Opinion ID: 444416
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the union's right to object to the secretary's motion to withdraw the citation.

Text: 41 The final issue presented by this appeal is whether the Union waived its right to object to the Secretary's motion to withdraw the citation by failing to object in a timely manner. The resolution of this issue depends on whether Rule 37 or Rule 76 of the OSHRC Rules of Procedure applies. Rule 37 provides for a ten-day limit for filing objections. If Rule 37 applies the Union has waived its right to object because it did not file its brief within ten days of the hearing. Rule 76, on the other hand, gives the Union twenty days from the date it received a transcript of the hearing in which to file its brief. Thus, if Rule 76 applies, the Union filed its brief in a timely manner. Rule 76 provides: 42 Any party shall be entitled, upon request, to a reasonable period at the close of the hearing for oral argument, which shall be included in the stenographic report of the hearing. Any party shall be entitled, upon request made before the close of the hearing, to file a brief, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both, with the Judge. The Judge may fix a reasonable period of time for such filing, but such initial period may not exceed 20 days from the receipt by the party of the transcript of the hearing. 43 (emphasis added). 44 In addition to the text of Rule 76, the Union received a letter from the attorney for the Secretary of Labor on October 20, 1976 stating: Dear Mr. Huhn: 45 Enclosed please find a copy of the transcript of the August 24, 1976 hearing ... 46 Please be advised this transcript was not forwarded to the judge until September 14, 1976. 47 Commission Rule 76 provides that the parties have 20 days after receipt of the transcript to file post-trial briefs. Assuming Judge Stuller received the transcript on September 16, 1976, which is highly unlikely due to the current pace of the mails you had until October 5, 1976 in which to file your brief. If you require an affidavit of the court reporter as to the date the transcript was forwarded to the Judge, please advise. 48 Sincerely, W.S. Kleopfer 49 Associate Regional SolicitorBy William E. Curphey, III Trial Attorney 50 (Emphasis added). 51 We hold that Rule 76 applies to this case. Both the language of the rule and the foregoing letter indicate that it applies here. Rule 37, on the other hand, simply applies to responses to motions. 52 For the foregoing reasons we uphold the decision of the Commission and remand this case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings.