An administrative judge in the work committee on business safety and health confirmed general obligation clauses in a case where a car dealer and workshop challenged the measures of the US work environment authority as "very hard".
OSHA inspected the Houston workplace for Apollo Auto Sales & Service Inc. in January and February 2018 and issued three serious quotes according to labor law and health legislation and another than serious infringement and proposed sanctions totaling $ 6,662, as reviewed by Commission documents in Working Group v. Apollo Auto Sales & Service Inc. was released Monday. Quotes were originally sent to Apollo Auto with first-class record, but returned "unreliable", so OSHA then sent the quote by United Parcel Service and it was delivered on March 6, 201
OSHA conducted a follow-up inspection of Apollo Auto's cited worksite on May 9, 2018, and issued a failure to abolish alleged violations and proposed a fine of $ 25,25868. The OSHA hand delivered the failure to cancel the notification to Apollo Auto Sales & # 39; s manager on May 18, 2018, but the company did not submit a contest contest within the 15-day competition period and it became a final order of the review commission at the end of the period.
Apollo Auto sent a request for exemption on July 25, 2018, which contested the quotes, fees and penalties, and stated that it considers OSHA's "very hard" business. The company gave the name and phone number of a lawyer who said to contact OSHA to resolve the issue, but the lawyer later informed the investigation commission that she would not represent Apollo Auto in the case.
While it is the work secretary's burden to establish that the quote was served, Apollo Auto did not dispute that the quote was served, the judge noted. Nor was it contested that Apollo Auto did not dispute the quote and failure to cancel the notice within the prescribed time periods, which means that the orders and proposed penalties must be considered final orders of the audit commission, unless Apollo Auto can demonstrate that it is entitled to exemption, according to them. .
"The court finds that Apollo Auto has not shown that it is entitled to exemption," the judge noted. "Neither the registration certificate nor Apollo Auto's explanations for its late application show fraud or failure to follow proper procedures on behalf of the Secretary."
"The only reason Apollo Auto has submitted to the court for the delay is that it considers OSHA's actions to be" very hard ", the judge continued." This does not provide sufficient grounds for the Court to conclude that the reason for the delay was not under the control of Apollo Auto. Therefore, the court finds the delay was within Apollo Auto's control. The court notes that Apollo Auto failed to exercise its immediate accuracy and was simply negligent in not submitting competitions before the competition periods expired. "
Under scrutiny of the Commission's precedent," an employer's carelessness or negligence, even by a layman, unless the timing of a competition notice did not constitute "excusable negligence", "the judge noted. review commission on Monday
A telephone number for the company was canceled, and no record for record was listed in court documents.