Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Law judge denies request to contest safety violations after missed deadline

Reprints
Law judge denies request to contest safety violations after missed deadline

An administrative law judge of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission on Wednesday affirmed a company’s safety fines and approved the Secretary of Labor’s request to dismiss the company’s contest notice because it was filed after the 15-day deadline to do so.

Gainesville, Georgia-based Prime Pak Foods Inc. received a single-item serious citation and notification of penalty on Nov. 6, 2017, after a compliance safety and health officer toured its facility five days earlier. The company, in a notice of contest sent late in December, claimed the visit did not include a closing conference in which the mailing address was confirmed for a possible citation and claimed the company’s safety official asked that any correspondence be sent to its legal representative, per documents in Secretary of Labor v. Prime Pak Foods Inc.

But an administrative law judge accused the company of “finger pointing” in affirming the citation.

Prime Pakargues its neglect is excusable because it was denied advance notice of the citation and the right to have counsel served with the citation,” according to ruling, which emphasizes that notices are sent “to employers,” per federal legislation.

The companycharacterizes both the failure to hold a closing conference and failure to serve counsel with the citation as ‘errors’ by the secretary,” the ruling stated. “Even if errors, neither excuses (the company’s) failure to process its mail. Once the citation was received by (the company), it was (the company’s) obligation to ensure it was handled in a timely manner.”

Prime Pakhas the burden to establish it exercised due diligence. In providing no explanation as to how the citation was processed once in its possession, (the company) has failed to meet its burden,” the judge stated.  

The administrative law judge’s decision became a final order of the review commission on Wednesday.

The company could not be immediately reached for comment.

 

 

Read Next