MJP Construction Co., Inc.

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited MJP Construction after inspecting a Hoboken, New Jersey worksite. MJP's counsel reported that the company had gone out of business and would no longer defend the case. The judge treated the complaint's allegations as admitted and affirmed a serious stairway violation with a $2,000 penalty. He also affirmed willful serious fall-protection violations with a $63,000 penalty, bringing the total to $65,000.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.1052(c)(1)(i) and 1926.501(b)(1)
• Outcome: Both citations were affirmed in full, with penalties totaling $65,000.
• Key point: Abandoning the contest caused the complaint's allegations to be admitted and the citations to be affirmed.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. DOCKET NO. 02-2018
MJP CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
Respondent.

APPEARANCES:
Margaret A. Temple, Esq. Joseph P. Paranac, Jr.
Office of the Solicitor of Labor St. John & Wayne, L.L.C.
U.S. Department of Labor Newark, New Jersey
New York, New York For Respondent
For Complainant

BEFORE: MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD
Administrative Law Judge

                              DECISION AND ORDER

Procedural History
This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the
Commission”) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
§ 651 et seq. (“the Act”).
Following an OSHA inspection of a work site in Hoboken, New Jersey, the Secretary, on or
about October 21, 2002, issued to MJP Construction Company, Inc., (“Respondent”) two citations
alleging willful and serious violations of construction safety standards appearing in Part 1926 of Title
29 of the Code of Federal Regulations and proposed civil penalties totaling $ 65,000.
Issue has been joined by the filing of timely complaint and answer. The parties entered into
settlement discussions. Counsel of record for Respondent has filed a statement that Respondent “has
gone out of business,” and that Respondent “does not intend to further defend against the complaint.”
The Secretary has filed a Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Notice of Contest, on the grounds that
Respondent has “[i]n essence...abandoned this case.” Respondent has abandoned its case.
Jurisdiction

   Complainant alleges and Respondent did not deny that in its construction business it used

tools, equipment and supplies which moved in interstate commerce. I thus find that Respondent
engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce.
Based on the above finding, I conclude that Respondent, at all pertinent times, was an
employer within the meaning of § 3(5) of the Act.1 Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties.

Discussion

   Respondent has voluntarily abandoned its case. Accordingly, the allegations of the complaint

are deemed to be admitted in their entirety. Accordingly, all items of the citations and the penalties
proposed are affirmed.

                                    FINDINGS OF FACT
                                          AND
                                   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   1. Respondent was, at all times pertinent hereto, an employer within the meaning of section

3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (1970).
2. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case.
3. Respondent was in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act in that it failed to comply with
the standard at 29 CFR §1926.1052(c)(1)(i) as alleged in Citation 1, Item 1. The violation
was serious within the meaning of section 17(k) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 666(j), for which a
civil penalty of $2,000 is appropriate.
4. Respondent was in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act in that it failed to comply

   1
       Title 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).

                                             -2-

with the standard at 29 CFR §1926.501(b)(1) as alleged in Citation 2, Items 1a, 1b,
1c and 1d. The violations were willful serious within the meaning of section 17(a) of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 666(a), for which a total civil penalty of $63,000 is appropriate

                                        ORDER
  Citations 1 and 2, issued to Respondent, including the penalties proposed therefor, on
  or about October 21, 2002 are AFFIRMED in their entirety.




                                                 /s/
                                                 Michael H. Schoenfeld
                                                 Judge, OSHRC

Date: October 30, 2003
Washington, D.C.

                                           -3-