2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-9-2004 

# Avon C on tr a c t ors I nc v

. S ecr et a r y L a

b or

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ocke t N o . 03-1615

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va
. e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Avon C on tr a ct or s I nc v

. S e cr e t a r y L a

bor " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 563. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/563PRECE DENTI AL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 03-1615

AV ON CO NT RA CT OR S, IN C., Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY OF L ABOR; OCCUPAT IONAL SAFE TY AND HEALTH R EVI EW COMMISS ION, Res pon dents

On Petiti on for Review of a FinalOrder of the Oc cupa tional S afety an d H ealth Review Comm issi on (O SH RC No

. 

### 02-0772 )

Argued February

12, 2004

Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , RO TH and M cK EE , Circuit Judges
(Fil ed: June 9, 2004)

Donald A. Kessler , Esquir e (Argued) Schwartz, Simon, Edelst ein, Celso & Kessler 10 James Stre et Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Attorney for Peti tioner Ronald J. Gottlieb, Esquire ( Argued) United Stat es Department of Labor Office of the Sol icitor Suite S- 4004 20 0 C on sti t ut i onAv enue , N. W. Washington, D.C. 20210 Atto rney for Res pon dent, Secretaryof Labor

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

SC IRI CA , Chief Judge

. At issue i s whetherPetitioner Avon Contractors, Inc. i s enti tled to reli ef under the excusable neglect

standar d of Fe d. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (1), af

t er it failed to time ly file a notic e of cont est to Occupati onal Saf ety and He alt h Administr at ion Citation s and a N ot ice of

Pe na lty d elive red by certi fiedmail. We add re ssed si milar issues in Geo rg e Ha rms Construct ion Co.

v. Chao , No. 03-2215 ( 3d Cir. June 9, 2004), in which we h eard oral argument on the same day as this matter.
We will vac ate the Oc cupati onal Safe ty and H ealth Rev iew C omm ission’s final order andremand for a hearing on t he merits of the OSHA citati ons.

I.
OSHA cond u cted an i nspecti on of Avo n’s work site at Northval e, New Jersey from January 8 through January 10, 2002. 1

1 Congress enact ed th e Oc cupati onal Safety and H ealth Act to “ass ure so far as p ossibl e” safe working condi tions fo r “every working man and woman in th e2 OSHA foun d t wo infractions. 2 After the inspection, Charles T ristitti of OS HA ’s Hasbrouck Heights AreaOffice contac ted Avo n’s Office Ma nager L ori Muranelli by tele phone and ad vi se d he r o f two for th coming citations . OSHA sent the citations by certified mail to Avon on Februa ry22, 2002. Av on’s re ceptio nist, To nya Gra nt, signe d fo r th e cit ations on Februa ry26, 2002. Muranel li, the employe e at Avon re sp ons ib le fo r OS HArelat ed matter s, never recei ved the citati ons. In or around March 2002, Avon discover ed it was miss in g mail and suspect ed its recept ionist , Ton ya Gra nt,
was respo nsible. A ccord ing to M uran elli, “a round” the time of March, 2002 , mana gers started complaini ng about missi ng mail. “Between Februa ry and March, right

before [the recept ionis t] l eft the Compan y, ” Muranelli told the receptionist

th at some m ail items were missi ng. Mu ra nelli warned her to ensu re that the proper recipients g ot t heir m ail. M uran elli also t old the rece ptioni st that she was n ot to sign for an y cert ifie d mail Na tion .” 29 U.S. C. § 651(b). The Secretary of L abor is char ged w ith enforcementof the A ct. But the Sec retary has d el egate d her enfo rcem ent du ties to the Assist ant Secre tary for Occupati onal Safety a nd H ea lt

h, who he ad s OS HA. Secretary’s Order 5-20 02, 67 Fed. Reg. 65008 (Oct. 22, 20 02). OSH A i nspe cts workplaces for violations. It m ay i ssue a citationfor a violation, establisha date for abate men t, and pro pos e a c ivil p ena lty. 29 U.S.C. §§ 65 8, 65 9. An employ er can
c onte stthe ci tati on and the propos ed pena lty be fo re th e O cc up ati on al S af ety a n d He alth Review Comm issi on. 29 U.S .C. § 661. Unde r s ecti on 10(a) of t he Act, an employe r m ust file a notice of contest with in 15 working day s of r eceipt of the citationor the “t

he cit ation and the
assess men t, as proposed, shallbe deemed

a f inal order of the Commission and no t subject to re view by an y cou rt or a gen cy.” 29 U .S.C . § 65 9(a ). The Commission, an indep en dent adjudicatory body se parate fr om the Departmentof L abo r, a cts as a neutr al

a rbit erinpr oc ee di ngs co nt es ting O S H A citati ons. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Un ion , 474 U.S . 3, 7 (19 95) (per curiam ). Ass um in g juri sdict ion, an Administr ative Law Judge of the C om missio n con ducts a hearing and issues a report

with his determi nation of th e p roceeding . 29 U.S .C. § 661 (j). With in thir

ty days , the Commission may opt to revi ew the ALJ’s rep ort. Id. If no Commissionerdirect s rev iew , the AL J’s report becomes the Commissi on’s fi nal decisi on. Id. Judici al revi ew may then be sought. 29 U.S.C. § 660.

2 In the c itations, OSHA alle ges Avon violat ed 29 C .F.R. § 192 6.300(b)(1 ) , by operat ing power tools without a r equired guard. It als o al leges Avon viol ated 29 C.F .R. § 1926 .501(b)(1), bynot provi ding

a guar drail system , safety ne t syst em, or personalfall arres t sy stem for empl oye es working on a roof.3

because it was Muranelli’s resp o nsibility
as office manager

to do so. “In the midd le towards the end of M arch,” t h e receptionist

resi gned. Muranell i tes tifi ed that the rec eptioni st was “disgr untled” and quit because she ha d heard she wou ld be terminatedfor los in g or de stroying m ail. In April 2002, Avon discoveredth atsom e of its cert ifie d mail was miss ing. Avon cl ai ms it was not

aware that it s receptionist

w as destro ying or los ing m ail at the tim e the OSHA citations were mail ed and recei ved.
On Ap ril 26, 20 02, M uran elli contact ed OSHA to inquire about t he stat us of the ci tati ons. On April 29, 2002, Avon recei ved a d emand lett er from OSHA and a copyof the ci tati ons and notice of penalt

y. On M ay 15, 2002, Avon sub mitte d a la te no tice o f co ntes t. The matter

was docketed befor e the Commission. Avon claimed it was entitled to relief u nder the “e xcus able n eglec t” standard o f Fed. R . Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Section 1 2(g) of t

he Act provide s that

the “Commission is aut

horized to make such rules as are nece ssary for th e ord erly transa ction o f its proceedi ngs. Unles s the Commission has ad opted a di fferent rule, its proc eedin gs sh all be in acco rdan ce w ith the Fed eral R ules o f Civ il Procedure. ” 29 U.S .C. § 661(g). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (1) provides that “ [o]n motion and upon such te rms as are j ust, the cou rt mayreli eve a party or a part

y’ s legalrepres entat ive from

a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following r eas o ns: (1) mistake, inadvert en ce, surprise , or exc usab le neglect

. . . .” Id. On Ja nuary 21, 2003, an ALJ filed his decisio n and orde r gran tin g t he Secretary’s dism issal mo tion

. Se e Avon Contra c tors, Inc. , No. 02-0772, 2003 OSAHRC LEX IS 47 (OSAH RC Jan. 21, 2003). Though fi nding that Avon made a “co mp e lling” argu men t, the A LJ h eld agains t Avon on its excus able negl ect claim beca use Avo n ha d no t s how n “whetherthe fa ilu re [to rec eive not ice of the violatio n] w as w ithin the control of the
em plo yer.” Id. at *4-5. Particularl y, the AL J found , the record did “not show how long the rec eption ist h ad b een destroyi ng
or misplacing mail or when the company first becam e awa re of the probl em.” Id. at *4. Accor d ingly, the A LJ co uld n ot tell whether the de structi on was a n “unprece den tedand unexpected a ct, or wh etherthis ty

pe of acti vity

was an ongoing problem which should have bee n
cor recte d.” Id. at*5. The ALJ noted “the only appa rent effort A von und ertook to recti fythe pr oblem was to te ll t he recept ioni stnot to a ccep t certified mail, and

. . . this occurred ‘ right before’ t

he recept i onistleft

the company .” Id. The A LJ den ied r elief

und er F ed. R . C iv. P

. 60(b) because he was unable to “ find that it was no t w ithin A von ’s reaso nable controlto prevent the s eri es of even ts which led up to its failure to time ly file the NO C.” Id. The A LJ also r eject ed the Sec retary’s conte ntion th at th e Commission did n ot hav e auth ority to accepta late -file d notice of contest . The ALJ noted: Relying on Le Fro is Builder Inc. , 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.4

2002 ), the Secre tar y’ s
mo tio n assert s that

the Commission d oes not have autho rityto ac c ept a l atefile d NO C. The Secretary’s reli ance on L e F rois , how ever, is mis place d , as this case arises in the T hird Circu it, not the Sec ond. A cc or di ng ly, J. I. Ha ss C o., Inc. , 648 F .2d 191 (3 d Cir. 1981) a nd Brancifort e Builders, Inc. , 9 BNA OSHC 2113 (No. 80-1920, 1981), not L e Fro is , are control ling.
Id. at *3 n. 2.
Avon appeals to vacate t he Com mission’s order and r e mand for a hearing on th e und erly ing citation. 3 It argues that it is entitled to t he reli ef of “excus able negl ect” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Not only

does the Se cretary dispu te those cl aims, s he also cont ends that sec tion 10( a) o f the Ac t, 29 U.S .C. § 659(a ), preclude s the Commissi on from considering the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) “exc usab le neglect ” s ta ndard when a notice of contest

is unt imely

file d. 4 II.
In George Harms Constructi on Co.

v. Chao , No. 03-2215 ( 3d Cir. June 9, 2004), we re jected the Sec retary’s
co ntenti on that J. I. Has s Co . v . O SHR C , 64 8 F.2d 190 (3d Cir . 1981), had b ee n underminedby subs equent pre cede n t. Harms , No. 03-2215, op. at 4-8. We held that under Hass , section 10(a) i s not a bar to Co mmission r eview, an d th e Commission has jur isdi ction to entert ain a late notice of co ntest un der the excu sable

n eglect st and ar d of

Fed . R. Ci v. P

. 60(b)(1). Se e Ha rms , No. 03-2215, op. at 8.
Mo reover, in Harms , we hel d the S upr eme Court’s hol ding in Pioneer Invest mentSer vice s v. B r unswisk Assoc. , 507 U.S. 380 (1993), applies t o Comm issi on proceedi ngs where the
excu sable neglect st an dard is impli cated. See Harms , No

. 03

- 22 15 , op

. at 8. We noted that in Pioneer

“the Sup reme C ourt identi fied, without limitation, these factors to consider : ‘t

he danger of pr ejudi ce . . . , the length of

the del ay and i ts pot entia l impacton judici al proce edings, the reason for the delay , inc luding whethe r it was with in the rea sonabl e controlof the
mo vant, and whether the m ovant acted in good fai th .’” Id. (quoti ng Pioneer , 507 U.S. at395). We held t

he “contr ol” fact or does not necess arily tr u mp a ll t

he other 3 The Comm issi on h ad juri sdict ion under29 U .S.C . § 65 9. We have appe llate juri sdict ion under 29 U.S. C. § 660.

4 The Co mmission’s factual findings must be af

fir med if support ed by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Re ich v . D .M . S abia Co. , 90 F.3d 854, 856 (3d Cir. 1996 ). Its a djudications are to be affi rmed unless t heyar e a rb itra ry, capricious, an abuse o f discr etion, or
c ontrary to law

. Id. (c itin g 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A )).5

relevant fac tors. Id. at9. Further more, an arbit ermus t take i nto account all r elevant circumst an ces surrounding a party’s fai lure to fi le a t ime ly noti ce o f co ntes t. Id. We fault ed th e AL J for w eighin g too heav ily the “control ” aspect

of the cas e at t he expense of other r elevant Pioneer factors. See id. at 8-9. Here, the ALJ m ade similar errors in its “exc usab le neg lect” ca lculu s

. Several of

the fact ors weighed in favor of

a finding f

or Avo n. The S ecretary did not appa rently suffer preju dice; th e dela y did not nega tively impact t

he proceedi ng; and
as the ALJ no ted, “A von ’s argu men t is compelli ng, particularly as Avon initiate d contact with OSHA w ith r espect to the wh ereab outs of

the citation. ” Avon , 2003 O SAHRC LEXIS 47, at *4. But t he A L J explai ned that “ a keyfactor in dete rmining this issue i s whether t

he fail ure was with in the co nt ro l o f th e e m pl oye r” and found agains t Av on b ecau se the e viden ce it present ed was insuffi cient for showing the loss “was n ot within A von’s re as onab le
con trol.” Id. at *4-5. In doi ng so , t he ALJ did not properly weigh allthe rel evant Pioneer factors.
Mo reover, we disagree t hat Avon fail ed to prove t

hatthe los s was not w ithin its reas ona ble c ont rol. T he ALJ found fatalto A von ’s petiti on the fact t hat the record does not show “how long the receptionist

had be e n destr oyi ng or misplacing the mailor when the company first became aware of the problem. ” Id. at *4. Bu t th e fail ure to s how how long the recept i onisthad been destroy ing or misp laci ng mail i s no t nece ssarily control ling on w heth er th e loss of the citations was within Avon’s r eason ab le contro l. It wo uld b e diff icult to show precis ely how long the delibe rate a cts had been ongoing in par

t because employe es wh o com mit de structive or ne gligen t acts gene rally do n ot bro adca st th eir cond uct. Un ti l Av on d iscov ered th e miss ing m ail and the receptionist’s allege dly delibe rate acts of destr uction, there was l ittle bey ond the establ ished mail ing procedur es in plac e that could be done to pre vent mishandl ed mail. Nor is the r e any re as on t o as sum e that a company wou ld know that its ma il
was being dest

roy ed or mispl aced but
wo uld act ag ainst its ow n self-inte rest in choosing to ignor e it. Moreover, though the precis e date on which Avon dis covered it was missing mai l is unclear , the reco rd demonstrat es that Avon dis coveredthat it
was missi ng ma il j ust pri or to t he recept i onist’s departur e in Februar y or March. The re co rdsh ows that Av on d id not discover that ce rtified items we re destr oyedor mispl aced unti l somet i me in Ap ril. When OS HA sent the certified mail contai ning th e citation s to A von in Fe br ua ry, th ere is no evidence t hat it was with in Avon’s controlto prevent the unf orese eable acts of de struc tion by its employe e. Because the Pioneer factor s of good faith, prej udice, effici en t j udicia l administ rati on, an d contro l all we igh in favorof Avon, it ha s suff ic ie nt ly sh own “exc usab le neglect ” and is entitled to relie f under F ed. R. C iv. P. 60(b)(1).

III.
Fo r the fo rego ing rea sons , we w ill
vaca te th e Commission’s final order and6

remand for a hearing on the mer its of the subject OSHA citati ons.