Felton Const. Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, 74-2047
| Decision Date | 16 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-2047,74-2047 |
| Citation | 518 F.2d 49 |
| Parties | 3 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1269, 1974-1975 O.S.H.D. ( 742,047 FELTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Sam E. Haddon (argued), Missoula, Mont., for petitioner.
Allen H. Sachsel (argued), Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before TUTTLE, * KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
Felton Construction Company (Felton) petitions for review 1 of an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission), in which the Commission found that Felton had committed a serious violation of Section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2). 2 We deny Felton's petition.
So far as relevant, the facts are these: After Felton timely contested a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor, a hearing was held before a Commission hearing examiner. Felton appeared without counsel, by and through its company Safety Director, and presented evidence and put on a defense; however, the hearing examiner rejected certain of the company's proffered documentary evidence as being hearsay or without foundation. Following the hearing but before decision, an attorney representing Felton submitted briefs to the hearing examiner making one basic argument that the Commission had failed to sustain its burden of proof. The hearing examiner then rendered his decision that a serious violation of the Act had been committed, affirming the contested citation. Felton did not thereafter petition the Commission for discretionary review. 3 Accordingly, after thirty days had elapsed without the Commission's directing such review sua sponte, the hearing examiner's order became the final order of the Commission. 4 This petition followed.
Felton now asserts, by the affidavit of its Safety Director, that prior to the hearing various government representatives led it to believe that the hearing would be informal in character, that it would be given an opportunity to present whatever materials or evidence it had in its defense, and that representation by an attorney was unnecessary to protect its interests. It therefore contends that the hearing examiner's rejection of proffered material documents under technical rules of evidence, particularly where it had not produced witnesses because it had been led to believe that written statements would be admissible, effectively emasculated its defense; and it asks that the Commission's order be vacated and the hearing reopened so that additional evidence may be adduced.
The Commission, on the other hand, argues that judicial review is precluded here because Felton, in failing to petition for discretionary review before the Commission, failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. We do not reach the exhaustion question.
Section 11(a) of the Act provides in part:
"No objection that has not been urged before the Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances."
Here Felton clearly could have raised its objection at any time prior to rendition of decision particularly in its briefs before the hearing examiner and could have asked that the hearing be ordered reopened for the reception of additional evidence. 5 It did not do so. Under the circumstances, where Felton has made no showing why its objection was not raised before the Commission, § 11(a) of the Act precludes our considering it.
The petition for review is denied.
* The Honorable Elbert Parr Tuttle, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1 The petition is filed under the claimed authority of Section 11(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 660(a).
2 Section 5(a)(2) of the Act provides:
"(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RMI Co. v. Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor
...v. OSHRC, 539 F.2d 960, 963-64 (3d Cir. 1976); Stockwell Mfg. Co. v. Usery, 536 F.2d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 1976); Felton Const. Co. v. OSHRC, 518 F.2d 49, 50-51 (9th Cir. 1975). A careful reading of these cases, however, reveals that in each of them no petition for review of the ALJ's decis......
-
Cleveland Consol., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
...Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 539 F.2d 960, 963-64 (3rd Cir. 1976); Felton Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 518 F.2d 49, 50 (9th Cir. 1975). Cf. RMI Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 594 F.2d 566 (6th Cir. 1979), Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Secretar......
-
Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Secretary of Labor
...unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances." Felton Construction Co. v. OSHRC, 518 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1975). IV. Raised Todd finally challenges its citation for violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1915.43(a) which requires that "flush ma......
-
Lloyd C. Lockrem, Inc. v. U.S.
...Baptist Home of Southern California, 576 F.2d 256 (CA9 1978); Stockwell Mfg. Co. v. Usery, 536 F.2d 1306 (CA10 1976); Felton Const'n. Co. v. OSHRC, 518 F.2d 49 (CA9 1975). Lockrem presented its objections to the Commission and gave it an opportunity to rule on the objections. The OSHRC twic......