SECRETARY OF LABOR,

	

 

                      Complainant,

	

 

v.

	

DOCKET NO. 03-1486

SCHIMENTI CONSTRUCTION CO.,

	

 

                      Respondent.

	

 



APPEARANCES:

Margaret A. Temple, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor of Labor

U.S. Department of Labor

New York, New York

            For Complainant

	

Matthew C. Schimenti (/Pro Se/)

Mount Kisco, NY

         For Respondent


 

BEFORE:       MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD

                        Administrative Law Judge

 

 

/DECISION AND ORDER /

 

Procedural History

            This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to section 10(c) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 /et seq/.
(“the Act”).

            Following an OSHA inspection of a work site in Hartsdale,
New York, the Secretary, on or about July 1, 2003, issued to Schimenti
Construction Company, (“Respondent”) two citations alleging serious and
other-than-serious violations of construction safety standards appearing
in Part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations and proposed
civil penalties totaling $ 2,475.00.

            Issue has been joined by the filing of timely notice of
contest. Despite appropriate notice, Respondent did not appear for a
telephone pre-hearing conference. Nor has Respondent provided any
communication with either the Secretary or the Commission despite
requests to do so. Accordingly, I find that Respondent has abandoned its
contest. Thus, all items of the citations and the penalties proposed are
affirmed.

 

/FINDINGS OF FACT/

/AND/

/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/

 

            1. Respondent was, at all times pertinent hereto, an
employer within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (1970).

            2. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter of this case.

3. Respondent was in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act in that it
failed to comply with the standards at 29 CFR §1926.404(b)(1)(i) and
1926.404(f)(6) as alleged in Citation 1, Items 1 and 2. The violations
were both serious within the meaning of section 17(k) of the Act, 29
U.S.C. § 666(j), for which a civil penalties of $1575.00 and $900.00,
respectively, are appropriate.

4. Respondent was in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act in that it
failed to comply with the standards at 29 CFR §1926.54(b); 1926.54(d)
and 1926.452(w)(2), as alleged in Citation 2, Items 1, 2 and 3. The
violations were other-than- serious within the meaning of the Act. No
civil penalty was proposed or is assessed.

 

ORDER

Citations 1 and 2, issued to Respondent, including the penalties
proposed therefor, on or about October 21, 2002 are AFFIRMED in their
entirety.

 

 

 

                                                                                    /s/

                                                                                    Michael
H. Schoenfeld

                                                                                    Judge,
OSHRC

Date: October 30, 2003

                        Washington, D.C.