SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

V.

H. SCHICKEL GENERAL
CONTRACTING, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 90-2157

ORDER

This matter is before the Commission on a Direction for Review entered by Commissioner Velma Montoya on March 6, 1991.  The parties have now filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.

Having reviewed the record, and based upon the representations appearing in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, we conclude that this case raises no matters warranting further review by the Commission.  The terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement do not appear to be contrary to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and are in compliance with the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Accordingly, we incorporate the terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement into this order.  This is the final order of the Commission in this case.  See 29 U.S.C. 659 (c), 660 (a) and (b).

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.
Chairman

Donald G. Wiseman
Commissioner

Velma Montoya
Commissioner

Dated: August 15, 1991


LYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

H. SCHICKEL GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 90-2157

STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

In full settlement and disposition of the issues raised by respondent's July 20, 1990 contest of proposed penalties, it is stipulated and agreed by the parties as follows:

1.  Complainant hereby amends the penalty proposed in connection with citation No. 1, items 1 and 2 as follows:

Item Proposed Amended
1 $ 640 $ 320
2    $ 560 $ 280
$ 600


2.  Respondent hereby withdraws its notice of contest to the notification of proposed penalty as amended above.
3.  Respondent agrees to pay $600 in full and complete payment of the penalty within 30 days of the date of this Agreement.
4.  Respondent certifies that a copy of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was served on the authorized representatives of affected employees, Carpenters Local 1042 and Laborers Local 186, on the 23rd day of July, 1991, in accordance with Rules 7 and 100 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
5.  No employee or authorized representative of employees has elected party status in this proceeding.
6.  Each party will bear its own litigation costs and expenses.

Dated this 23rd day of July, 1991.
H. SCHICKEL
H. Schickel General Contracting Inc.

Daniel J. Mick
U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant

v.

H. SCHICKEL GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC DOCKET NO. 90-2157

ORDER

H. Schickel General Contracting, Inc. (Schickel), was cited on July 5, 1990, for alleged serious (citation number 1) and nonserious (citation number 2) violations of several construction safety and health standards and a posting requirement.  The Secretary proposed that penalties be assessed for citation number 1 in the total amount of $1,200.  Schickel contested only the penalties proposed for citation number 1.  The uncontested matters became a final order of the Commission pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 659(a).

On August 23, 1990, the Commission's Executive Secretary notified the parties of assignment of the docket number and provided Schickel with a copy or the Commission's procedural rules, and other information and instructions, including an explanation of simplified proceedings.  Schickel duly complied with the instructions for notifying affected employees of the contested case and requested simplified proceedings.  Because of the Secretary's timely objection thereto, Schickel was required to file an answer to the Secretary's complaint by November 15, 1990.   No answer having been filed, an order was entered on December 14, 1990, directing Schickel to file an answer by December 24, 1990, or show cause why the notice of contest should not be dismissed.

On December 20,1990, Schickel wrote the following letter to the regional solicitors office in New York:

Attached are copies of two (2) pieces of correspondence received from a Judge Richard DeBenedetto dated October 11, 1990 and December 14, 1990, neither of which we have any idea as to what the contents mean.

Obviously, we are to respond to them but, we are in the dark as to what the judge wants as a response.

We would appreciate it [sic] someone could advise us in layman [sic] language just what the situation calls for.  It is our understanding that in the United States we are entitled to a jury trial by our peers.

No further word on the matter has been received from Schickel.

In view of the information and instructions provided by the Commission's Executive Secretary, Schickel's response to the show cause order is unacceptable.  Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the notice of contest is dismissed, and penalties totaling $1,200 are assessed.

RICHARD DEBENEDETTO
Judge, OSHRC
Dated: January 29, 1991
Boston, Massachusetts