard number is identified in the decision.
• Outcome: The notice of contest was dismissed, and the citation and proposed penalty were affirmed in full.
• Key point: Failure to answer the complaint and failure to document employee service independently supported dismissal.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 960

I. STEINMAN & SONS

OSHRC Docket No. 960

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

July 27, 1972

�
[*1]
�

Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners

OPINIONBY: BURCH

OPINION:

�
BURCH, COMMISSIONER: On July 19, 1972, Judge Chaplin issued his recommended order in this case granting the Secretary's motion to dismiss respondent's notice of contest for failure to file a timely answer to the Secretary's complaint pursuant to Commission rule 2200.7(e).

By virtue of the authority vested in Members of the Commission by section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651
et seq.,
84 Stat. 1590), I am herewith directing that the Judge's order be reviewed by the Commission.

The Commission has reviewed the record in this case and concurs in the Judge's ruling granting the Secretary's default motion.
�
We note also additional grounds for dismissal of the notice of contest in that respondent failed to answer the Commission's June 5 communication (received June 8) requesting certification of service of its notice of contest on affected employees or their authorized representative pursuant to Commission rule 2200.7(b)(1).

In rendering his order, Judge Chaplin affirmed the citation in all respects without reference to the notification of proposed penalty.
�
Accordingly,
�
[*2]
�
it is ORDERED that the Judge's order be amended to provide that the Secretary's motion is granted; respondent's notice of contest is dismissed, and the citation and
�
notification of proposed penalty are affirmed in all respects.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

CHAPLIN, JUDGE, OSAHRC: By motion supported by affidavit, the Complainant prays that the Respondent's Notice of Contest in the captioned case be dismissed because of the Respondent's failure to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint filed on June 12, 1972, within the period prescribed by Commission Rule 2200.7(e).

A review of the docket file affirms the Complainant's averment, nor does any good cause for the Respondent's dereliction in answering the Complaint appear therein.

The undersigned therefor is constrained to dismiss the Notice of Contest, and affirm the Citation in all respects, and it is so ORDERED.
�