” G. & C. Foundry Co, Docket No.1253p{\tmargin-top: 0px;\tmargin-bottom: 1px}table{\tborder-collapse: collapse;\tborder-spacing: 0pt;\tborder-color: black;\tempty-cells: show;\tfont-family: \”Times New Roman\”, serif;\tfont-size: 12pt;\tfont-weight: normal;\tfont-style: normal}td{\tborder-color: black}td.table1column1{\tpadding-left: 0.075in;\tpadding-right: 0.0816667in}td.table1column2{\tpadding-left: 0.075in;\tpadding-right: 0.075in}hr{\theight: 0.0125in;\tbackground-color: black}td.table2column1{\tpadding-left: 0.075in;\tpadding-right: 0.0816667in}td.table2column2{\tpadding-left: 0.075in;\tpadding-right: 0.075in}body{\tfont-family: \”Times New Roman\”, serif;\tfont-size: 12pt;\tfont-weight: normal;\tfont-style: normal;\tmargin-left: 0.075in;\tpadding-left: 0.1in}UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSIONSECRETARY OF LABOR,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Complainant,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1253G.& C. FOUNDRY CO.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Respondent.\u00a0ORDER OF REMANDDecember 29, 1972Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, CommissionersVAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER:On December 11, 1972, Judge Herbert E. Bates issued an order granting Complainant\u2019smotion for default judgment and vacation of Respondent\u2019s notice of contest filed in this matter.The motion was predicated on the ground that Respondent failed to file an Answer to theSecretary\u2019s Complaint as required by the Commission\u2019s Rules of Procedure.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Pursuant to the authority vested in the members of the Commission by Section 12(j) ofthe Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651 et seq., 84 Stat. 1590,hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Act\u2019), I am herewith directing that the Judge\u2019s Order be reviewedby the Commission. For the reasons given hereinafter we reverse and remand.We have reviewed the record and note that Complainant\u2019s motion was served by mailupon the Respondent on November 8, 1972. Respondent replied to the motion by and through aletter dated November 10, 1972. Respondent\u2019s letter set forth its attempts to comply with theCommission\u2019s Rules as well as a brief statement of its position with regard to the allegations ofthe Secretary\u2019s citation.Respondent thereafter submitted a letter dated November 16, 1972 in which itspecifically detailed its position with regard to those items listed in paragraph III of theSecretary\u2019s Complaint which items constitute the subject matter of this proceeding. This lettercontained the following introductory statement:Because we did not completely understand the rules of procedure of theOccupational Safety and Health Act, we are at this time using this letter to contestthe above Complaint issued by the Department of Labor.\u00a0Thereafter, both the Complainant and the Respondent complied with the Commission\u2019sprehearing requirements on November 17, and November 27, 1972 respectively.Nevertheless, as noted above, Judge Bates granted Complainant\u2019s motion to dismiss inthis case. Authority for such action is prescribed by Rule 38 of the Commission\u2019s Rules. Rule 38provides that a party may waive its right to further participation in a proceeding if it fails totimely file a required pleading. The application of this sanction however is discretionary with theCommission and its Judges.The Commission is of the opinion that the Respondent complied with all the pertinentprocedural requirements in this matter, as soon as it fully understood them, without resultantprejudice to the Complainant. We therefore conclude that Respondent\u2019s late filing of its Answerto the Complaint, in the circumstances of this case, is not a sufficient basis to invoke the extremeand final discretionary sanction contained in Rule 38.Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1) the Judge\u2019s order be and the same is hereby setaside, 2) the Complainant\u2019s motion to dismiss is denied, and 3) the case is remanded for furtherproceedings.\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSIONSECRETARY OF LABOR,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Complainant,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1253G.& C. FOUNDRY CO.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Respondent.\u00a0December 11, 1972BATES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:Ruling on Secretary\u2019s motion for default judgment and vacation of Respondent\u2019s notice ofcontest: Granted.”