Distracted Driving and OSHA

Although there is no specific standard generally covering distracted driving, OSHA has made clear that the general duty clause may apply. Indeed, OSHA has stated that more workers are killed each year in motor vehicle crashes than any other cause. However, despite this finding, many businesses do not have formal distracted driving policies.  (more…)

About The Author

Robots and OSHA

In Will Smith’s hit movie, I, Robot set in 2035 robots were allegedly governed by the Three Laws of Robotics which were originally created by Isaac Asimov. The first law states, “[a] robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” This law is not followed in the movie (or at least only a very strained interpretation of it) by certain robots and Will Smith needs to come to the rescue of humanity.  (more…)

About The Author

It’s a Bird… It’s a Plane… It’s OSHA?

According to a recent report by Bloomberg Law, OSHA used camera-equipped drones for nine inspections so far in 2018. The Bloomberg report cites to OSHA guidance that indicates the drones were often used at worksites following an accident where it was too dangerous for CSHO’s to enter or be nearby and included an oil drilling rig fire, a building collapse, a combustible dust blast, an accident on a television tower, and a chemical plant explosion. Needless to say, the use of drones and likely increase of such use in an OSHA inspection raises some novel issues that need to be considered by employers. (more…)

About The Author

What’s an “establishment” under OSHA?

On July 20, 2018, OSHA published a proposed rule to rescind the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees to electronically submit information from the OSHA 300 Log and 301 form and added a requirement for covered establishments to include the Employer Identification Number with their submissions. These establishments will continue to be required to submit information from their Form 300A summaries. Public comments are due by September 28. (more…)

About The Author

A New Roadmap to Avoid Hefty OSHA Fines for Repeat Violations

The Angelica Textile case had been kicking around OSHA for almost ten years before it was decided by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission on June 24th by a 2-1 vote with Commissioner James Sullivan,[1] the newest member of the Commission, casting the deciding vote.  The case provides guidance on how to avoid stiff penalties for repeat violations while emphasizing the proactive steps employers can take to keep their employees safe from recognized hazards.

Before this case was decided, OSHA asserted that in order to meet the “substantial similarity” standard to prove a repeat citation, all it had to show was that the same type of equipment or the same process or the same regulation was involved in the current case and a prior violation at any other company facility.  OSHRC now says that evidence of substantial similarity can be rebutted if the employer demonstrates “disparate conditions and hazards associated with these violations of the same standard.”  A welcome development for businesses.

While that alone is helpful, the Review Commission also opened the door for employers to defend a repeat citation by showing the abatement actions they took.  Here, the Commission is open to more nuanced than the rigid application of any test.  In Angelica Textile’s case, the prior citation identified “critical deficiencies” in the Company’s compliance program.  The Company’s abatement efforts “actively sought out and eliminated similar hazards.”  The new citation involved the same standard, but it did not involve a comprehensive failure.  Rather, the current citation identified only two discrete deficiencies in the Company’s established safety program.  The Company’s procedures, coupled with surveys that had been completed for each machine, and the Secretary’s prior acceptance of the Company’s abatement method, allowed the Commission to conclude that the Company “took affirmative steps to achieve compliance and avoid similar violations in the future.”  That was sufficient to allow the Commission to conclude that a repeat citation was not warranted.

Most businesses that manufacture a product have a history of some minor OSHA violations that no one likely thinks about anymore.  That history could come back to bite.  This issue is more pronounced with businesses with multiple locations.  Since repeat citations now carry a fine of up to $129,336, the Angelica Textile case offers employers a roadmap of actions they can take today to avoid serious fines the next time they have an OSHA inspection at any of their facilities.  Now, Angelica Textile provides potential relief to companies that can demonstrate they implemented strategies to both abates the immediate condition but also implemented protocols to help identify future ones.

Our attorneys have a long history of addressing workplace safety concerns and have helped employers design compliance efforts to avoid having unfortunate events in past history come back to hurt otherwise excellent safety efforts.  They would be happy to consult with your company on how to turn the Angelica Textile case to your advantage the next time OSHA comes to visit.

[1] Prior to joining the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Commissioner Sullivan was a partner with Cozen O’Connor’s Labor and Employment Department and had served as the Chair of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.

About The Authors