“Docket No. 90-2157 \u00a0SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, V. H. SCHICKEL GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 90-2157ORDER This matter is before the Commission on aDirection for Review entered by Commissioner Velma Montoya on March 6, 1991.\u00a0 Theparties have now filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.Having reviewed the record, and based upon therepresentations appearing in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, we conclude thatthis case raises no matters warranting further review by the Commission.\u00a0 The termsof the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement do not appear to be contrary to theOccupational Safety and Health Act and are in compliance with the Commission’s Rules ofProcedure.Accordingly, we incorporate the terms of theStipulation and Settlement Agreement into this order.\u00a0 This is the final order of theCommission in this case.\u00a0 See 29 U.S.C. ?? 659 (c), 660 (a) and (b).Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. ChairmanDonald G. Wiseman CommissionerVelma Montoya CommissionerDated: August 15, 1991LYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. H. SCHICKEL GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC. Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 90-2157STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTIn full settlement and disposition of the issuesraised by respondent’s July 20, 1990 contest of proposed penalties, it is stipulated andagreed by the parties as follows:1.\u00a0 Complainant hereby amends the penaltyproposed in connection with citation No. 1, items 1 and 2 as follows: Item Proposed Amended 1 $ 640 $ 320 2 \u00a0\u00a0 $ 560 $ 280 $ 600 2.\u00a0 Respondent hereby withdraws its notice of contest to the notification of proposedpenalty as amended above.3.\u00a0 Respondent agrees to pay $600 in full and complete payment of the penalty within30 days of the date of this Agreement.4.\u00a0 Respondent certifies that a copy of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement wasserved on the authorized representatives of affected employees, Carpenters Local 1042 andLaborers Local 186, on the 23rd day of July, 1991, in accordance with Rules 7 and 100 ofthe Commission’s Rules of Procedure.5.\u00a0 No employee or authorized representative of employees has elected party status inthis proceeding.6.\u00a0 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, Complainant v. H. SCHICKEL GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 90-2157ORDERH. Schickel General Contracting, Inc.(Schickel), was cited on July 5, 1990, for alleged serious (citation number 1) andnonserious (citation number 2) violations of several construction safety and healthstandards and a posting requirement.\u00a0 The Secretary proposed that penalties beassessed for citation number 1 in the total amount of $1,200.\u00a0 Schickel contestedonly the penalties proposed for citation number 1.\u00a0 The uncontested matters became afinal order of the Commission pursuant to 29 U.S.C. ? 659(a).On August 23, 1990, the Commission’s ExecutiveSecretary notified the parties of assignment of the docket number and provided Schickelwith a copy or the Commission’s procedural rules, and other information and instructions,including an explanation of simplified proceedings.\u00a0 Schickel duly complied with theinstructions for notifying affected employees of the contested case and requestedsimplified proceedings.\u00a0 Because of the Secretary’s timely objection thereto,Schickel was required to file an answer to the Secretary’s complaint by November 15, 1990.\u00a0 No answer having been filed, an order was entered on December 14, 1990, directingSchickel to file an answer by December 24, 1990, or show cause why the notice of contestshould not be dismissed. On December 20,1990, Schickel wrote the following letter to the regional solicitors officein New York:Attached are copies of two (2) pieces ofcorrespondence received from a Judge Richard DeBenedetto dated October 11, 1990 andDecember 14, 1990, neither of which we have any idea as to what the contents mean.Obviously, we are to respond to them but, we arein the dark as to what the judge wants as a response.We would appreciate it [sic] someone couldadvise us in layman [sic] language just what the situation calls for.\u00a0 It is ourunderstanding that 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 instructionsprovided by the Commission’s Executive Secretary, Schickel’s response to the show causeorder is unacceptable.\u00a0 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the notice of contest isdismissed, and penalties totaling $1,200 are assessed.RICHARD DEBENEDETTOJudge, OSHRCDated: January 29, 1991Boston, Massachusetts”