“\ufeff\t\tDocument\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; margin-top:0; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:WindowText; } p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Normal { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_Normal span { font-family:Calibri; } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } table.style_TableGrid { } .style_TableGrid span { font-family:Calibri; } p.style_FootnoteText { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; font-size:10pt; } .style_FootnoteText span { } span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_FootnoteTextChar span { font-family:Calibri; } span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} .style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} p.style_Header { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; } span.style_HeaderChar { font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_HeaderChar span { font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Footer { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; } span.style_FooterChar { font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_FooterChar span { font-family:Calibri; } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 85\u20130783\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tERNIE\u2019S ESQUIRE, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDecember 6, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND REMAND ORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn November 12, 1985, Administrative Law Judge Paul A.\t\t\t\t\t\tTenney\t\t\t\t\t\tissued an order dismissing Respondent\u2019s notice of contest of citations based on Respondent\u2019s failure to certify that it had posted or served its notice of contest on affected employees as required by Commission Rule 7, 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.7. Respondent\u2019s president subsequently requested that Judge\t\t\t\t\t\tTenney\t\t\t\t\t\treconsider his order. Respondent\u2019s letter stated as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThere must be some misunderstanding on my part because all the citations and notices sent to me were posted for all my employees to see. As far as notifying the affected employee; this was not possible because OSHA was not able to give me the name of the person or persons who made the accusations.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI sent several letters and returned all necessary paperwork, following the instructions in the OSHA handbook.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent\u2019s president also reiterated his objections to the citations and penalties proposed therefor.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSince Respondent\u2019s president refers to posting \u201cnotices sent to me\u201d it is unclear whether Respondent\u2019s own notice of contest was posted. However, Respondent\u2019s president plainly misunderstands what is meant by an \u201caffected employee,\u201d1\t\t\t\t\t\tand his failure to explicitly certify posting or service of the notice of contest may be attributable to this misunderstanding. In these\t\t\t\t\t\tcircumstances, we direct review of the judge\u2019s order pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 661(i), and we remand this case to the judge for the purpose of affording Respondent a further opportunity to certify posting or service of its notice of contest in conformity with Rule 7 and for additional proceedings as appropriate.2\t\t\t\t\t\tSee Car & Truck Doctor, Inc., 80 OSAHRC 76\/D9, 8 BNA OSHC 1767, 1980 CCH OSHD \u00b6 24,681 (No. 79\u2013454, 1980).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR THE COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRay H. Darling, Jr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExecutive Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDecember 6, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNovember 12, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge Paul A.\t\t\t\t\t\tTenney\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1825 K Street, N.W., Room 401\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWashington, D.C. 20006\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDear Sir:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI am writing to ask you to reconsider your order to dismiss my case # S9351; 964 on citations issued to Ernie\u2019s Esquire of Butler, Pa. on June 14, 1985.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThere must be some misunderstanding on my part because all the citations and notices sent to me were posted for all my employees to see. As far as notifying the affected employee; this was not possible because OSHA was not able to give me the name of the person or persons who made the accusations.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI sent several letters and returned all necessary paperwork, following the instructions in the OSHA handbook.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI am having financial difficulties and would be unable to pay this fine at the present time especially when I feel the charges are not justified.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI would appreciate your considering my request for a new hearing or whatever procedure necessary to resolve this problem.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespectfully yours,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tErnie\t\t\t\t\t\tPandelos\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPresident\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tErnie\u2019s Esquire Inc.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 85\u20130783\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tERNIE\u2019S ESQUIRE, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNovember 12, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. No response has been filed to my order dated September 3, 1985, nor to the Executive Secretary\u2019s order dated August 8, 1985, noting that the contesting employer has not complied with Commission Rule 7, 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.7, requiring that notice of a contested case be given to affected employees or their authorized representative, if any. See paragraph number 3 of the September 3, 1985, order.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Accordingly, the notice of contest is hereby dismissed to the extent that the citations numbered S9351;964\t\t\t\t\t\tissued June 14, 1985, are contested. The failure to provide proof of service is found to prejudice the rights of affected employees to participate in this proceeding.\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission Rule 20, 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.20.\t\t\t\t\t\tNevertheless, the proposed penalties contested will remain in issue.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. Pursuant to Commission Rule 10, 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.10, the citations and penalty allegations are hereby severed and designated respectively as docket numbers 85\u2013783 and 85\u20131112. As explained in a separate document issued this date, the employer may seek Commission review on the disposition of the citations under the prescribed procedures.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPAUL A. TENNEY\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge, OSHRC\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNovember 12, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWashington, D.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t\” \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1 \t\t\t\t\tAn \u201caffected employee\u201d for purposes of the Commission rules is \u201can employee of a cited employer who is exposed to the alleged hazard described in the citation, as a result of his assigned duties.\u201d\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission Rule 1(e), 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2200.1(e).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2 \t\t\t\t\tWe note that Judge\t\t\t\t\t\tTenney\t\t\t\t\t\tsevered the citation from the penalty allegations in this case and assigned docket number 85\u20131112 to the penalty allegations. Docket number 85\u20131112 is currently pending before Judge David G.\t\t\t\t\t\tOringer. In the event Respondent\u2019s contest as to the citation allegations is reinstated, we anticipate that the two docket numbers will be consolidated.\t\t\t”