h

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120201 Street, N.W., Ninth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036-3457 

OSHRC Docket No. 18-1573 

ORDER OF DEFAULT

On August 23, 2018, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA")

issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty ("Citation") to Respondent for OSHA inspection 

number 1298614. The Citation alleged serious violations of the construction safety regulations 

at 29 C.F.R. § 1926 for a proposed total penalty of $34,738. 

Respondent filed a timely notice of contest through its president, Vedat Rexhepi. The

case was docketed with the Commission and the Notice of Docketing was sent to the Respondent 

at its record address on October 5, 2018. The Notice of Docketing included a postcard that was 

to be returned to the Commission to verify Respondent had complied with the employee posting

requirements of Commission Rule 7. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.7. Respondent did not return the

postcard. 

On June 28, 2019, the Secretary filed the Complaint in this matter. Respondent did not

file an Answer as required by Commission Rule 34(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.34(b). 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant, 

v.

VREX CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Respondent.
2

On August 16, 2019, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause Why Notice of

Contest Should Not Be Dismissed ("Order") to Respondent. The Order directed Respondent to

show cause on or before August 30, 2019, as to why it should not be declared in default for not

filing an Answer to the Complaint. The Order expressly stated that a failure to respond will

result in all violations set out in. the Citation being affirmed and the proposed penalties assessed

without a hearing. 

The Order was sent to Respondent, at itsrecord address, through the United States Postal

Service ("USPS") by regular first-class mail and by certified mail 1 with return receipt requested.

The mailing by regular first-class mail was not returned and is presumed delivered. Respondent

received and signed for the certified mailing on August 26, 2019. It is concluded Respondent

received the Order.

The undersigned's office staff attempted to contact Respondent by phone on October 2,

2019 and October 16, 2019. A message requesting a reply call was left each time. There was no

response to these phone calls. On October 23, 2019, my staff called and spoke with a

representative of the Respondent, who promised to file documents in the Commission's efiling

system. Despite that, Respondent has not responded to the Order, did not provide an Answer,

and has not otherwise communicated withmy office.

2

The sanction of a default judgment is appropriate "when any party has failed to plead or

otherwise proceed as provided by these rules or as required by the Commission or Judge." 29 

C.F.R. § 2200.101(a).3 A judge has very broad discretion in imposing sanctions for 

1 The certified mailing tracking number was 7017-3040-0001-1132-2068. 2 The Commission expects a business to maintain "orderly procedures for handling important documents."

Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 13 BNA OSHC 2020, 2021 (No. 86-1266, 1989) (citations omitted). 3 Commission Rule 101(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2200. 101(a), provides in pertinent part that: "Sanctions. When any party

has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by these rules or as required by the . . . Judge, he may be

declared to be in default . . . after having been afforded an opportunity to show cause why he should not be declared 

to be in default. . . .Thereafter, the . . . Judge, in [her] discretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party.''
noncompliance with the judge's orders or the Commission's Rules of Procedure. See Sealtite

Corp., 15 BNA OSHC 1130, 1134 (No. 88-1431, 1991). The Commission has long held that

dismissal is too harsh a sanction for failure to comply with certain prehearing orders unless the

record shows contumacious conduct by the noncomplying party, prejudice to the opposing party,

or a pattern of disregard for Commission proceedings. See Architectural Glass & Metal Co., 19

BNA OSHC 1546, 1547 (No. 00-0389, 2001). 

Respondent's conduct here shows a pattern of disregard for Commission rules and

proceedings. As set out above, Respondent did not verify compliance with the posting

requirements of Commission Rule 7, did not provide an Answer to the Complaint, and did not

respond to the Order to Show Cause.

For these reasons, Respondent is found to be in DEFAULT, its notice of contest is

DISMISSED, and the OSHA citation issued to Respondent on August 23, 2018, inspection

number 1298614 isAFFIRMED in its entirety and penalties ASSESSED.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

 Covette Rooney

 Chief Judge

Dated: December 26, 2019

Washington, D.C.