“Docket No. 83-0986 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. BARRETTO GRANITE CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 83-0986DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 BUCKLEY, Chairman, and CLEARY,Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Occupational Safety andHealth Review Commission under 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), section 12(j) of the OccupationalSafety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”).\u00a0 TheCommission is an adjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (\”OSHA\”).\u00a0 It was establishedto resolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Laborunder the Act and has no regulatory functions.\u00a0 See section 10(c) of the Act,29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).The question in this case is whetherAdministrative Law Judge Irving Sommer should have dismissed Barretto Granite Company’snotice of contest of a citation alleging two repeated violations as untimely.[[1]]Compliance officers of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectedBarretto’s workplace from April 26, 1983, to August 16, 1983.\u00a0 Discussions betweenBarretto and the compliance officers took place during and following the inspection but,according to Barretto, both parties remained \”adamant on their originalcontentions.\”\u00a0 On August 17, 1983, the Secretary issued two citations, whichwere received by Barretto on August 18.\u00a0 Barretto met with representatives of theSecretary at an informal conference on September 7, 1983, and again disputed theSecretary’s position.\u00a0 This conference took place within the fifteen working-dayperiod within which a citation must be contested under the Act.\u00a0 Barretto, whichappeared pro se at the conference, disputed the validity of the citations.\u00a0On October 6, 1983, Barretto sent letters confirming its discussion with theSecretary.\u00a0 The judge treated these letters as a notice of contest and dismissed itas untimely because the letters were sent more than fifteen working days after thecitation had been received.We hold that, under the circumstances of thiscase, Barretto should not be denied a hearing.\u00a0 Our ruling is in keeping with theCommission’s policy of favoring a full hearing on the merits of disputed citations.\u00a0 SeeElmer Construction Corp., 84 OSAHRC, 12 BNA OSHC 1002, 1984 CCH OSHC ? 27,050 (No.83-040, 1984); Seminole Distributors, Inc., 77 OSAHRC 211\/D9, 6 BNA OSHC 1194,1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 22,412 (No. 15671, 1977).\u00a0 We therefore set aside the judge’sorder and remand this matter for proceedings on the merits.\u00a0 See Con-LinConstruction Co., 83 OSAHRC \/ , 11 BNA OSHC 1757 (No. 83-371, 1983); Merritt ElectricCo., 81 OSAHRC 75\/D4, 9 BNA OSHC 2088, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,556 (No. 77-3772, 1981).FOR THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR. EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED:\u00a0 November 30, 1984\u00a0FOOTNOTES:[[1]] Under section 10(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(a), an employer mustnotify the Secretary that it intends to contest the citation or proposed penalty within 15working days of its receipt of the notification of proposed penalty that accompanied thecitation.The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format. Toobtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office Bye-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone(202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).”