” SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,V.H. SCHICKEL GENERALCONTRACTING, INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 90-2157_ORDER_This matter is before the Commission on a Direction for Review enteredby Commissioner Velma Montoya on March 6, 1991. The parties have nowfiled a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.Having reviewed the record, and based upon the representations appearingin the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, we conclude that this caseraises no matters warranting further review by the Commission. Theterms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement do not appear to becontrary to the Occupational Safety and Health Act and are in compliancewith the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.Accordingly, we incorporate the terms of the Stipulation and SettlementAgreement into this order. This is the final order of the Commission inthis case. _See_ 29 U.S.C. ?? 659 (c), 660 (a) and (b).Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.ChairmanDonald G. WisemanCommissionerVelma MontoyaCommissionerDated: 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’sJuly 20, 1990 contest of proposed penalties, it is stipulated and agreedby the parties as follows:1. Complainant hereby amends the penalty proposed in connection withcitation No. 1, items 1 and 2 as follows:Item \tProposed \tAmended1 \t$ 640 \t$ 3202 \t $ 560 \t$ 280\t\t$ 6002. Respondent hereby withdraws its notice of contest to thenotification of proposed penalty as amended above.3. Respondent agrees to pay $600 in full and complete payment of thepenalty within 30 days of the date of this Agreement.4. Respondent certifies that a copy of this Stipulation and SettlementAgreement was served on the authorized representatives of affectedemployees, Carpenters Local 1042 and Laborers Local 186, on the 23rd dayof July, 1991, in accordance with Rules 7 and 100 of the Commission’sRules of Procedure.5. No employee or authorized representative of employees has electedparty status in this proceeding.6. Each party will bear its own litigation costs and expenses.Dated this 23rd day of July, 1991.H. SCHICKELH. Schickel General Contracting Inc.Daniel J. MickU.S. Department of Labor Office of the SolicitorSECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainantv.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 (citationnumber 2) violations of several construction safety and health standardsand a posting requirement. The Secretary proposed that penalties beassessed for citation number 1 in the total amount of $1,200. Schickelcontested only the penalties proposed for citation number 1. Theuncontested matters became a final order of the Commission pursuant to29 U.S.C. ? 659(a).On August 23, 1990, the Commission’s Executive Secretary notified theparties of assignment of the docket number and provided Schickel with acopy or the Commission’s procedural rules, and other information andinstructions, including an explanation of simplified proceedings. Schickel duly complied with the instructions for notifying affectedemployees of the contested case and requested simplified proceedings. Because of the Secretary’s timely objection thereto, Schickel wasrequired to file an answer to the Secretary’s complaint by November 15,1990. No answer having been filed, an order was entered on December14, 1990, directing Schickel to file an answer by December 24, 1990, orshow cause why the notice of contest should not be dismissed.On December 20,1990, Schickel wrote the following letter to the regionalsolicitors office in New York:Attached are copies of two (2) pieces of correspondence received from aJudge 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 whatthe 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 understandingthat 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’sExecutive Secretary, Schickel’s response to the show cause order isunacceptable. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the notice of contest isdismissed, and penalties totaling $1,200 are assessed.RICHARD DEBENEDETTOJudge, OSHRCDated: January 29, 1991Boston, Massachusetts”