” Jaso-Carol Dress CO., Docket No. 699var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( \”win\” ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( \”16bit\” ) != -1 ) )var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( \”msie\” ) != -1 )var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )var floatwnd = 0var WPFootnote1 = ‘\u00a0Since respondent was then represented by counsel Commission rule 2200.7(i)(6) providing for\\service of pleadings, orders, etc. on such counsel was controlling.\\’function WPShow( WPid, WPtext ){ if( bInlineFloats ) eval( \”document.all.\” + WPid + \”.style.visibility = ‘visible’\” ); else { if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed ) floatwnd = window.open( \”\”, \”comment\”, \”toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1\” ); floatwnd.document.open( \”text\/html\”, \”replace\” ); floatwnd.document.write( \”\\\” ); floatwnd.document.write( \” p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \\\” ); floatwnd.document.write( \”\\\” ); floatwnd.document.write( WPtext ); floatwnd.document.write( ‘Close’); floatwnd.document.write( \”\” ); floatwnd.document.close(); floatwnd.focus(); }}function WPHide( WPid ){ if( bInlineFloats ) eval( \”document.all.\” + WPid + \”.style.visibility = ‘hidden’\” );}p{\tmargin-top: 0px;\tmargin-bottom: 1px}table{\tborder-collapse: collapse;\tborder-spacing: 0pt;\tborder-color: black;\tempty-cells: show;\tfont-family: \”Calibri\”, sans-serif;\tfont-size: 11pt;\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}span.WPFloatStyle{\tvisibility: hidden;\tposition: absolute;\tleft: 10px;\tright: 10px;\tbackground-color: rgb(255, 255, 225);\tborder-width: 1px;\tborder-style: solid;\tborder-color: black;\tmargin-top: 25px;\tpadding: 6px;\tline-height: normal}span.WPNormal{\tfont-family: \”Calibri\”, sans-serif;\tfont-size: 11pt;\tfont-weight: normal;\tfont-style: normal;\tfont-variant: normal;\ttext-align: left;\ttext-decoration: none;\tcolor: black;\tvertical-align: middle;\ttext-indent: 0in}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: \”Calibri\”, sans-serif;\tfont-size: 11pt;\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. 699JASO-CAROL DRESS CO., INC.\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 REINSTATEMENTAugust 14, 1972Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, CommissionersBURCH, COMMISSIONER:On July 12, 1972, Judge Worcester issued his recommended order in this case dismissingrespondent\u2019s notice of contest and affirming the Secretary\u2019s citation and notification of proposedpenalty.Pursuant to the authority vested in Members of the Commission by virtue of section 12(j)of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651 et seq., 84 Stat. 1590), I amherewith directing that the Judge\u2019s order be reviewed by the Commission.Commission review of the record discloses that on March 21, 1972, respondent receiveda citation for four alleged other than serious violations together with a notification of proposedpenalty of $30 as to Item 3. A timely notice of contest was filed by the respondent pro se. Inresponse to the Secretary\u2019s complaint counsel for respondent submitted his notice of appearanceand answer without certifying service upon the affected employees\u2019 authorized representative.Judge Worcester thereupon issued a June 19 order directed to the respondent if( bInlineFloats ) { document.write( ” ); document.write( WPFootnote1 ); document.write( ‘Close’ ); document.write( ” ); } affording 10 dayswithin which to submit proof of service inter alia of the notice of contest and answer upon theauthorized employee representative.By letter, dated June 27, respondent\u2019s counsel filed with the Commission a response tosaid order certifying full compliance with the order\u2019s mandate. However, through administrativeoversight that communication was not made part of the case record until after Judge Worcesterrendered his dispositive order.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the Judge\u2019s order is set aside and the case isreinstated for further proceedings consistent with this order.\u00a0\u00a0[The Judge\u2019s decision referred to herein follows]\u00a0WORCESTER, JUDGE, OSAHRC:This matter is pending as the result of a notice of contest filed March 30, 1972. On June19, 1972, the Respondent was ordered to submit proof of compliance with the requirements of22 CFR 2200.7 by showing that copies of the notice of contest and answer were served uponother parties to this proceeding within 10 days of receipt of this order. The order was served onJune 21, 1972.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Now, therefore, on this 12th day of July, 1972, the Respondent having failed to complywith said order, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent\u2019s notice of contest be dismissed and thatthe citation and proposed penalty of $30.00 be affirmed.\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. 699JASO-CAROL DRESS CO., INC.\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.\u00a0February 12, 1973CHODES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:This matter is upon the motion of Respondent, made on December 1, 1972, to withdrawits Notice of Contest. The record shows that a Citation and Notification of Proposed Penalty of$30, were issued to the Respondent on March 21, 1972. A Notice of Contest of the Citation andProposed Penalty was received by the Complainant on March 30, 1972, thereby conferringjurisdiction of this case on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.The Citation was for non-serious violation of Section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970, (29 U.S.C. 651, et seq.). The specific violations alleged were that onMarch 1, 1972, the Respondent violated; (1) 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5) by failing to adequatelyguard blades of six cooling fans; (2) 29 CFR 1910.37(q)(6) by failing to illuminate exit signs; (3)29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1) and (c)(3) by failing to guard drive shaft, belts and pulleys used tooperate six sewing machines and; (4) 29 CFR 1910.315(n)(4) by failing to cover an electricaljunction box on drive motor of sewing machines.In the motion to withdraw its Notice of Contest the Respondent certified that it hadcorrected the violations charged against it, that the Respondent intends to comply in the futurewith the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and that the penalty of$30, has been paid.Copies of the Respondent\u2019s motion to withdraw its Notice of Contest were served on theComplainant and Local 22 and 89, International Ladies\u2019 Garment Workers\u2019 Union, AuthorizedEmployees Representative.A reasonable time has elapsed since the service of the Respondent\u2019s motion to withdrawits Notice of Contest on the Complainant and the Employees Authorized Representatives, and noobjections to the proposed action has been received.The granting of the Respondent\u2019s motion to withdraw its Notice of Contest is consideredto be consistent with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Respondent\u2019s motion to withdraw its Notice ofContest is hereby granted; and it is further.ORDERED that the Citation and the Proposed Penalty of $30, are hereby affirmed.\u00a0\u00a0″