|
SECRETARY OF LABOR, |
|
|
Complainant, |
|
|
v. |
OSHRC
Docket No. 06-1502
|
|
QUALITY BORING CO. |
|
|
Respondent. |
|
APPEARANCES:
William Everhart, Regional Solicitor; Amy Sanders
Hairston, Attorney;
Tilden Barnes,
In an order dated December 11, 2006, Chief Administrative Law Judge Irving Sommer dismissed Quality Boring’s notice of contest for its failure to file an answer to the Secretary’s complaint or respond to the judge’s subsequent Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause had been marked unclaimed and returned by the Postal Service on November 25, 2006. In his order, the judge also affirmed the citations and proposed penalties totaling $7,050.
On January 10, 2007, the Commission’s Executive Secretary received a fax from Quality Boring signed by Tilden Barnes, Manager. The fax included a letter in which Mr. Barnes explained some of the circumstances of the case as well as a copy of Respondent’s notice of contest and its response to a settlement proposal from the Secretary.
Based on Mr. Barnes’s fax, which indicates that Quality Boring has not abandoned the case, and the unclaimed Order to Show Cause, we believe that Quality Boring should be afforded an opportunity to explain whether it had a ”sufficient” reason under Commission Rule of Procedure 101(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(b) for its failure to file its answer.
Accordingly, we set aside the judge’s dismissal and remand this case to him for further proceedings.
/s/__________________________
W. Scott
Railton
Chairman
/s/___________________________
Thomasina V.
Rogers
Commissioner
/s/___________________________
Horace A.
Thompson
Commissioner
Date:
January 16, 2007
|
Secretary
of Labor, |
|
|
Complainant, |
|
|
V. |
OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 06-1502 |
|
QUALITY
BORING CO., |
|
|
Respondent. |
|
ORDER
On 11/6/06 the
undersigned issued an ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE to the Respondent as to why his Notice of
Contest should not be dismissed for failure to file an answer to the complaint
as required by the Commission Rules of Procedure. The Respondent failed to
reply to the ORDER. His actions demonstrate either that he has abandoned the
case or treats the Rules of Procedure of the Commission with disdain. This
cannot be countenanced as it seriously impedes the administration of justice.
Accordingly,
the Notice of Contest filed by the Respondent is dismissed. The Secretary’s
citation(s) and proposed penalties are AFFIRMED in all respects.
/s/
Chief Judge
DATE:
December 11, 2006