During an OSHA inspection: Know your rights

Oct 13, 2021

During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on. However, an OSHA official cannot require equipment to be positioned a certain way or an accident scene be reenacted for photographs of an allegedly violative condition.


Knowing this, a company can save time and money. In Secretary of Labor v. North American Crane & Rigging LLC (NACR), OSHRC No. 20-1089 (Aug. 6, 2021), the employer successfully contested an OSHA citation based on two instances of failing to adequately mark hazardous area boundaries in violation of the crane standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii). The judge agreed that no employees were exposed to the swing radius of two cranes.


Background


In this case, an OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) was driving by a construction site and saw a crane in use. He pulls over to start an inspection. One crane (yellow crane) was in the process of being used to disassemble another (red crane). While onsite, the CSHO observed the red crane’s superstructure rotating while two employees stand within feet of it. There were no barriers or warning signs because the red crane’s counterweights had been removed and its swing radius did not extend beyond the vehicle’s body. During the walk-around inspection, the CSHO was not observed to have taken any measurements of the red crane. The CSHO observed the yellow crane’s superstructure rotate with its attached counterweights extending several feet past the extended outriggers. Through pre-planning, all lifting and landing of the red crane’s boom sections would take place on the left side of the yellow crane. As a result, the counterweights would always be on the right side of the yellow crane, where no employees would be working. Therefore, it was determined that ropes only needed to be hung between the outriggers of the yellow crane on the left side that stated “DANGER—SWING AREA – RESTRICTED.” In fact, the CSHO only sees employees working on the left side of the yellow crane. However, the CSHO asked an employee to position the yellow crane so the counterweights are on the left side of the crane. Thinking nothing of it, the employee complied and allowed the CSHO to take pictures of the crane in that position.


OSHA cited the company with two instances of failing to adequately mark the hazardous area boundaries created by the swing radii of the yellow and red cranes’ rotating superstructures in violation of the crane standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii).


The company contested the citations, claiming, in part, there were no employees exposed to the swing radius of either crane. The judge agreed. As a direct result of the CSHO not taking quantitative measurements, the judge held the OSHA Secretary was unable to prove the red crane’s rotating superstructure, without counterweights, posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of striking the two employees standing at one end of the crawler. The judge also found the employees’ matter-of-fact recounting of the CSHO’s instruction to rotate the yellow crane more credible than the CSHO’s vague recollection. The judge stated that the only time the left side of the yellow crane became a zone of danger was when the employee rotated the counterweights to that side after the CSHO instructed him to do so. Based on the work plan, the judge further stated it was not reasonably foreseeable (or predictable) that an OSHA CSHO would instruct the operator of the yellow crane to swing the counterweights to the left side of the crane so he could document the counterweights extended past the boundary marker on that side. Due to the lack of evidence, the judge found the Secretary also failed to show the rotating superstructure of the yellow crane posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of striking, pinching, or crushing an employee in an accessible area on the left side. Therefore, the judge ultimately vacated the citation.


Protecting Rights


OSHA may have the legal authority to inspect the workplace, but a company and its employees also have rights. It is important to balance both rights throughout the inspection process.


If OSHA does not witness a violation or otherwise has evidence of employee exposure to a violation, it cannot create or recreate exposure in photographs by asking an employer to stage the scene. If OSHA insists, contact an experienced OSHA attorney or upper management official for advice.


In NACR, the Secretary largely rested the case on the photographs and evidence obtained by the CSHO. Time and money may have been saved if the employees declined to move the equipment into the requested position. Even trained CSHOs do not always have the required expertise to understand some of the more complex OSHA standards, such as the crane and derrick standard, or how the equipment operates at the worksite, especially during different types of activities. As was the case in NACR, employers might be more knowledgeable than the CSHO in these areas and should stand behind their expertise and attempt to educate the CSHO about the operations.


Proposed Clarification of Crane and Derricks Standard


OSHA has proposed amendments to the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard. The suggested changes include revising wording relating to voltages (AC and DC), broadening exclusions for forklifts, correcting an error permitting body belts to be used as a personal fall arrest system (as opposed to a personal fall restrain system), removing ambiguity regarding crane verbiage, and correcting other errors found in the current standard. These amendments likely will not change the application of the standard significantly, but they would help clarify and correct mistakes.


Author: Melanie L. Paul & Kristina T. Brooks

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/during-osha-inspection-know-your-rights

You might also like

Contractor Takeover Leads to Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Claims

28 Oct, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/

New Sex Harassment Law: Making for Strange Bedfellows in Construction Industry

21 Oct, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry

OSHA’s new initiative to protect workers from hazards of extreme heat | FIRST, VERIFY

04 Oct, 2021
As part of the Biden-Harris administration's interagency effort and commitment to workplace safety, climate resilience, and environmental justice, the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration is initiating enhanced measures to protect workers better in hot environments and reduce the dangers of exposure to ambient heat. To combat the hazards associated with extreme heat exposure – both indoors and outdoors – the White House, on September 22 nd announced an enhanced and expanded efforts the U.S. Department of Labor is taking to address heat-related illnesses. While heat illness is largely preventable and commonly under-reported, thousands of workers are sickened each year by workplace heat exposure. Despite widespread under-reporting, 43 workers died from heat illness in 2019, and at least 2,410 others suffered serious injuries and illnesses. The Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center estimates the economic loss from heat to be at least $100 billion annually – a number that could double by 2030 and quintuple by 2050 under a higher emissions scenario. What is the initiative? To highlight its concern and take necessary steps, OSHA is implementing an enforcement initiative on heat-related hazards, developing a National Emphasis Program on heat inspections, and launching a rulemaking process to develop a workplace heat standard. In addition, the agency is forming a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Work Group to provide a better understanding of challenges and to identify and share best practices to protect workers. OSHA implemented an intervention and enforcement initiative recently to prevent and protect workers from heat-related illnesses and deaths while they are working in hazardous hot environments. The newly established initiative prioritizes heat-related interventions and inspections of work activities on days when the heat index exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Scope of the initiative: The initiative applies to both indoor and outdoor worksites. Indoor worksites that may be impacted by extreme heat include foundries, brick-firing, and ceramic plants, glass production facilities, rubber products factories, electrical utilities (particularly boiler rooms), bakeries, confectioneries, commercial kitchens, laundries, food canneries, warehouses without adequate climate control, chemical plants, and smelters. Outdoor work activities that may cause exposure to extreme heat include agriculture, landscaping, construction operations, refining gas/oil and well operations, asbestos and lead removal, waste collection activities, package and mail delivery, and any other activities that require moderate to high physical exertions or the wearing of heavy or bulky clothing or equipment on a hot day. According to Jim Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, usually agricultural and construction workers often come to mind first when thinking about workers most exposed to heat hazards. However, without proper safety actions, sun protection, and climate control, intense heat can be injurious to various workers indoors or outdoors and during any season. Heat-related directives: OSHA Area Directors across the nation will institute the following: Prioritize inspections of heat-related complaints, referrals, and employer-reported illnesses and initiate an onsite investigation where possible. Instruct compliance safety and health officers, during their travels to job sites, to conduct an intervention (providing the agency's heat poster/wallet card, discuss the importance of easy access to cool water, cooling areas, and acclimatization) or opening an inspection when they observe employees performing strenuous work in hot conditions. Expand the scope of other inspections to address heat-related hazards where worksite conditions or other evidence indicates these hazards may be present. In October 2021, OSHA will take an important step toward a federal heat standard to safeguard protections in workplaces across the country by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on heat injury and illness prevention in outdoor and indoor work settings. The advance notice will initiate a comment period allowing OSHA to gather diverse perspectives and technical expertise on topics including heat stress thresholds, heat acclimatization planning, exposure monitoring, and strategies to protect workers. How should employers prepare? Employers should be aware of potential citations relating to heat illness and should prepare for inspections by reviewing their procedures and developing a manner to monitor outdoor (and, in certain industries, indoor) temperatures, ensuring employees have access to shade and water. They also need to educate employees on signs of heat illness and provide access to ventilation or cooling areas in their workplace. Once OSHA’s ANPRM is released, employers need to be ready with data and information to identify complexities with compliance. Source : https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/national/09202021
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: