Norwich Laboratories, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Norwich Laboratories, based in Amherst, Massachusetts, was inspected by OSHA between January and February 1993 after a complaint. In March 1993 the company received a serious citation with five items (a proposed $600 penalty on each, $3,000 total) and one "other" item ($300). The company contested, but its representation fell apart: the people who had spoken for it withdrew or declined to appear, and by the hearing date the company had, in the judge's words, become a "ship without a captain." With no defense presented, the OSHA compliance officer testified to each item, and Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Hassenfeld-Rutberg found the violations proven and affirmed the citations. The full proposed penalties of $3,000 for the serious citation and $300 for the "other" citation were assessed, for a total of $3,300.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision affirms the cited items without naming specific standard numbers in its text.
• Outcome: All items affirmed; $3,000 on the five serious items and $300 on the "other" item, $3,300 total.
• Key point: When an employer stops participating and offers no defense, the Secretary's evidence on each cited item can carry the case and the citation is affirmed as issued.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Editorial note: the source PDF at this URL bundles two unrelated decisions. Only the Norwich Laboratories, Inc. decision (Docket 93-1008) is reproduced below; the second decision contained in the same file, Interstate Erectors, Inc. (Docket 93-1160), is a separate matter published on its own.

                        UNITED STATES Of AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N,\N. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

                   I
                                              .

SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 934008
NORWICH LABORATORIES, INC.
Respondent.

                  NOTICE OF DOCKETING
                                -- - ~~~
           OF ADMINISTRATLVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
 The Administrative Law Judge’s Re rt in the above referenced cue was

docketed with the Commission on June !!?!$l!W4. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on July 29,1994 unlcs~~a 0
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE .
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIE’K
Any such tition should be received by the Executive Secrc on or befbe
July 19 l& m ’ order to ermit sufficient time for its review.YL e
Co&ion Rule 91,29 E .F.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communiCafions regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 200363419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOc
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washingto.n, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
havrng questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 6063400.

Dater. June 29, 1994
 DOCKET NO. 934008
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

Daniel J. Mick, m.
counsel for Re ‘onal Trial Liti tion
office of the so%kitor, U.S. Dcfit
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210 -



Albert H. Ross, Esq.
Re lonal Solicitor
Ofike of the Solicitor US DOL
One Congress Street, ilti3 ‘noor
P.O. Box 8396
Boston, MA 02114-



Nina Inchardi
f

. c o Norwich I&oratories, Inc.
50 North Pleasant Street
Amherst, MA 01002

Barbara Hassenfeld-Rutberg
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an cf Health
Review Commission
McCormack Post O&e and
 Courthouse, Room 420
Boston, MA 02109 4501




00017825845:Ol

.

                                         UNITED STATESOf AMERICA
                     OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                            JOHN W. McCORMACKPOSTOFFICEAND COURTHOUSE
                                              ROOM 420
                                   BOSTON, hAA=cl=NJsETTS02109-4501

?tONE: FAX:
COM(01?)22%SW . COM (617) 223-100$
Fls (617) 223-9746 FTS (617) 223-4004

-- ~- ~ - ~~
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant
v. OSHRC Docket No. 934008
NORWICHLABORATORIES,INC.
Respondent

Appearances:

DavidBaskin, Esq. NinaInchardi .
office of the solicitor NorwichLaboratories
U.S. Departmentof Labor Amherst,m
ForComplainant ForRespondent

Before: AdministrativeLaw Judge Beara L. HassenMd-Rutberg

          This is a proceeding under section 10(c) of the Occupational Safii   and Health    @!

Act of 1970,29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., (the Act).
..
On March 3,1993, Respondentwas cited in a “serious” citation for 5 items, with a
proposed penalty of $600.00 each, for a total of $3000.00, and in an “other”citation for 1
item with a proposed penalty of $300.00. The citation was issued as a result of
inspections conducted @omJanuary 20,1993 to February 23,1993 by Samuel W. King, a
compliance officer (CO) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in
response to a complaint filed with the OSHA Area office.

      A hearing was held in this case on May 13,1994 in Boston, Massachusetts,

presided over by Judge Barbara L. Hassenfeld-Rutberg.
 The history of who actually represents or represented the Respondent in this case
is quite confounded. At the time of the hearing, neither Nina Richardi nor Ronald Lavigne
appeared; both having at one time held themselves out as the representative of the
Respondent. At the time of the inspection, Nina Inchardi dealt with the CO as the
representative and indicated to him that she was the company president. Ronald Lavigne
filed the Notice of Contest, but later on deferred back to Nina Inchardi as the correct
person to represent the company, and she filed an Answer on behalf of the Respondent.
She proceeded in settlement negotiations with Mr. Baskin, the attorney representing the
Complainantand terms were agreed to and the original trial date of March l&l994 was
cancelled on the basis that there was a settlement. When the agreement was not signed by
Ms. Inchardi, the undersigned set the case for trial on April 12, 1994, but again that date
was postponed in hopes of a finalizedsettlement agreement. When none was
forthcoming, a third trial date was set for May 13, 1994. Two copies of the’Notice of
Hearing were sent to Ms. Inchardi; she apparently received the one set by regular mail as
she responded in an undated letter received by the undersigned on May lo,1994 that she
could not represent the Respondent anymore “on advice of council (sic)“. (She nerer
picked up the certified one). Since Mr. Lavigne had already withdrawn any participation,
it appears that the Respondent is a “ship without a captain”.

    Mr. King testified to each of the items in the citation, and this judge is satisfied

that the Respondent violated the standards alleged. Thus, the citation is AFFIRMED.

    All findings of fact relevant and necessary to a determination of the contested

issues have been found specially and appear herein. See Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

    Serious citation 1, items 1 through 5 are AFFIRMED and a penalty of $3000.00

is assessed.

    Other citation 2, item 1 is AFFIRME D and a penalty of $300.00 is assessed.




    June    23, 1994                Judge, OSHRC

Date:
Boston, Massachusetts