Metro Waterproofing, Inc.

“\ufeff\t\tDocument\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; margin-top:0; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:WindowText; } p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Normal { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_Normal span { font-family:Calibri; } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } table.style_TableGrid { } .style_TableGrid span { font-family:Calibri; } p.style_FootnoteText { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; font-size:10pt; } .style_FootnoteText span { } span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_FootnoteTextChar span { font-family:Calibri; } span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} .style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} p.style_Header { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; } span.style_HeaderChar { font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_HeaderChar span { font-family:Calibri; } p.style_Footer { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; line-height:1; } span.style_FooterChar { font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; } .style_FooterChar span { font-family:Calibri; } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 85\u20130321\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 85\u20130430 (Consolidated)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMETRO\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWATERPROOFING, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDecember 26, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND REMAND ORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOn November 25, 1985, Administrative Law Judge Brady issued an order in these consolidated cases affirming five citations and assessing a total penalty of $17,120.00. Respondent now petitions for review.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn July, 1985 the Secretary of Labor and Respondent\u2019s president, Mr. Strickland, who was acting pro se, entered into a stipulation that on the day of the inspection certain violations existed at Respondent\u2019s jobsite. The stipulation also set forth certain facts relating to two of the factors the Commission considers in assessing penalties\u2014Respondent\u2019s prior history of violations and its size. The stipulation, however, did not address the elements of the factor of gravity of the violations, including the extent and duration of employee exposure and the likelihood of occurrence of an injury, nor did the stipulation refer to the remaining factor, whether Respondent demonstrated good faith. The stipulation did contain language that the Secretary \u201cfairly and accurately\u201d applied OSHA directives for calculating the recommended penalties.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tShortly after the stipulation was filed with Judge Brady, Respondent\u2019s president submitted to the judge a notarized \u201cAffidavit\u201d in which he contended that the penalties recommended by the Secretary were excessive because the\t\t\t\t\t\tviolative\t\t\t\t\t\tconditions on the day of the inspection were contrary to Respondent\u2019s communicated and enforced safety rules. In his\t\t\t\t\t\taffidavit, Mr. Strickland asked the judge to take into consideration Respondent\u2019s safety rules and safety equipment, as well as the fact that Respondent had hired additional safety personnel to inspect daily for safety compliance and enforce Respondent\u2019s safety rules. Mr. Strickland also made representations pertaining to the gravity of one of the violations.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn his decision and order, Judge Brady affirmed the citations on the basis of the stipulation and based his penalty assessment on the allegations in the citations and the facts set forth in the stipulation. He did not hold a hearing to develop evidence relating to the factual matters raised in Mr. Strickland\u2019s affidavit.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe assertions in Mr. Strickland\u2019s affidavit raise a number of factual questions including (a) whether the\t\t\t\t\t\tviolative\t\t\t\t\t\tconditions were contrary to Respondent\u2019s safety rules; (b) whether Respondent\u2019s safety rules were communicated to Respondent\u2019s employees and enforced; (c) whether Respondent therefore had knowledge of the\t\t\t\t\t\tviolative\t\t\t\t\t\tconditions; and (d) whether Respondent established the defense of employee misconduct. The assertions of fact in Mr. Strickland\u2019s affidavit also bear on the gravity of the violations and Respondent\u2019s good faith, which in turn bear on the proper penalty amount. Such a submission by one not represented by counsel throws into question Respondent\u2019s understanding of the meaning of the stipulation, particularly the stipulation that the Secretary \u201cfairly and accurately applied\u201d OSHA directives for calculating recommended penalties.\t\t\t\t\t\tSee Wheaton Injection Molding Co., 82 OSAHRC 26\/B11, 10 BNA OSHC 1589, 1982 CCH OSHD \u00b6 26,052 (No. 81\u20131412, 1982).\t\t\t\t\t\tIn addition, the stipulation can be fairly construed as only establishing the existence of\t\t\t\t\t\tviolative\t\t\t\t\t\tconditions on the day of the inspection, without waiving the element of employer knowledge as part of the Secretary\u2019s burden of proof and without waiving any affirmative defenses Respondent might have to the alleged violations. Under the circumstances, further inquiry into the stipulation and facts is indicated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAccordingly, we direct review of the judge\u2019s order pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 661(i), and remand this case to the judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.1\t\t\t\t\t\tWe direct the judge to determine what issues, if any, pertaining to the merits of the alleged violations remain in dispute and, in particular, to determine whether Respondent intended to stipulate that it had\t\t\t\t\t\tknowledge of the violations or intended to raise any affirmative defenses. The judge is to afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence on any unresolved issues and, in the event the judge concludes that the assessment of penalties is the only issue remaining in dispute, he is to hold a hearing on the factual matters raised in Mr. Strickland\u2019s affidavit insofar as they bear on penalty assessment.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR THE COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRay H. Darling, Jr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExecutive Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDecember 26, 1985\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[No ALJ decision available.]\t\t\t\t\t\t\” \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1 \t\t\t\t\t\tThe Secretary has filed a motion to strike a portion of Respondent\u2019s petition for review. Since we do not rely on that portion of the petition to which the Secretary objects, the Secretary\u2019s motion is moot.\t\t\t”