“Secretary of Labor,Complainant,v.J. F Shea Company, Inc.,Respondent.Docket No. 89-0976_DECISION _Before: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:J. F. Shea Company, Inc. filed its notice of contest eight days late.The administrative law judge denied Shea’s petition for permission tofile a late notice of contest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure60(b). [[1\/]] On review, Shea contends that the judge erred in denyingits motion for relief.I.As a result of an inspection of a worksite in Glenwood Springs, Coloradoon December 22, 1988, the Secretary of Labor issued two citations toShea by certified mail. According to the return receipt card, thecitations were received at Shea’s Walnut, California headquarters onJanuary 25, 1989. Under 29 U.S.C. 659 (a), Shea had until February 15,1989 to file a notice of contest, which is fifteen working days afterreceipt of the citations. By letter dated February 23, 1989, Sheaexpressed its intention to contest the citations and proposed penalty.In a letter dated February 28, the Secretary notified Shea that itsnotice of contest was late, and informed Shea that it might wish to filea late notice of contest with the Commission.On March 17, 1989, Shea filed with the Commission its petition forpermission to file a late notice of contest, in which it requestedrelief under Rule 60(b). Attached to the petition were affidavits fromL.W. Brown, Shea’s vice president, Sharon Jessop, Brown’s officeassistant, and Robert Gordon, project manager at the Colorado project.According to these affidavits, the citations were not delivered toJessop until February 3, 1989, at which time Jessop date-stamped theoriginal and one copy of the citations and gave them to Brown. Jessopstated that \”[a]t that time, [she] had no reason to believe that thecitations had been received in [her] office any earlier than February 3,1989.\” When Brown subsequently discussed whether to contest thecitations with Gordon, they both relied on the February 3, 1989 datestamp in calculating the 15-working day time limit.The Secretary contested Shea’s petition to file a late notice ofcontest, contending that the reasons proffered by Shea did not satisfyany of the requirements for relief under Rule 60(b).II.On June 2, 1989, Commission Judge James A. Cronin, Jr. denied Shea’srequest to file a late notice of contest under Rule 60(b). The judgenoted that under_Branciforte Builders,_ 9 BNA OSHC 2113, 1981 CCH OSHD ?25,591 (No. 80-1920, 1981), the burden is on Shea to establish asufficient justification for relief from the final order. The judgefound that the record failed to establish the reason for the delaybetween the receipt of the citations by Shea on January 25, 1989, andthe delivery of them to Jessop on February 3,1989. In denying relieffrom the final order, the judge further relied on _Stroudsburg Dyeing &Finishing Company,_ 13 BNA OSHC 2058, 1987-90 CCH OSHD ? 28,443 (No.88-1830, 1989), where the Commission held that when the employee whoreceives the mailed citation fails to bring it to the attention of theproper officer of the company, that failure does not constitute\”excusable neglect\” or \”any other reason justifying relief\” within themeaning of Rule 60(b). The judge found that \”[t]he very situationconfronting the Commission in _Stroudsburg_ is again presented by thisrecord.\”III.On review, Shea does not dispute that service on the company waseffective on January 25, 1989, when one of their employees received andsigned for the citations. Instead, Shea argues that the mistake ofdate-stamping the citations with the incorrect date was the only eventthat prevented Shea from filing a timely notice of contest. Shea claimsthat it is entitled to relief under _P & A Construction,_ 10 BNA OSHC1185, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,783 (No. 80-3848, 1981).In _P & A_, the Commission granted relief from a final order under Rule60(b) where an employer’s attorney intended to file a notice of contest,but the attorney’s secretary inadvertently failed to mail it. However,the Commission has not granted relief when the negligent handling of adocument occurred, as it did here, in the employer’s own office._Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,_ 13 BNA OSHC 2020 2021, 1987-90 CCH OSHD ?28,409, p. 37,537 (No. 86-1266, 1989) (a business must maintain orderlyprocedures for handling important documents) _Stroudsburg Dyeing &Finishing Company, supra._Shea argues that _Stroudsburg _is distinguishable from the present case.However, the principle behind _Stroudsburg_ is that an employee’s errorin the handling of a citation constitutes neither \”excusable neglect\”nor \”any other reason justifying relief\” under Rule 60(b). Shea’s officeassistant erred in date-stamping the citations as having been receivedby the company when she personally received them. Shea focuses on this\”honest clerical error\” but, as the judge noted, the record failed toestablish the reason for the delay between the receipt of the citationsby Shea on January 25, 1989, and the delivery of them to Jessop onFebruary 3, 1989. Shea’s failure to demonstrate any \”orderly procedurefor handling important documents\” indicates that this is a case ofsimple negligence, which is not an adequate excuse for relief under Rule60(b).IV.Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the administrative law judgedenying Shea’s request for relief under Pule 60(b).Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.ChairmanDonald G. WisemanCommissionerDated: June 5 1991————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.J. F. SHEA CO., INC.,Respondent._DECISION AND ORDER_Respondent has filed a Petition for Permission to File a Late Notice ofContest. By this petition, respondent seeks relief from a final order ofthis Commission that resulted from respondent’s failure to file a timelynotice of contest. Therefore, this petition will be treated as a requestfor relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[[1]] The Secretary opposes respondent’s request for relief.Under 29 U.S.C ? 659(a), an employer who has received a citation hasfifteen working days in which to notify the Secretary of Labor that itintends to contest the citation. The respondent in this case receivedtwo citations on January 25, 1989, and filed its notice of contest onFebruary 23, 1989, eight days after the fifteen-day period had expired.By failing to file its notice of contest within the fifteen-day period,the citations and proposed penalties became final orders of this Commission.The burden is on the respondent to establish a sufficient justificationfor relief from a final order. _Branciforte Builders,_ 9 BNA OSHC 2113(No. 80-1920, 1981). In support of its petition for relief respondenthas attached the affidavits of three respondent employees. All threeemployees mistakenly believed that the citations had been received atrespondent’s corporate headquarters on February 3, 1989. On that date,Ms. Jessop, assistant to L. W. Brown, respondent’s Vice-President,received from respondent’s mailroom the mail containing the citations.She opened this mail and date-stamped the citations as \”Received Feb. 3,1989.\” The record, however, fails to establish the reason for the delayexisting between the receipt of the citations by respondent on January25, 1989, and the delivery of them to Ms. Jessop on February 3, 1989.As recently as February of this year, the Commission held that the merefailure of the employee who received the mailed citation to bring it tothe attention of the proper officer of the company does not constitute\”excusable neglect\” or \” any other reason justifying relief\”_Stroudsburg Dyeing & Finishing Company,_ OSHRC Docket No. 88-1830(February 27, 1989).The very situation confronting the commission in _Stroudsburg_ is againpresented by this record. Respondent’s request for relief, therefore,must be denied.SO ORDERED.James A. Cronin Jr.Judge,OSHRCDated: June 2, 1989FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] The rule provides, in pertinent part:Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly DiscoveredEvidence, Fraud, etc.On notion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a partyor a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, orproceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,surprise, or excusable neglect … or (6) any other reason justifyingrelief from the operation of the judgment.[[1]] Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly DiscoveredEvidence, Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, thecourt may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a finaljudgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect… or (6) any other reasonjustifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”