E. K. Construction Company, Inc.

Plain-English summary

E. K. Construction did not submit a written notice of contest within the required 15-working-day period. It later requested an informal conference and explained that the employee assigned to handle the matter had been ill. The Commission held that this was simple negligence rather than excusable neglect because a business must maintain procedures for handling important documents when an assigned employee is unavailable. The company's failure to understand that it needed to respond to the Secretary's dismissal motion also did not justify relief. The late contest was dismissed, leaving the citations final with $5,350 in penalties.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision does not identify the standards in the three citations.
• Outcome: The late notice of contest was dismissed, and $5,350 in penalties remained final.
• Key point: An employee's illness does not excuse a late filing when the employer lacks a backup procedure for handling time-sensitive legal documents.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 90-2460

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

E. K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 90-2460

DECISION

Before: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN,
Commissioner.[[1/]]

BY THE COMMISSION:

On July 11, 1990, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) issued to E. K. Construction Co. ("E. K.") by
certified mail three citations, each containing a notification of proposed penalty. The
certified return receipt shows that E. K. received the citations on July 13, 1990. The
citations on their face warned that unless a written notice of contest was mailed to the
OSHA Area Director in Bayside, New York, within 15 working days of their receipt by E. K.,
the citations and their proposed penalties would become final, non-reviewable orders. The
15 working-day period for contesting the citations expired on August 30, 1990. On August
14, E. K. mailed a letter to the Bayside, New York OSHA area office requesting an informal
conference to "discuss an informal settlement agreement which amicably resolves this
matter without litigation and contest." In the letter, E. K. apologized for the
"tardiness" of its request, and claimed that "the person assigned in our
office to schedule this meeting was unable to follow-up due to a prolonged illness."
It also claimed that the "violations have been corrected," and attached a sheet
"listing the methods of corrections for each item on the citations."

On September 5, E. K. mailed a letter to the Commission in which it expressed its
displeasure at receiving the "notice of fines." It again noted that the
individual assigned to respond to the matter was ill and that "no one was aware that
a written response had been delayed." E. K. again requested a "meeting to be set
up to resolve this matter . . . and to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to the
problem."

On October 23, 1990, the Secretary filed a motion for an order dismissing E. K.'s
"notice of contest." The Secretary argued that E. K.'s failure to file a timely
notice of contest did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.[[2/]] E. K. did not respond to the motion. Judge Terrill granted the motion,
finding:

There is no evidence that the Secretary employed deceptive practices nor failed to comply
with required procedures. Also, there is no request by Respondent here for relief under
F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) substantiating that Respondent's actions in failing to contest timely
were the result of "excusable" neglect rather that "simple
negligence".

The judge dismissed E. K.'s notice of contest and affirmed the citations and the proposed
penalty.

Review was directed on whether the August 14 and September 5 letters submitted by this pro
se employer should be treated as a request for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
and if so, whether the employer should be given an additional opportunity to substantiate
its claim that its failure to file a timely notice of contest should be excused. E. K.'s
only argument on review is a claim that it did not answer the Secretary's motion to
dismiss because it received only a copy of the Secretary's motion, and did not understand
that it was required to act upon the motion.

Even if we found that E. K.'s August 14 and September 5 letters requesting a conference
should be treated as a request for relief under Rule 60(b), E. K. has failed to establish
a basis for relief under the rule.[[3/]] E. K's only proffered reason for not responding
to the citations in time was the "prolonged illness" of the person E. K.
assigned to schedule the informal conference. However, under the terms of Rule 60(b), this
is not an adequate excuse for E. K.'s failure to timely file a notice of contest. Rule
60(b) requires a showing of excusable neglect, not just simple negligence. An employer's
failure to have a procedure in place to address such occurrences does not provide a basis
for relieving an employer from the effects of the final order.

The Commission has consistently denied relief to employers whose procedures for handling
documents were to blame for untimely filings. See Louisiana-Pacific Corp. ,
13 BNA OSHC 2020, 1987-90 CCH OSHD � 28,409 (No. 86-1266, 1989) (a business must maintain
orderly procedures for handling important documents); Stroudsburg Dyeing &
Finishing Co. , 13 BNA OSHC 2058, 1987-90 CCH OSHD � 28,443 (No. 88-1830, 1989)
(failure of employee who received the citation to bring it to the attention of the proper
officer of the company does not constitute "excusable neglect" or "any
other reason justifying relief"). See also J. F. Shea Company, Inc. ,
OSHRC Docket No. 89-976 (June 5, 1991) (simple negligence is not an adequate excuse for
relief under Rule 60(b)). E. K. should have had an office procedure that would ensure a
timely response to such important documents.

E. K.'s claim, that it was misled because the Secretary's motion was not addressed to E.
K., also provides no basis for relief. E. K. was sent a copy of the Commission's rules
when the case was docketed, more than a month before the Secretary's motion was filed. We
have held that ignorance of procedural rules does not constitute "excusable
neglect" within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Roy Kay, Inc. , 13 BNA
OSHC 2021, 1989 CCH OSHD � 28,406 (No. 88-1748, 1989) (employer's argument that it did
not appreciate the importance of the fifteen day requirement because of its lack of prior
experience with OSHA does not constitute "excusable neglect" under 60(b)).

Accordingly, the judge's order dismissing E. K.'s notice of contest, affirming the
Secretary's citations and assessing penalties totaling $5,350 is affirmed.

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.

Chairman

Donald G. Wiseman

Commissioner

Dated: July 17, 1991

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

E. K. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,

Respondent.

Docket No. 90-2460

ORDER

DISMISSING NOTICE OF CONTEST

On July 11, 1990, citations and notification of
proposed penalty were issued by the Department of Labor to the Respondent by certified
mail.

On August 14, 1990, Respondent contested the citations noting that the violations had been
corrected and requested an informal conference.

On September 18, 1990, OSHRC docketed the case.

On October 23, 1990, the Secretary filed a Motion for Order Dismissing Respondent's Notice
of Contest. Respondent failed to file a timely response to the motion.

There is no evidence that the Secretary employed deceptive practices nor failed to comply
with required procedures. Also, there is no request by Respondent here for relief under
F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) substantiating that Respondent's actions in failing to contest timely
were the result of "excusable" neglect rather than "simple
negligence". See Louisiana-Pacific Corp. , 13 OSHC 2020 (R.C. 1989).

Accordingly, Respondent's notice of contest is dismissed and Citation Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are
hereby affirmed and the proposed penalties totaling $5,350 are hereby affirmed by
operation of law.

DELBERT R. TERRILL, JR.

Judge, OSHRC

DATED: November 29, 1990

DRT24   Boston, MA

FOOTNOTES:

[[1/]] Commissioner Montoya did not participate in the deliberation or issuance of this
decision.

[[2/]] The rule provides, in pertinent part:

Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order

*  *  *

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, etc.

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . or (6) any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

[[3/]] Since we find that E. K. failed to
establish any basis for relief under Rule 60(b), we need not consider whether the letters
should be treated as a request for relief under Rule 60(b).