13-036 Code Vt. R. 13-140-036-X
Appendix 1A Notice of Contest to Citation and Proposed Penalties
Chandler Concrete Corporation
211 Valley Road
Passumpsic, VT 05861
March 1, 1993
Mr. ABC, Manager/VOSHA
Dept. of Labor and Industry
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-3401
Dear Mr. ABC:
This is to notify you that Chandler Concrete Corporation contests all of the items and penalties alleged in the Citation and Proposed Penalty we received February 20, 1993, which was dated February 18, 1993 (copy attached).
Sincerely,
CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION
N.B. Chandler
President
Appendix 1B Notice of Contest to Proposed Penalties Only
Chandler Concrete Corporation
211 Valley Road
Passumpsic, VT 05861
March 1, 1993
Mr. ABC, Manager/VOSHA
Dept. of Labor and Industry
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-3401
Dear Mr. ABC:
I wish to contest the Proposed Penalties of § 1, 200 issued February 18, 1993, based on the alleged violations cited during a recent inspection. I believe they are unreasonable for a number of reasons.
Sincerely,
CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION
N.B. Chandler
President
Appendix 1C Notice of Contest by Employee Representative
Metal Workers International Union
589 22nd Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
March 1, 1993
Mr. ABC, Manager/VOSHA
Dept. of Labor and Industry120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-3401
Dear Mr. ABC:
We have been authorized by the employee representative, Local 15 of the Metal Workers International Union, to file this notice of contest of the VOSHA citations issued on February 18, 1993 against the employer, Chandler Concrete Corporation of Passumpsic, Vermont.
The abatement dates of February 27, 1994 for Items No. 1 and No. 3 of the non-serious citation and January 5, 1994 for Item No. 1 of the serious citation are unreasonable.
Furthermore, because of the danger to which employees are exposed due to these violations, we seek a hearing and ruling on our contest as soon as possible. Such urgency is necessary to minimize irreversible damage to the health of the employees.
Sincerely,
W. T. Metz, Director
Safety Department
Appendix 1D Notice of Contest by Employer
(A notice in the following form shall be deemed to comply with Section 2200.7(g):)
Metal Workers International Union
589 22nd Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Your employer has been cited by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry for violation of the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Code. The citation has been contested and will be the subject of a hearing before the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Review Board. Affected employees are entitled to participate in this hearing as parties or intervenors under terms and conditions established by the Review Board in its Rules of Procedure. Notice of intent to participate should be sent to:
Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
State Administration Building Post Office
133 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05633-6701
All papers relevant to this matter may be inspected at:
(Place reasonably convenient to employees, preferably at or near the workplace.)
(Where appropriate, the second sentence of the above notice will be deleted and the following sentence substituted:)
The reasonableness of the period prescribed by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry for abatement of the violation has been contested and will be the subject of a hearing before the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Review Board.
Appendix 2 Complaint
STATE OF VERMONT
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
DOCKET NO. 000
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Complainant vs. CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION, Respondent
COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION
PARTI ES
CLAIM
WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, Complainant demands that the VOSHA Review Board affirm the citation and assess a penalty for the aforesiad [aforesaid] violation in an amount not less than that assessed by the VOSHA Division of the Dept. of Labor and Industry.
XYZ
Special Ass't. Attorney General
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complaint has been served upon Respondent by mailing a copy of the above document on this 8th day of March 1993, to N.B. Chandler, Chandler Concrete Corporation, 211 Valley Road, Passumpsic, Vermont.
XYZ
Special Ass't. Attorney General
Appendix 3 Answer
STATE OF VERMONT
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
DOCKET NO. 000
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Complainant vs. CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION, Respondent
ANSWER
Respondent, by its President, N.B. Chandler, makes answer to the Complaint filed in the above-captioned matter, as follows, to wit:
It is respectfully requested that the Citation be dismissed.
N.B. Chandler, President
Chandler Concrete Corporation
I certify that on March 15, 1993, I sent, by mail, a true copy of this Answer to the VOSHA Division of the Dept. of Labor and Industry, 120 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05620-3401.
N.B. Chandler, President
Chandler Concrete Corproation [Corporation]
Appendix 4 Notice of Decision
STATE OF VERMONT
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
Commissioner of Labor and Industry vs.
Docket No. RB.
Dated:
Appendix 5 Petition for Discretionary Review
STATE OF VERMONT
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
DOCKET NO. 000
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Complainant vs. CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION, Respondent
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Respondent, Chandler Concrete Corporation, in disagreement with the Decision and Order of the hearing officer in the above matter, hereby submits this Petition for Discretionary Review pursuant to Section 2200.91 of the VOSHA Review Board's Rules of Procedure.
STATEMENT OF PORTIONS OF THE DECISION AND ORDER TO WHICH EXCEPTION IS TAKEN
Chandler Concrete Corporation takes exception to the hearing officer's finding on page 6 of the Decision, that the concrete wall collapsed due to failure to take proper safety precautions.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR WHICH EXCEPTIONS ARE TAKEN
It is the position of the Chandler Concrete Corporation that the violation was indeed proven not to be the fault of the Respondent by the evidence presented at the hearing and by statements made by expert witnesses. See pages 101-132 of the record.
For the reasons set forth above, the Respondent requests that this case be directed for review.
Respectfully submitted,
N.B. Chandler, President
Chandler Concrete Corporation
March 30, 1993
Appendix 6A Order Granting Request for Discretionary Review
STATE OF VERMONT
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
DOCKET NO. 000
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Complainant vs. CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION, Respondent
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 2200.92 of the VOSHA Review Board's Rules of Procedure (hereinafter "The Rules"), the petition for discretionary review filed by the (Complainant/Respondent) is granted. The issues raised by the petition, a copy of which is attached, include:
Whether the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the alleged failure to comply with the standard 1926.451 (a)(8) was a violation of Section 224 of the Act.
Briefs shall be submitted by the parties or intervenors pursuant to the provisions of Section 2200.93(b) of The Rules.
(Optional) The Board hereby agrees to allow oral argument and will advise all parties or intervenors of the date, hour, place, time allotted and scope of such argument after all briefs have been filed, but no less than 10 days prior to the date of argument.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ... day of ...., 199 ...
XYZ
Chair of the Board
Appendix 6B Order Denying Request for Discretionary Review
STATE OF VERMONT
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW BOARD
DOCKET NO. 000
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Complainant vs. CHANDLER CONCRETE CORPORATION, Respondent
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
The petition for discretionary review filed by (Complainant/Respondent) on , 19 . is hereby denied. The Review Board has determined that not enough information was presented in the petition that would affect the Hearing Officer's decision. The Board affirms that the evidence presented to the Hearing Officer supports the findings in conclusions of the Hearing Officer and affirms that decision as written.
Therefore, the decision of the Hearing Officer in this matter dated , 19 . becomes a final order of the Board, as of the date set forth below.
The penalty assessed in the amount of ... dollars should be sent directly to the VOSHA Administration, Department of Labor and Industry, 120 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05620-3401, within the next 30 days.
Pursuant to 21 VSA Section 227(a), any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order of the Board may file an appeal in any Superior Court for the county in which the violation occurred or where their principal office is located, by sending a written petition within 60 days following the issuance of this order and asking that it be set aside or modified. The cost of having a transcript prepared for such an appeal shall be paid by the party or intervenor filing the appeal.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this day of , 199
XYZ
Chair of the Board
Glossary
Pleadings | These are the documents in which the parties or intervenors set out their allegations or defenses. The most common type of pleadings are the Complaint and Answer. Pleadings are prohibited in simplified proceedings. |
Complaint and Answer | Under conventional procedures, after an employer files its notice of contest to a citation, the Commissioner of Labor and Industry files a "Complaint" with the Board that sets forth in detail the nature of the allegations against the employer. The employer must respond to the complaint by filing an "Answer." In the answer, the employer must either admit, deny or express lack of knowledge of the allegations contained in the complaint. The employer should also assert any defenses relevant to the citation. The Board has eliminated these documents for cases under simplified proceedings. |
Discovery | This is a procedure that enables a party or intervenor to obtain information necessary to its case, but in the possession of another party, intervenor or witness. Common discovery techniques include: interrogatories (written questions), depositions (oral statements under oath), production of documents or things, requests for admissions, etc. |
Interlocutory Appeals | These are the appeals by a party or intervenor taken from rulings by the hearing officer made either before or during the hearing. The hearing officer's ruling is the type that does not dispose of the case, but may generally affect a party or intervenor's rights and obligations. Interlocutory appeals are prohibited in simplified proceedings. However, the ruling in question can be appealed to the Board after the hearing officer issues a final decision in the case. |
Motions | A motion is an application made to a hearing officer to obtain an order directing some act to be done in favor of the person making the motion. |
21 V.S.A. § 230
13-036 Code Vt. R. 13-140-036-X
AMENDED: April 2007 (to remove duplicate rule 24 050 002)
February 2019 (renumbered to 24 050 002)