🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 77-1871-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 77-1871 Decided October 11, 1977 Remanded

Arrow Louver and Damper Corp.

Commission vacates a default dismissal and remands, treating the employer's review request as an answer to the complaint

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1977, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1977
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Arrow Louver and Damper Corp. contested OSHA penalties but did not file an answer to the complaint and did not respond to an order to show cause. Administrative Law Judge Chaplin dismissed the company's notice of contest and imposed the penalties OSHA had originally proposed. A week later, the company asked the judge to review that order, stating it still disputed the penalty amounts and offering facts that, if proven, could reduce them. The Commission directed the case for review and concluded that this request could reasonably be treated as an answer to the complaint. It therefore vacated the judge's order and sent the case back for further proceedings, giving the company a chance to litigate the penalties.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): None enumerated; the order addresses a default dismissal for failure to answer the complaint.
  • Outcome: Remanded. The judge's dismissal order was vacated and the matter returned for further proceedings.
  • Key point: An employer's request for review that continues to contest penalties and offers relevant facts can be construed as an answer to the complaint, warranting reinstatement rather than default.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 77-1871

ARROW LOUVER AND DAMPER CORP.

OSHRC Docket No. 77-1871

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

October 11, 1977

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Francis V. LaRuffa, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

Elliot Kahn, President, Arrow Louver & Damper Corp., for the employer

OPINION:

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 661(i), the above-captioned case is hereby directed for review. On September 8, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Chaplin dismissed Respondent's Notice of Contest and assessed penalties in the amounts which Complainant had proposed originally because Respondent did not answer the complaint and did not explain its failure to do so in response to an Order to show cause. On September 15, 1977, Respondent forwarded to the judge a request that his Order be reviewed. In its request, Respondent has stated that it continues to contest the amounts of the penalties, and has set forth allegations of fact which, if established, can be considered toward reducing the amounts. Accordingly, the request for review can be construed as an answer to the complaint. Therefore the order of the judge is hereby vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1977. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.