“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 3133 LOUIS P. ANESI, d\/b\/a\/ ANESI PACKING COMPANY \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0DIRECTIONFOR REVIEW AND ORDERSeptember 10, 1973Before MORAN, Chairman;VAN NAMEE and CLEARY, CommissionersVAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER:OnAugust 9, 1973, Judge Herbert E. Bates issued an order granting theComplainant?s motion to dismiss Respondent?s notice of contest and affirmingthe citation and penalties proposed therefor. The motion was predicated on theground that Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint as required bythe Commission?s Rules of Procedure.Pursuantto 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. 651 et seq., 84 Stat.1590), I am herewith directing that the Judge?s order be reviewed by theCommission. For the reasons given below we reverse and reinstate the contest.Wehave reviewed the record and note that Complainant (but not the Commission)received a letter from Respondent during the period for filing an answer to thecomplaint. Complainant?s counsel indicates that the letter is a response to thecomplaint but is not an ?answer? within the meaning of the Commission Rule33(b).Thefollowing appears in the letter: ?I?m denying all citations that you havereferred to in your [complaint].? Respondent is appearing pro se.Obviously,Respondent?s letter does not conform with the technical aspects of what isrecognized as good pleading practice. However, the letter leaves no doubt as tothe substance of Respondent?s position. He denies those allegations of thecomplaint whereby it is averred that he violated the Act. Under thesecircumstances we believe that procedure should give way to substance and thatRespondent should be allowed his day in court.Accordingly,it is ORDERED that: (1) the Judge?s order be and the same is hereby set aside,(2) Complainant?s motion to dismiss is denied, and (3) the case is reinstatedfor further proceedings.\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 3133 LOUIS P. ANESI, d\/b\/a\/ ANESI PACKING COMPANY \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0August 9, 1973BATES, JUDGE, OSAHRC:TheRespondent, after having been expressly notified that failure to answer theComplaint in the captioned case may result in dismissal of his Notice of Contest,failed to file an Answer to the Complaint served by the Secretary on June 12,1973, which failure contravened Commission Rule 33(b).TheComplainant consequently filed a motion that the Respondent?s Notice of Contestbe dismissed because of this failure. No response has been entered by theRespondent to that motion.Inview of the foregoing, the Complainant?s motion is granted, and it is ORDEREDthat the Respondent?s Notice of Contest be, and is, vacated and the Citationissued on May 22, 1973, and its attendant Notification of Proposed Penalty be,and are, affirmed in all respects.”