Workforce Bulletin

By Eric J. Conn, Head of EBG's national OSHA Practice Group

We have written extensively about problems with OSHA's controversial Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) here on the OSHA Law Update blog.  If the leadership team in the national office of OSHA invited us to sit down with them to ask questions on behalf of Industry about some of these problems with the SVEP, here is what we would ask them:

1. As one would expect for a program designed for recidivists, the punitive elements of the SVEP are significant, including: (a) inflammatory public press releases branding the employer as a severe violator; (b) adding the employer’s name to a public log of Severe Violators; (c) mandatory follow-up inspections at the cited facilities; (d) conducting numerous inspections (up to ten) at sister facilities within the same corporate enterprise; and (e) demanding enhanced terms in settlements (such as corporate-wide abatement, requiring the employer to hire third party auditors to report findings to OSHA, etc.).  However, with the consequences of “qualifying” into SVEP being so, well, severe, how does OSHA justify the fact that the Agency qualifies employers into SVEP before final disposition of the underlying citations?  In other words, how is it lawful, Constitutional, or just plain fair that employers should face these harsh punishments before OSHA has proven that the employer violated the law at all, let alone in the egregious ways that qualify them for SVEP?  For more details about this concern, check out our article regarding the legal and constitutional implications of this premature qualification into SVEP.
2. For more than two years after OSHA launched the SVEP, the Directive for the Program did not include any explanation for how employers could get out once they officially qualified.  When OSHA’s leadership team was asked about this at conferences and meetings, they similarly could not or would not offer any guidance.  The SVEP was quite literally a roach motel; you could check in, but you could never leave.  After much clamoring from industry representatives, earlier this year, OSHA finally publicized a set of so-called SVEP exit criteria.  In short, SVEP employers may get out of the Program if they: (a) pay all the final civil penalties; (b) address all of the abatement required by the citations or settlement; (c) address any other terms of the settlement; (d) make it three full calendar years after final disposition of the citations without receiving any related Serious violations; and (e) even if all of the above is accomplished, the employer may be released from SVEP by the undefined discretion of the OSHA Regional Administrator in the employer’s area.  Check out our earlier post on the OSHA Law Update blog about the SVEP exit criteria.  As relieved as Industry was to see OSHA announce some exit criteria for getting out of SVEP, the specific exit criteria identified by OSHA raise many questions about fairness and reasonableness.  For example, the clock for the three-year “probation/exit period” does not start until “final disposition” of the underlying citations, as opposed to when OSHA qualifies employers into the Program (i.e., immediately upon issuance of the citations).  My questions for OSHA about the SVEP exit criteria would be, how does OSHA reconcile the timing for exit against the timing for qualification?  Why does the start of the exit clock wait for final disposition, but OSHA does not wait for final disposition to dump employers into the Program to begin with?  Also, what criteria or factors will the Regional Administrators consider when exercising their undefined discretion in deciding whether to let employers out of SVEP?
3. Also relevant to OSHA’s SVEP exit criteria, if an employer has a good faith disagreement with OSHA about the basis for the qualifying citation(s), and decides to contest the citations through the formal process provided by the OSH Act, that process can take several years.  Therefore, if the employer contests the citations, and that contest takes two years, and at the end of that two year contest process, the citation package is cut dramatically by an ALJ, but there still remains one SVEP-qualifying citation on the books, that employer’s exit/probation period will be at least 5 years instead of 3.  Hasn’t the employer been punished for exercising his right to contest citations?  Put another way, doesn’t three-years from final disposition exit criteria discourage employers from exercising their right to challenge OSHA’s citations?

I was recently asked an interesting question by an industry contact:

"Employers often are told to know and exercise their rights during an OSHA inspection.  What exactly are employers' rights during an OSHA inspection?"

While it may not feel like it during an inspection, employers have many rights before, during, and after OSHA inspections.

Before an inspection even begins, employers have a right under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be free in their workplaces, just as they are in their homes, from unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes inspections by OSHA.  What that means is, OSHA may not inspect a workplace unless the Agency has administrative probable cause (a lower burden than criminal probable cause) to believe that a violative condition exists within.  Accordingly, employers have a right to demand an inspection warrant that establishes OSHA’s probable cause to inspect.  We rarely advise clients to demand an inspection warrant; rather we try to negotiate with the Agency over a reasonable scope of the inspection, and with such an agreement, waive the warrant right and consent to the inspection.

Another right employers should consider asserting with regard to OSHA inspections is the right to exclude non-employee third parties (such as a union representative at a non-union workplace) from participating in the inspection process. OSHA recently issued a formal Interpretation Letter of the regulation covering who may participate in OSHA walk-around inspection (29 C.F.R. 1903.8(c) - Representatives of Employers and Employees).  Specifically, OSHA expressed its belief that employees at a non-union worksite may authorize a third party affiliated with a union or community organization to act as the employees’ representative during an inspection.  Notwithstanding OSHA's interpretation letter, the plain language of the standard makes it clear that such involvement by a third party union representative is not permitted under the law, and employers may exercise their rights to exclude third parties from the inspection by demanding and challenging a warrant under those circumstances.  If confronted with such a situation, employers should consult with legal counsel before allowing any non-employee third party to participate.  One approach would be to demand and challenge an inspection warrant.  If the non-employee is permitted on the premises, employers should be explicit about who bears responsibility for any injury to that person, who is responsible for any PPE, determine whether that person is trained on any hazards that may be present or has any necessary security clearances for sensitive activities that may be in view, and how to protect any proprietary processes from being revealed.  Here is an article we wrote on this issue when the interpretation letter was released.

Also before inspections begin, employers have the right to an opening conference.  In my opinion, this is the most important stage of the inspection because it is the time when employers can:

1. Negotiate to narrow the scope of the inspection;
2. Can ask questions about the purpose of and probable cause justifying the inspection; and
3. Try to establish ground rules with OSHA about how the inspection may proceed, from the collection of documents (through written requests only), to interviews (scheduled in advance), and physical access to the facility (only with a management escort).

If the inspection was initiated by an employee or former employee complaint, employers also have a right to access a copy of the complaint before consenting to the inspection.

Once an OSHA inspection begins, employers also have many rights, including a right to accompany the compliance officer at all times during the walkaround, and to take side-by-side photographs or other physical evidence that OSHA takes during the inspection.  Another important right relates to management interviews.  Interview statements by management representatives bind the company, and since the OSH Act gives employers the right to be present when binding statements are taken, employers therefore have a right to be present and participate in interviews of management witnesses, regardless of whether the management witness wants the representative there.

The OSHA Law Update blog has an update on the government shutdown: “OSHA Shutdown – Government Shutdown Strips OSHA to a Skeleton Crew,” by Casey Cosentino and Eric Conn of Epstein Becker Green.

Following is an excerpt:

The federal government shut down all but essential operations on October 1, 2013, after Congress failed to reach an agreement on a budget or a continuing resolution for funding government operations. As a result, OSHA (like most federal agencies) has furloughed more than 90% of its personnel and suspended most of its operations.

Read the full post here.

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

The federal government shut down all but essential operations on October 1, 2013, after Congress failed to reach an agreement on a budget or a continuing resolution for funding government operations.  As a result, OSHA (like most federal agencies) has furloughed more than 90% of its personnel and suspended most of its operations.

On September 10, 2013, with the government shutdown looming, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, David Michaels, issued a memorandum outlining OSHA's  “Contingency Plan for Suspension of Agency Operations ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker Green

An industry contact recently asked me what five issues I expected OSHA would be focusing its enforcement efforts on for the balance of this year.  Here was my response:

1.  Emergency Exits & Exit Routes – A couple of months ago, OSHA issued an enforcement memorandum directing inspectors to scrutinize whether employers were providing and maintaining adequate means of emergency exit; i.e., unlocked, unobstructed, and clearly marked exit doors and exit routes in compliance with 29 C.F.R. 1910.36.  We ...

Following the announcement last week of the first ever Deferred Prosecution Agreement in an OSHA matter, the Editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter interviewed Eric J. Conn, Head of Epstein Becker Green's national OSHA Practice Group, who was involved in the matter, about OSHA enforcement trends in general, and OSHA criminal prosecutions in particular.

Based on that interview, Corporate Crime Reporter ran an article entitled Epstein Becker Partner Eric Conn On the Rise of OSHA Enforcement.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

"'OSHA enforcement is up in every measurable ...

On Sept. 4, in conjunction with the Grain Journal Magazine, Eric J. Conn, Head of the national OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green, delivered a webinar briefing entitled “New OSHA Sweep Auger Enforcement Policies... How They Will Affect You.”  The 120-minute webinar, including 45+ minutes of Q&A, was recorded, and the Grain Journal has made the recording available online.  Here is a link to the OSHA / Sweep Auger webinar recording.

The Sweep Auger webinar followed an article recently published in the July/August edition of Grain & Feed Milling Technology ...

Back in January, we posted a breaking news story here on the OSHA Law Update blog about a major settlement of an OSHA enforcement action renewing the grain industry’s right to have employees work inside grain bins with energized sweep augers under certain specified conditions -- aka, Ten Sweep Auger Safety Principles.

Since the settlement became a final order of the OSH Review Commission in January, federal OSHA’s national office in Washington, DC issued a May 3, 2013 Enforcement Memorandum to all of the Agency’s Regional Offices that memorialized the terms of the settlement ...

Join Eric J. Conn and Amanda Strainis-Walker, attorneys from Epstein Becker & Green's national OSHA Practice Group, for two in-person OSHA briefings on Tuesday, September 24th in Philadelphia, PA and Wednesday, September 25th in Pittsburgh, PA.

The presentations will focus on why it's important to and how best to prepare for and manage OSHA inspections.  Here is the invitation:

To register for the 9/24 Philadelphia Briefing, click here.

To register for the 9/25 Pittsburgh Briefing, click here.

If you have questions about these events, please contact Eric J. Conn, Head of the ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of Epstein Becker & Green’s OSHA Practice Group

OSHA recently announced a campaign to raise awareness about the hazards likely to cause musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among health care workers responsible for patient care.  Common MSDs suffered in the patient care industry include sprains, strains, soft tissue and back injuries.  These injuries are due in large part to over exertion related to manual patient handling activities, often involving heavy lifting associated with transferring and repositioning patients and working in awkward positions.

“The best control for MSDs is an effective prevention program,” said MaryAnn Garrahan, OSHA’s Regional Administrator in Philadelphia. “[OSHA’s] goal is to assist nursing homes and long-term care facilities in promoting effective processes to prevent injuries.”

As part of the campaign, OSHA will provide 2,500 employers, unions and associations in the patient care industry in Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia with information about methods used to control hazards, such as lifting excessive weight during patient transfers and handling.  OSHA will also provide information about how employers can include a zero-lift program, which minimizes direct patient lifting by using specialized lifting equipment and transfer tools.  Here is a resource regarding Safe Patient Handling from OSHA's website.

Employers in the healthcare industries should be on high alert, because whenever OSHA provides information about hazards it believes are present, a focus on enforcement is soon to follow.  This is particularly true when it comes to hazards for which OSHA has no specific standards or regulations, like ergonomics.  In these circumstances, OSHA is limited in its enforcement to use of Sec. 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act – the General Duty Clause.  The General Duty Clause is used by OSHA to issue citations in the absence of a specific standard, in situations where employers have not taken steps to address “recognized serious hazards.”  Efforts like OSHA’s present campaign to advise healthcare employers about hazards in their workplaces, is OSHA’s way of making you “recognize” the hazard, so the Agency can more easily prove General Duty Clause violations.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons that healthcare employers should take note of the rate of MSD cases in patient care work. 

Last week, Washington Legal Foundation published a Legal Backgrounder regarding OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”) authored by Eric J. Conn, Head of Epstein Becker & Green’s national OSHA Practice Group.  The Legal Backgrounder expands on a series of posts here on the OSHA Law Update blog regarding OSHA’s controversial Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

The article focuses on a White Paper issued by OSHA this Spring, in which OSHA analyzes the first 18 months of its new, controversial enforcement program.  The White Paper concludes that the SVEP is ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Group at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Last month, OSHA issued an enforcement memorandum directing inspectors to scrutinize whether employers provide and maintain adequate means of exit; i.e., unlocked, unobstructed, and clearly marked exit doors and exit routes and doors that comply with 29 C.F.R. 1910 Subpart E - Means of Egress (specifically, the various requirements of 1910.36).  The memo was issued in response to a deadly explosion and ammonia release at a poultry processing plant in China on June 4, 2013, in which at least 120 employees lost their lives, many because they were unable to exit the plant due to blocked or locked exits.

In the enforcement memorandum, OSHA announced that:

“During inspections of all workplaces [Compliance Safety & Health Officers] should be mindful of whether the employer has provided and maintained adequate means of egress from work areas; e.g., adequate number of exit routes are provided, exit routes are free and obstructed, and exit doors are not locked.”

This list of items for review is consistent with the criteria OSHA identified in its Emergency Exit Routes Fact Sheet.  Here are the basic requirements for complying with 1910.36 set forth in OSHA’s regulations and the Fact Sheet:

1. Employers must determine how many exits routes are required in its building.  As a general rule, workplaces must have a minimum of two exits, and possibly more based on the number of employees, the size of the building, and the arrangement of the workplace.  One exit route may be allowed if the size of the building, its occupancy, or arrangement allows all employees to evacuate safely.
2. Exit routes must be maintained unobstructed, and the exit doors must remain unlocked from the inside.  Specifically, exit routes must be free of stored materials, equipment, and especially explosive or highly flammable furnishings.  Exits doors must be conspicuous, visible, free of decoration, and unlocked from the inside.
3. Exit routes and doors must be properly labeled and maintained.  Proper labels include signs that read “EXIT” or “TO EXIT” in plain legible letters, and maintained with adequate lighting.  Doors or passages along the exit route that are not exits and do not lead to exits must be marked as “NOT AN EXIT” or labeled such that their non-exit purpose is obvious (e.g., store room, office, etc.).

Although the Enforcement Memorandum features the tragic anecdote about the Chinese poultry plant, OSHA’s Director of the Directorate of Enforcement specifically instructs his enforcement team to look out for egress issues in inspections at “all workplaces.” 

By Epstein Becker & Green’s OSHA Practice Group

OSHA during the first term of the Obama Administration featured a heavy focus on enforcement, at the expense of compliance assistance, and despite a lot of talk, also at the expense of any meaningful new rulemaking activities.  There are signs now, however, that OSHA may be renewing a push for a more active rulemaking calendar during the Administration’s second term.

The first sign has been a series of speeches and public statements by OSHA’s Administrator, Dr. David Michaels, in which he has characterized the development of a proposed Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) rule as his and the Agency’s “highest priority.”  The I2P2 rule is being designed to compel employers to “find and fix” hazards, and would have significant implications for employers across all industries.  During a presentation at a safety conference in June, Michaels explained that “I2P2 would require employers to have an ongoing, investigative, preventative process in place instead of being reactive and addressing problems after an accident occurs.”  OSHA's leadership characterizing the I2P2 rule is a top priority is not new, but now that we are passed the 2012 Presidential Election, actual movement on the proposed rule is realistic.

Second, we are hearing that the Department of Labor’s Spring Regulatory Agenda is expected to return several OSHA rulemaking initiatives, including the I2P2 rule, from the backburner, where they were deposited prior to the 2012 Presidential Election, back to the active rulemaking calendar.  For the moment, we are left only to guess about that active rulemaking calendar because the Department of Labor is once again significantly overdue, already by two months, publishing the Regulatory Agenda.  Congressional Republicans have criticized the Agency’s lack of transparency resulting from the delay, claiming the Administration is playing a game of regulatory hide-and-seek.

Finally, although OSHA has not made an official announcement yet, sources report that OSHA will soon promote Dorothy Dougherty, current Director of OSHA’s Directorate of Standards and Guidance, as its new Deputy Assistant Secretary, the most senior career position within OSHA.  Ms. Dougherty will replace former Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Fairfax, who retired in early May of 2013.  This move is significant because, as her most recent title indicates, Ms. Dougherty’s long career at OSHA has included a heavy focus on the development of workplace standards, regulations, and guidance, and therefore may be another sign that OSHA plans to prioritize rulemaking over the balance of the Obama Administration’s time in office.

Ms. Dougherty began her career with OSHA in 1992 as Chief of the Compliance and Technical Guidance Division (another non-enforcement role) for the Office of the Federal Agency Programs.  Since that time, Ms. Dougherty has assumed several other leadership positions within the Agency, many of which focused on rulemaking and compliance assistance.  She has served nearly seven years in her current position as Director for the Directorate of Standards and Guidance.  Ms. Dougherty is well-liked within the Agency and has received high praise from current and former peers for her managerial skills and ability to work collaboratively with others, including appointed officials from both sides of the aisle.

By Paul Friedman and Meg Thering

Most prudent employers have begun efforts to ensure compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which is bringing about myriad changes with which employers must comply.  Many employers are evaluating their employee populations, deciding whether it makes economic sense to continue offering coverage, and performing self-audits to ensure compliance.  Employers should also be aware that the Department of Labor has already started auditing employers for compliance.  What many employers may not be aware of, however, is that employees may bring whistleblower claims for violations of the ACA – and these claims will be policed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).

The ACA prohibits retaliation against employees (as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act) for receiving cost sharing reductions or tax credits on a Health Insurance Exchange (or Marketplace), and it prohibits retaliation against employees who report alleged violations of Title I of the ACA.  Employees who believe they have been retaliated against in violation of these rules can file a complaint with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged violation.  Here is a link to OSHA's Fact Sheet providing more information about these provisions.

OSHA's Fact Sheet explains: "To further these goals, the Affordable Care Act’s section 1558 provides protection to employees against retaliation by an employer for reporting alleged violations of Title I of the Act or for receiving a health insurance tax credit or cost sharing reductions as a result of participating in a Health Insurance Exchange, or Marketplace."

The period just closed (on April 28, 2013) for comments on the interim final rule published by OSHA of “Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act.”

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Group at Epstein Becker & Green

Introduction

OSHA recently issued a White Paper analyzing the first 18 months of its controversial enforcement initiative known as the Severe Violator Enforcement Program ("SVEP").  Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the White Paper somehow concludes that the SVEP is “off to a strong start,” and that it “is already meeting certain key goals,” including:

1. Successfully identifying recalcitrant employers who disregard their OSH Act obligations; and
2. Effectively allocating OSHA's follow-up enforcement resources “by targeting high-emphasis hazards, facilitating inspections across multiple worksites of employers found to be recalcitrant, and by providing Regional and State Plan offices with a nationwide referral procedure.”

A candid review of the publicly available SVEP data, however, exposes SVEP's underbelly, and casts doubt on the Program’s effectiveness.  Most notably, SVEP:

1. Disproportionately targets small employers;
2. Provokes 8x as many challenges to the underlying citations as compared to the average OSHA enforcement action;
3. Encounters significant obstacles in executing follow-up inspections of SVEP-designated employers; and
4. Finds virtually no systemic safety issues when follow-up and related facility inspections are conducted.

SVEP Background

We have written quite a bit about the SVEP previously on the OSHA Law Update Blog, but here is some background about what it is, who is being targeted, and what the consequences are.  On June 18, 2010, OSHA instituted SVEP to focus its enforcement resources on recalcitrant employers, whom OSHA believes demonstrate indifference to their employees' health and safety.  SVEP replaced the much-maligned Enhanced Enforcement Program ("EEP"), a George W. Bush era enforcement program also intended to target wayward employers.  The EEP was criticized as ineffective and inefficient because its broad qualifying criteria created so many cases that OSHA struggled to conduct follow-up inspections.  OSHA, therefore, scrapped the EEP and instituted SVEP with narrower qualifying criteria and a better infrastructure for pursuing follow-up inspections.

Employers qualify for SVEP if they meet one of the following criteria:

1. Any alleged violation categorized by OSHA as "Egregious";
2. 1+ Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate alleged violations associated with a fatality or the overnight hospitalization of three or more employees;
3. 2+ Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate alleged violations in connection with a high emphasis hazard (e.g., falls, amputations, grain handling, and other hazards that are the subject of an OSHA National Emphasis Program); or
4. 3+ Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate alleged violations related to Process Safety Management (i.e., avoiding the release of a highly hazardous chemical).

By Paul H. Burmeister and Eric J. Conn

On April 5, 2013, OSHA published a formal Interpretation Letter (dated February 21, 2013) addressing whether, pursuant to OSHA’s regulation at 29 C.F.R. 1903.8(c) (Representatives of Employers and Employees), employees at a worksite without a collective bargaining agreement may authorize a person affiliated with a union or community organization to act as the employees’ representative during proceedings under the OSH Act, including compliance inspections.  OSHA responded affirmatively.

29 C.F.R. 1903.8(c) provides:

"The representative(s) authorized by employees shall be an employee(s) of the employer.  However, if in the judgment of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party who is not an employee of the employer (such as an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer) is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace, such third party may accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during the inspection."

OSHA’s April 5, 2013 Interpretation Letter clarified its interpretation of the types of non-employees it considers to be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection,” by stretching the meaning beyond what has historically been understood to include only individual’s with relevant technical expertise to aid in the inspection, such as those listed as examples in the language of the regulation; i.e., “an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer.”  This interpretation moves away from that commonsense reading, and expressly invites the involvement of non-technical union representatives, even from unions who have not been elected to represent the workforce.

OSHA broke the question down into two parts. First, OSHA stated affirmatively that the OSH Act recognizes the role of an employee representative to represent employees’ interests in enforcement related matters.  Specifically, the employee representative, OSHA asserts, need not be a co-worker at the worksite. The employee representative could include any person (including community organization members) who acts in a bona fide representative capacity.

Second, OSHA clarified that non-union employees may have a union representative act as their employee representative, under Section 8 of the OSH Act. However, the union representative must be duly authorized by the employee to act as his representative. OSHA also noted under 29 CFR § 1903.8 that OSHA may exercise its discretion in allowing a non-employee representative, but generally would allow it when the non-employee representative may make a positive contribution to the inspection. For example, the letter specifically cites non-employee representatives who are skilled in evaluating similar working conditions or are fluent in another language that may be helpful.

By Jordan B. Schwartz and Eric J. Conn

On March 18, 2013, President Obama nominated Thomas E. Perez, a Harvard Law School graduate and current federal prosecutor with a long track record of defending civil rights and vulnerable workers, to become the next U.S. Secretary of Labor.  Perez would replace Seth Harris, the Acting Secretary of Labor and former Deputy Secretary of Labor, who has been filling the role since Secretary Hilda Solis resigned from the post in January.

Thomas Perez’s Background 

Since October 2009, Perez has served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.  From 2006 to 2009, Perez served as Maryland’s Secretary of Labor.  In that capacity, he led efforts to target Maryland companies who were engaging in workplace fraud by imposing new restrictions on employees who had been misclassified as independent contractors.  Perez’s efforts led to the implementation of Maryland’s Workplace Fraud Act of 2009, with him stating that the Act would “ensure that employers who attempt to cheat the system, their workers, and their competitors, will pay a steep price for their actions.”

During his tenure as Maryland’s Secretary of Labor, where his jurisdiction included Maryland’s Occupational Safety and Health Division, Perez distinguished himself as a strong and vocal defender of safety protections for Maryland workers.  According to Fred Mason, the president of the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO, Perez fought to increase funding for the state occupational safety and health plan, which had been underfunded under Governor Robert Ehrlich.  Specifically, Mason stated that “that department went for a couple years with essentially no money to hire people to enforce laws that were already on the books.”  After Perez took office, “we began to make a comeback of sorts, in terms of having the necessary workers to do the inspections.”  Similarly, Peg Seminario, safety and health director at AFL-CIO, said she considered Perez “an excellent choice” to head the Labor Department.

The Nomination of Thomas Perez 

At a time when the President has promised to create more jobs and overhaul immigration policy, Mr. Obama has presented Mr. Perez, who would be the only Hispanic in the cabinet, as an American immigration success story, whose own history would help him tackle important current controversial issues.  At the White House on March 18, Obama called Perez a “consensus builder” who “understands that our economy works best when the middle class and those working to get into the middle class have the security they need on the job, a democratic voice in the workplace, everybody playing by the same set of rules.”  At the same press conference, Perez stated that:

“as you well know, our nation still faces critical economic challenges, and the department’s mission is as important as ever. . . . I am confident that together with our partners in organized labor, the business community, grass-roots communities, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, we can keep making progress for all working families.”

Not surprisingly, this nomination has drawn praise from worker advocates, and most Democrats have expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for this nomination.  Senator Patrick Leahy said in a statement that as a former Secretary of Labor in Maryland “and a fierce defender of workers’ rights and civil rights, [Perez] is uniquely situated to serve in this important post at a critical time when Congress will be considering issues like immigration reform, reducing unemployment, and continuing our economic recovery.”

Congressional Republicans, however, have indicated a potentially rocky confirmation process and voiced their concern that Perez is the “wrong man for this job.”  In particular, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has stated that “this is an unfortunate and needlessly divisive nomination” as “Mr. Perez has aggressively sought ways to allow the hiring of more illegal workers.”  Additionally, Representative John Kline (R-MN), chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee and thus a key house Republican on worker safety issues, has stated that “our country needs a labor secretary who will put America’s jobs before his own” and cited “troubling allegations in the media and an independent investigation” about Perez.

The Confirmation Hearing 

During the April 18, 2013 confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez stated that he would seek a balance of protecting worker safety while also encouraging economic growth.  Specifically, Mr. Perez told the Senate, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that “job safety and job growth are not mutually exclusive” and thus “it is not necessary to choose between one and the other.”  When asked what his top priority would be as labor secretary, he responded “jobs, jobs, jobs.”  He also testified that other priorities would be reauthorizing the Workplace Investment Act with bipartisan support, pension security, enforcement of wage and hour laws, job safety and equal opportunity in the workplace.

By Eric J. Conn, Head of EBG’s OSHA Practice Group

We are asked frequently by employers in the restaurant, delicatessen, and grocery industries whether OSHA’s Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Hand Protection regulations require the use of cut-resistant gloves for employees who work with knives or slicers.  Some employers have even reported that OSHA representatives have told them that the use of cut-resistant gloves is mandatory for employees working with knives in food service.  Whether food service employees in kitchens, delicatessens, or grocery stores are required to wear cut-resistant gloves, however, is not as clear-cut as OSHA has apparently been suggesting.

What is clear is that OSHA’s PPE standards are “performance-based” standards, not “specification” standards.  What that means is, the PPE standards do not proscribe specific PPE for specific circumstances.  Rather, the standards defer to employers’ reasonable judgment about what PPE is necessary, for which employees, in which circumstances.

The applicable standard, 29 CFR 1910.138(a), provides:

“Employers shall select and require employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.”

1910.138(a) is part of a series of standards regarding PPE for various parts of the body that stem from a general PPE requirement set forth at 1910.132(d)(1), which provides that:

Employers “shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).”

Under the plain language of these regulations, and a long history of enforcement policies and OSH Review Commission case law, if employers perform a good faith hazard assessment in connection with the work activities and equipment at their workplace, and they conclude based on that assessment that employees are not exposed to laceration/amputation hazards or that cut-resistant gloves are not appropriate PPE, and the conclusion is reasonable, then no citation should issue.

A July 3, 1995 Interpretation Letter issue by OSHA confirms this view of the PPE standards:

“What the employer is required to do is to perform a hazard assessment, and OSHA would expect that an employer will be particularly careful before considering that none of its employees in the listed occupations are exposed to hazards which necessitated the use of PPE.  In litigation, of course, it would be OSHA's burden to prove that a hazard assessment was not done.  OSHA also believes that a standard of objective reasonableness is implicit in the requirement, and that accordingly, OSHA could cite for an unreasonable assessment.  Again, the burden of proof would be on OSHA.”

Factors that will impact the reasonableness of an employer’s hazard assessment include:

1. The existence of past injuries (i.e., look for lacerations or amputations on past OSHA 300 Logs);
2. Employee input (e.g., employees generally dislike gloves in this context because they sacrifice feel and dexterity of their fingers in relation to the blade); and
3. The presence of other controls that protect against cuts, such as administrative safe cutting procedures and training, or engineering and equipment controls.

Last year we wrote a post on the OSHA Law Update blog regarding one very significant, recent case impacting this PPE analysis -- Sec’y of Labor v. Petro Hunt LLC, OSHRCJ, No. 11-0873 (June 2, 2012).

In March of last year, we answered five frequently asked questions related to OSHA inspections.  After receiving much positive feedback about that post and a few new OSHA inspection-related questions, we decided to launch a regular series on the OSHA Law Update blog with posts dedicated to OSHA Frequently Asked Questions.  For each post in this OSHA FAQ Series, we include both a text response and a video/webinar with slides and audio.

In last month’s OSHA FAQ #4 we talked about the importance of and strategies for establishing an internal OSHA Inspection Team.  In this month’s OSHA FAQ ...

By Margaret C. Thering and Eric J. Conn

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit closed out 2012 with a decision that dealt a blow to employers defending against alleged violations of OSHA standards.  Specifically, in a December 5, 2012 decision in a case on appeal from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Sixth Circuit upheld an OSHA citation that alleged that an employer failed to properly barricade the swing radius of a crane.  See All Erection & Crane Rental Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 11-4242 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2012).

The January/February 2013 issue of Feed & Grain Magazine featured an article entitled “Severe Violator Enforcement Program Defies Constitution” authored by Eric J. Conn, the Head of EBG’s national OSHA Practice Group.  The article expands on a series of posts here on the OSHA Law Update blog regarding OSHA’s controversial Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”).

The article provides a detailed explanation about the SVEP, including:

1. The origin and intent of OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program;
2. the consequences to employers who “qualify” ...

By Amanda R. Strainis-Walker and Eric J. Conn

February 1^st is an important annual OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping deadline for all U.S. employers, except for those with only ten or fewer employees or who operate in enumerated low hazard industries such as retail, service, finance, insurance or real estate (see the exempted industries at Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 1904).  Specifically, by February 1^st every year, employers are required by OSHA’s Recordkeeping regulations to:

1. Review their OSHA 300 Log;
2. Verify that the entries are complete and accurate;
3. Correct any ...

By Amanda R. Strainis-Walker and Eric J. Conn

The roller coaster ride that has been OSHA’s enforcement policy in connection with work inside grain bins with energized sweep augers has taken another major turn.  After decades of employees working inside grain bins with sweep augers, a string of recent, somewhat confusing, Interpretation Letters issued by OSHA effectively banned the practice outright.  Now, a groundbreaking settlement of an OSHA case against an Illinois grain company became a Final Order of the OSH Review Commission in January, and that settlement renewed the industry’s right to work inside grain bins with energized sweep augers, and provided real clarity as to the conditions that OSHA considers to be acceptable for that work.

Sweep Augers

A sweep auger is a mechanism that attaches to a pivot point in the center of a flat-bottom grain bin, and then travels at very slow speeds in a circle around the bin, pulling grain from the perimeter of the bin towards a floor sump in the center of the bin by a helical screw blade called a flighting, where the grain exits to another conveying system.  Generally, one or more workers will be positioned inside the bin behind the sweep auger to make regular adjustments to the auger to keep it advancing on track, and also to manually sweep grain not captured by the auger.

By design, a sweep auger is typically guarded from accidental contact on the top and backside, but it cannot be guarded on the front, or the flighting of the auger would not be able to contact the grain, and therefore, would not convey grain towards the center sump.  In other words, the basic functionality of a sweep auger would be nullified if it were guarded on all sides.

The Grain Standard

The legal landscape about the use of sweep augers with employees inside grain bins has had many throughout the Ag Industry confused for years.  Part of the confusion dates back to the original implementation of the Grain Handling Standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.272).   The final Grain Standard, which was published in 1987, did not include any provision to address the use of sweep augers or the conditions in which an employee may work inside a grain bin with an energized sweep auger.  The final rule did, however, include a general requirement about equipment inside grain bins at 1910.272(g)(1)(ii):

"All mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment which presents a danger to employees inside grain storage structures shall be deenergized and shall be disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise prevented from operating by other equally effective means or methods."

Varying informal interpretations by OSHA about the language in the Standard: “which presents a danger” and “other equally effective means or methods,” resulted in inconsistent enforcement by OSHA in connection with sweep augers over the years.  A series of formal OSHA Interpretation Letters beginning in 2008, however, changed that landscape.

OSHA’s Sweep Auger Interpretation Letters

Around the same time that OSHA began to scrutinize the grain industry following a rash of engulfment incidents inside grain bins, OSHA also began to focus more attention on the issue of potential employee entanglement in the moving parts of sweep augers.  That attention was spurred in part by a letter to OSHA from an insurance agent seeking a formal interpretation of requirements related to grating/guarding on sumps inside grain bins with sweep augers.

The insurance agent’s letter described a scenario in which an employer required employees to maintain a distance of at least six feet behind a partially-guarded or unguarded sweep auger.  In a September 29, 2008 Interpretation Letter from OSHA responding to the insurance agent’s request, OSHA linked 1910.272(g)(1)(ii) to the use of sweep augers, and expressed the position that employees were prohibited from being inside grain bins with energized sweep augers unless the employer could demonstrate that appropriate protections were provided to prevent employees from exposure to the hazards of the moving machinery.  OSHA further stated that completely guarding the machine and a rope positioning system to prevent employee contact with the energized equipment (i.e., a leash for employees), would be effective methods to protect employees.  Finally, the letter opined that an administrative policy requiring employees to maintain a safe distance of six feet from partially-guarded and unguarded sweep augers was not an “otherwise equally effective means or method” that satisfies 1910.272(g)(1)(ii).

Shortly after OSHA issued the September 29, 2008 Interpretation Letter, the same insurance agent sent a second request to OSHA for further clarification, explaining that a sweep auger could not, by design, be completely guarded, and that the rope positioning system that OSHA suggested would be “extremely dangerous.”  This second letter specifically asked for OSHA’s interpretation as to whether an employee could be inside a grain bin with an energized sweep auger.  OSHA responded to this second request with another formal Interpretation Letter on Christmas Eve of 2009, with a direct “no.”  OSHA reasoned in the December 24, 2009 Interpretation Letter that if the methods proposed earlier by OSHA (i.e. guarding the operating side of the auger or putting a leash on employees) were ineffective, then the Agency was “not aware of any effective means or method that would protect a worker from the danger presented by an unguarded sweep auger operating inside a grain storage structure.”

Back in March, we answered five frequently asked questions related to OSHA inspections.  We received so much positive feedback from that post, and so many requests to address additional OSHA questions that we decided to launch a monthly series here on the OSHA Law Update blog with posts dedicated to your OSHA Frequently Asked Questions.  For each of the posts in this OSHA FAQ Series, we have included both a text response and a video/webinar response with slides and audio.

In this post, OSHA FAQ #4, we address a question regarding establishing an OSHA Inspection Team, including what roles should be designated and how to prepare the team for an unexpected visit from OSHA.

QUESTION:   To best prepare for an unannounced OSHA Inspection, my Company is assembling an “Inspection Team” to be ready to manage a visit from OSHA.  What are the different roles that we should include on the Team, and what are the responsibilities for which we should train the various team members?

Click here to view a video response (WMV video format). 

OSHA conducts approximately 95% of its “Discovery” during the inspection phase (not the subsequent Contest stage), and uses the Discovery it obtains during inspections to determine whether violations are present and can be supported in potential citations.  Accordingly, it is critical for employers to be prepared to manage the flow of information to OSHA during an inspection.

Accordingly, one of the most important steps every employer should take to prepare for an OSHA Inspection, and to ensure the inspection process goes smoothly once an OSHA compliance safety and health officer (CSHO) does arrive, is to designate certain personnel to fill specific roles on an Inspection Team.  This will help you respond quickly when OSHA starts an inspection, have better controls in place to manage the flow of information during the inspection, such as better:

• Control over the entire scope of the inspection;
• Organization and care in the document production process;
• Preparation and representation of employees and managers during inspection interviews;
• Ability to capture duplicate evidence; i.e., side-by-side photographs, samples, and other physical evidence, and a complete copy set of documents produced to OSHA; and
• Control over what parts of your facility the CSHO observes during his walkaround inspection.

To accomplish these goals, we recommend that you assign, in advance of any inspection, the following Inspection Team roles, and train the assigned team members in all of the related employers’, employees’, and OSHA’s rights, as well as inspection strategies, related to their assigned roles on the Inspection Team:

1.  Principal Spokesperson.

• The spokesperson is the team leader and point person for OSHA during the inspection.
• It is the Principal Spokesperson to manage the overall inspection, from communicating decisions to OSHA about consenting to the inspection or demanding a warrant, to negotiating the scope of the inspection, and laying the ground rules for document production and interviews.
• This role is generally covered by your outside OSHA counsel, Corporate Safety Director, or another Senior Management representative.  The inspection should not be permitted to begin until the Principal Spokesperson is on-site (see our earlier post regarding delaying the start of an OSHA inspection to await your inspection representative).

2.  Document Coordinator.

• Managing the document production during the inspection is perhaps the most important role.
• The Document Coordinator should manage the entire document production process, including: (a) being designated as the sole authorized person to accept a document request (always in writing) from OSHA; (b) coordinating with company and third party representatives to gather responsive documents; (c) reviewing documents for responsiveness, and to determine whether they contain privileged or business confidential information; (d) processing the documents with Bates and Business Confidential labels; (e) preparing duplicate copies for the Company to keep; (f) producing the documents to OSHA; and (g) tracking the status of all document requests on a Document Control Log.

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the federal government and its agencies, such as OSHA, are required to give notice of significant rulemaking and other regulatory activity by publishing "semi-annual" regulatory agendas that outline the status of on-going and intended federal regulations and standards.  Someone needs to tell the Administration that "semi-annual" means twice yearly, not every other year.

Historically, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) issues a Spring regulatory agenda sometime during the summer, and a Fall regulatory agenda sometime in the winter.  Before last week (the final week of 2012), however, there had been no regulatory agenda published for 2012.  The only regulatory agenda published during 2012, was for Fall 2011.

Congressional Republicans had been hounding the Administration for a regulatory agenda since well before the Election, believing the long delay was because the President feared bad press and negative public reaction to the Administration's continued aggressive regulatory plans.

Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) sent a letter to the President in late August calling for an Spring Reg Agenda, and Congressman John Kline (R-MN), Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, followed up with a November 1, 2012 press release stating:

"The Obama administration continues to play a game of regulatory hide-and-seek with the American people. Current law was designed to protect the public's right to know about rules and regulations being crafted behind the closed doors of the federal bureaucracy. However, on a range of issues including health care, retirement security, and workplace safety the president seems determined to keep his plans for new regulations secret."

The wait is finally over, as the Fall 2012 Regulatory Agenda was released last week (Friday, December 21, 2012) -- just in time for 2013.  Here are the OSHA-related highlights.  OSHA projects that during 2013, final agency action will be taken on 10 regulations, including the following:

1. A new Confined Spaces in Construction standard (by July 2013)

• For more than a decade, OSHA has been developing a counter-part to the general industry confined space standard (29 CFR 1910.146).
• The Final Rule for the construction industry is expected this summer.

2. An updated Electric Power Transmission and Distribution standard (by March 2013)

• Based on a high incident rate among electric line workers, forty years ago, OSHA developed a standard to address safety during the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines.  Early in 2013, OSHA expects to implement a series of revisions to this standard intended to address non-construction work performed during maintenance on electric power installations, and to update PPE and Fall Protection requirements for work on power generation, transmission, and distribution installations.
• The final rule is expected early this year.

3. Gutting Cooperative Programs (by April 2013)

• OSHA has proposed to amend its cooperative Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) to eliminate most of the exemptions from enforcement inspections historically available to facilities that have qualified for the program.
• This change could effectively eliminate most of the incentives for employers to participate in this recognition program, which OSHA has historically administered to incentivize and support small employers to develop, implement, and continuously improve effective safety and health programs.

4. An updated Walking Working Surfaces standard; i.e., Fall Protection (by August 2013)

• OSHA started the process to update its 1990 Fall Protection standard (to reflect advances in technology and strategies for guarding against slips, trips and falls) more than a decade ago.
• The final rule is expected this summer.

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all of you, and Happy 1st Anniversary to the OSHA Law Update blog.  On December 20^th, we celebrated our first full year of updates and articles (56 of them) about important OSHA Law topics here on the OSHA Law Update blog.  We would hardly have the energy or enthusiasm to keep the OSHA Law Update current if it were not for all of the incredibly positive feedback, comments, and questions that we have received over the year from all of you.  Thank you for that.

Just as we did last year, as the clock was winding down on a remarkable year of OSHA enforcement and other activity, it is time to take a look ahead to the new year, and offer our thoughts about what we can all expect from OSHA in 2013.  Here is a link to our post from December 2011 in which forecasted 5 important OSHA developments for 2012 (a pretty accurate forecast in retrospect), and here are three developments we expect from OSHA in 2013:

1.  Heavy-handed enforcement will continue to trend up:

During President Obama’s first term in office, OSHA consistently increased enforcement in every measureable way, year over year, and there is every reason to believe that trend will continue.  OSHA’s budget increased early in President Obama’s first team, and that allowed OSHA to hire more than 100 new compliance officers.  The agency also redirected most of the resources and personnel who had formerly been involved in compliance assistance and cooperative programs into enforcement.  As a result of this big increase in enforcement personnel, we saw the number of inspections increase from averages in the mid-30,000’s during the Bush Administration to the mid-40,000’s through President Obama’s first term.  Barring a prolonged trip over the Fiscal Cliff and actual implementation of sequestration, the trend of increasing enforcement personnel and increasing inspections will continue.

In addition to more frequent visits from OSHA, the OSHA leadership team also modified its Field Operations Manual for the purpose of driving up average and total penalties per inspection (i.e., by raising minimum penalties, average penalties, and eliminating penalty reductions available for size and safe history).  As a result, the average per Serious violation penalty doubled from the Bush Administration (approx. $1,000 per violation) to the end of Obama’s first term (approx. $2,000 per violation).  OSHA’s leadership team has expressed a goal of continuing to grow that average to approx. $3,000 per Serious violation.  We also watched the frequency of enhanced citations (i.e., Willful and Repeat violations that carry 10x higher penalties) increase at a rate of more than 200%.  Those changes, and other aggressive enforcement strategies by OSHA, have resulted in the Agency doubling the total number of “Significant” enforcement actions (cases involving penalties of $100,000 or more), and tripling the number of cases involving total penalties over $1M.  That trend is also expected to continue.

The Democratic Party unveiled its Party Platform during President Obama’s Nominating Convention, and offered a glimpse into what we can expect from OSHA in 2013 and beyond.

The platform called for a focus on “continu[ing] to adopt and enforce comprehensive safety standards.”  Many dubbed the 2012 a “status quo election,” which is probably right, and because the status quo at OSHA over the past four years has been a trend of increasing enforcement and focused rulemaking, that is precisely what we should expect from OSHA over the next four years.

Specifically, OSHA will continue to aggressively enforce its existing standards (i.e., increasing numbers of inspections, increasing penalties, and increasing publicity related to enforcement actions).  We anticipate a doubling down on programs and strategies like:

• “Regulation by Shaming” (i.e., embarrassing and inflammatory enforcement press releases -- see our article about Regulation by Shaming in EHS Today);
• Severe Violator Enforcement Program;
• Increasing programmed inspections targeting special emphasis hazards and industries;
• More follow-up inspections and Repeat violations;
• Referring cases to the U.S. Attorney for potential criminal investigations and OSH Act criminal charges;
• More corporate-wide enforcement and settlements; and
• Less flexibility for employers in resolving cases with reasonable settlement positions.

By: Jordan B. Schwartz and Eric J. Conn

Section 17(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) provides for a Class B misdemeanor criminal penalty, including imprisonment up to six months and substantial monetary fines if an employer’s willful violation of any OSHA standard causes the death of an employee.  Section 17(e) states:

“Any employer who willfully violates any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to Section 6 of this Act, or of any regulations proscribed pursuant to this Act, and that violation caused death to any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.”

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 USC § 3551 et seq., which standardized penalties and sentences for federal offenses, the criminal penalty for willful violations of the OSH Act causing loss of human life was amended to be punishable by fines up to $250,000 for individuals (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3574(b)(4)), and $500,000 for organizations (id. at Sec. 574(c)(4)).

To obtain a conviction under Section 17(e), a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt (unlike the lower civil standard for ordinary OSHA enforcement actions) that:

1. An OSHA Standard (not the General Duty Clause) was violated;
2. The violation was committed by the employer;
   • Courts evaluating OSH Act criminal prosecutions distinguish between “employees” and “employers.” Only in extremely rare circumstances are individuals considered to exert so much control over a corporate entity that the individual would be considered, for all intents and purposes, to be “the employer” for purposes of an OSH Act criminal charge. Although a corporate officer or director might in some circumstances be deemed to be the “employer,” this is only in the case where “an officer’s or director’s role in a corporate entity (particularly a small one) may be so pervasive and total that the officer or director is in fact the corporation and is therefore an employer under §666(e).” U.S. v. Cusack, 806 F. Supp. 47, 50 (D.N.J. 1992).
3. The violation of the Standard was the direct cause of an employee’s death; and
   • Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct which amounts to the violation of an OSHA standard was both the “cause in fact” (i.e., the employer’s conduct was the “but-for cause” of the accident) and the “legal cause” (the harm was a foreseeable and natural result of the conduct) of the injury.
4. The violation was committed Willfully by the employer.
   • Courts are in substantial agreement that “willfully” under Section 17(e) refers to a deliberate action taken by the employer with knowledge of both the hazardous condition and the OSH Act’s requirements (i.e., the employer knew the conduct was dangerous and unlawful).

Here is some guidance on the Justice Department’s website about OSH Act criminal cases.

In the forty years since Congress enacted the OSH Act, there have been more than 400,000 workplace fatalities, yet fewer than eighty total OSH Act criminal cases have been prosecuted – less than two per year-- and only approximately a dozen have resulted in criminal convictions.  Historically, the prosecutions have typically targeted cases in which the employers were alleged to have falsified documents and lied to OSHA in conjunction with violations related to an employee fatality.  The cover-up was worse than the crime.  Chronic violators and employers who demonstrated a systematic rejection of worker safety laws also appear to have been more likely to face charges.

Recently, however, OSHA has begun to increase the frequency in which it refers cases to the Justice Department for investigation by a U.S. Attorney and possible criminal sanctions.  In fact, we have been told off-the-record from several representatives within OSHA and the Department of Labor Solicitor’s office (OSHA’s lawyers), that as a matter of policy, OSHA now makes a criminal referral in every case involving an employee fatality and a willful violation.  Regardless whether that is in fact happening, in the past few years, we have certainly seen a rise in the instances of charges being brought and/or significant plea deals being negotiated.

Back in March, we answered five frequently asked questions related to OSHA inspections.  We received so much positive feedback from that post, and so many requests to address additional OSHA questions that we decided to launch a monthly series here on the OSHA Law Update Blog for OSHA FAQ posts.  For each of the posts in this OSHA FAQ Series, we have included both a textual response and a video response with slides and audio.

In this post, OSHA FAQ #3, we address a very common question regarding whether (and for how long) employers can ask OSHA to delay the start of an inspection to allow a ...

By Paul H. Burmeister

The Site-Specific Targeting Program (SST) is OSHA’s primary “programmed” inspection plan for non-construction workplaces.  The SST Program is geared to address OSHA’s goal of reducing the number of injuries and illnesses that occur at individual workplaces, by directing enforcement resources to those workplaces where the highest rate of injuries and illness have occurred.

The SST is driven by data received from the prior year’s OSHA Data Initiative Survey.  Using the data from this annual survey, and criteria that change every year, such as ...

By Alexis M. Downs

OSHA recently increased the amount of information that is publically available on OSHA’s website regarding “variances.”  Variances are alternative methods for addressing a safety hazard that do not technically comply with OSHA standards.  OSHA has allowed employers to formally apply for variances for more than 30 years, yet there are currently fewer than 30 approved variances in effect.

A variance does not actually grant relief from the standard, but rather, allows for a different method of addressing the hazard or gives a temporary reprieve under certain ...

OSHA recently identified the 10 most frequently cited standards from FY 2012 (October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012). There were no surprises on the list, and it was consistent with years past with only a slight shuffling in the order.

OSHA posts on its website the list of top 10 violations (it has not updated the site with the FY 2012 list yet) in order to "alert employers about these commonly cited standards so they can take steps to find and fix recognized hazards addressed in these and other standards before OSHA shows up. Far too many preventable injuries and illnesses ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

Back in September, we posted an article critiquing OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”) in general, and the newly announced “exit criteria” in particular.  Since that time, in the beginning of October, OSHA updated its embarrassing SVEP Log that it maintains for public consumption on the OSHA website.  With the new data included on the SVEP Log, we thought this would be a good time to provide an update about the SVEP, including:

• The types of employers and industries that OSHA is most frequently qualifying for the ...

Back in March of this year, we answered five frequently asked questions related to OSHA inspections.  We received positive feedback from that post along with several requests to address new OSHA-related questions.  Accordingly, we started a new, monthly OSHA FAQ series last month, with the first FAQ post addressing potential triggers for OSHA inspections.

In this post, the second in the regular OSHA FAQ series, we focus on two common defenses to OSHA citations – “Lack of Employer Knowledge” and “Unpreventable Employee Misconduct,” and again, we have provided both a text ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently provided some much-needed clarification to the meaning of “Willful” with respect to violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, in the case of Dayton Tire v. Secretary of Labor, No. 10-1362 (2012).  Violations of the OSH Act fall into one of four categories, with “Willful” and “Repeat” violations being the most severe, and carrying penalties up to 10x that of “Serious” or “Other than Serious violations.  29 U.S.C. § 666(a)-(c).  All OSHA ...

Back in March we answered five frequently asked questions related to OSHA inspections.  We received a lot of positive feedback about that post and several requests to address additional questions.  Following up on that feedback, we will be adding additional FAQ posts as a regular feature of the OSHA Law Update Blog.  In addition to the text responses to the FAQs, we will also provide a webinar link with audio and slides to provide more in depth responses to each question.  Click on the image of the slide below to watch and listen to the first webinar response.

In this post we address a ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

On June 18, 2010 OSHA replaced its much-maligned Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP) with a new and equally problematic initiative called the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP).  The SVEP is intended to focus OSHA’s enforcement resources on those employers whom OSHA believes demonstrate indifference to their OSH Act obligations by committing certain types of violations, including:

• Any violation categorized as “Egregious”;
• One or more Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate violations associated with a fatality or the overnight hospitalization of three or more employees;
• Two or more Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate violations in connection with a high emphasis hazard (generally speaking, the subjects of OSHA’s special emphasis programs, including falls, amputations, grain handling, etc.); or
• Three or more Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate violations related to Process Safety Management (prevention of the release of a highly hazardous chemicals).

According to an attorney with OSHA’s Solicitor’s office, employers are not added to the SVEP immediately upon receipt of citations meeting these criteria, but rather, are deposited in the Program within fifteen working days of receipt of the citations upon either a settlement at an Informal Settlement Conference, or the filing by the employer of a notice of contest challenging the validity of the citations.  More than two-thirds of SVEP cases are contested by the cited employer, and of the 200+ contested SVEP cases, nearly half of those contests remain open today.  As a result, some employers have been on the list for more than two years despite OSHA not proving that the employer violated the law at all, let alone in a way that meets the extreme qualifying criteria of the SVEP.  The constitutional due process implications of the SVEP are glaring.

Once an employer is added to the SVEP (again just based on unproven allegations), the company is immediately subject to the punitive elements of the Program, including mandatory follow-up inspections at the facility where the SVEP-qualifying citations were issued, as well as at sister facilities throughout the enterprise.  The issuance of SVEP-qualifying citations also comes with a heavy dose of public shaming by the Department of Labor.  Specifically, with every SVEP citation comes a public press release issued by OSHA, which now includes an inflammatory quote from a high-ranking OSHA or Department of Labor representative about the employer.  The Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA and his senior staff refer to these press releases as a campaign of “Regulation by Shaming.”  The SVEP press releases and an embarrassing public log of all employers in the SVEP are available on OSHA’s website.

The final problematic element of the SVEP has always been the manner in which employers can (or cannot) be removed from the Program once they get in.  For more than two years, OSHA operated the SVEP without providing employers any way out of the Program, other than by eliminating the underlying SVEP-qualifying citation through the multi-year contest process or persuading OSHA to withdraw the qualifying citations in a settlement.  After much clamoring from industry, OSHA finally released a press release summarizing a memorandum from the Director of Enforcement Programs to the Regional Administrators on August 16, 2012, which set forth a series of removal criteria.

The memo provided a framework for getting out of SVEP, but the extremely harsh removal criteria provide little relief to employers.  The memo explains that:

“[A]n employer may be removed from the SVEP after a period of three years from the date of final disposition of the SVEP inspection citation items. Final disposition may occur through failure to contest, settlement agreement, Review Commission final order, or court of appeals decision.”  Of course, it is not as easy as just waiting those 1095 days from a Final Order.  Employers must have also “abated all SVEP–related hazards affirmed as violations, paid all final penalties, abided by and completed all settlement provisions, and not received any additional Serious citations related to the hazards identified in the SVEP inspection at the initial establishment or at any related establishments.”

If employers fall short of any of these requirements, they will have to wait an additional three years to be considered for removal.  Even if the employer does meet all the criteria, removal from SVEP is not guaranteed.  In all cases with the exception for those involving corporate-wide settlements, the Regional Administrator has the final say as to whether an employer is removed from the program.  That discretionary decision is based on vague, undefined factors related to follow-up inspections and enforcement data.  Employers who agreed to corporate-wide settlements are reviewed for removal by the Director of Enforcement Programs (“DEP”) in OSHA’s National Office.

By Eric Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

We recently had an article published by the Washington Legal Foundation entitled "OSHA Continues Trend of Informally Imposing New Rules."  The article expanded on an earlier post here on the OSHA Law Update Blog regarding OSHA's attempts to circumvent Formal Notice and Comment Rulemaking by changing regulatory requirements through interpretation letters, directives, and enforcement memoranda.  Here is a link to the original post.

Below is an excerpt from the expanded article, published this week in Washington Legal ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

We recently authored an article for Feed & Grain magazine entitled "When OSHA Comes Knockin'." The article explains why employers in the grain industry need to be prepared for an OSHA inspection, and outlines steps they should take to prepare for and manage a visit from an OSHA inspector.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

As Alexander Graham Bell famously said, "Before anything else, preparation is the key to success." No truer words could be said to employers in the grain industry today about OSHA inspections. Secretary of Labor, Hilda ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

According to a recent report to Congress from OSHA, the Agency’s multi-year Injury & Illness Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (“Recordkeeping NEP”) continued through its termination in 2012 to yield less alarming results than the OSHA leadership team forecasted, despite revising the program in late 2010.

The initial version of the Recordkeeping NEP was put on hold due to lower than expected (at least by OSHA) instances of recordkeeping abuses (i.e., employers deliberately under recording injuries and illnesses), so ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

The deadline passed last week for OSHA to appeal a recent decision by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that struck down OSHA’s attempt to expand its Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) standard by way of an enforcement memorandum that mandated oil and gas employers ensure their employees don flame retardant clothing (“FRC”) during drilling operations (OSHA's “FRC Memo”).  The Judge ruled that the FRC Memo constituted “improper rulemaking under the aegis of an enforcement standard.” See Sec’y of Labor v. Petro Hunt LLC, OSHRCJ, No. 11-0873 (June 2, 2012).  The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Review Commission”) also declined to independently take-up the decision for review, so the ALJ’s decision is now officially a Final Order of the Review Commission.

The ALJ’s decision represents a meaningful victory for employers as it relates to any PPE enforcement action, not just those related to FRC. The ALJ chastised OSHA for attempting to circumvent the formal notice and comment rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), by issuing the FRC Memo rather than amending its regulations. Although OSHA did not appeal the Judge’s ruling, the Agency has expressed, through both words and actions, disagreement with the Judge’s ruling.

The Petro Hunt case arose out of an October 15, 2010 OSHA inspection at an oil production worksite in North Dakota, after the Sherriff’s Department notified the Agency that a fire engulfed a treater shed. Following the inspection, OSHA cited the employer for allegedly failing to provide and require employees to wear FRC. The employer contested the citation, and a hearing was held before ALJ Patrick Augustine in November 2011. In this case of first impression, the ALJ concluded that the FRC Memo did not simply interpret the standard but, rather, amounted to a new standard that should have been subject to the formal rulemaking process under the APA.

Judge Augustine reasoned that the FRC Memo transformed the PPE standard from a “performance-based” standard – which grants employers reasonable discretion to assess the nature of hazards at their workplaces and select appropriate PPE to address those hazards – into a specification standard – in this case, an obligation to provide a specific form of PPE (flame retardant clothing), during oil and gas operations “regardless of the particular circumstances that may be present at any individual facility.” In striking down the FRC Memo, the Judge stated:

Complainant cannot ‘require’ anything more than what is authorized by the regulations. If [the Secretary of Labor] wishes to specifically require that FRC be worn in all instances at oil and gas operations, then she must report to the required notice and comment rulemaking process. Otherwise, [OSHA] must independently prove in each case that Respondent had actual notice, or that a reasonable person in Respondent’s position would have recognized a hazard requiring the use of FRC.

The ALJ also rejected OSHA’s argument that the Review Commission should grant deference to OSHA’s interpretation in the FRC Memo, because, Judge Augustine explained, the interpretation was “unreasonable and inconsistent” with established regulations. The ALJ proceeded to vacate the citation, reasoning that OSHA failed to establish that the employer had actual notice of a need for FRC at the inspected worksite, or that a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances and industry would have recognized the existence of a flash fire hazard. To support his decision, the ALJ highlighted the following facts:

1. OSHA’s failure to establish that flash fires were a hazard at the worksite;
2. None of the employer’s employees suffered injuries due to fires in the previous two years; and
3. The employer conducted a thorough hazard assessment, and reasonably concluded that engineering and administrative controls (methods of addressing hazards generally preferred over reliance on PPE), adequately addressed any potential fire hazard.

By Eric J. Conn

In what seems to be a trend, OSHA has again delayed its rulemaking process for an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (commonly known as I2P2) standard. The announcement came during a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health meeting in late June.  According to OSHA officials, we should not expect the next rulemaking phase, a small business review process, to begin until at least Labor Day.  I2P2 programs, which aim to reduce workplace injuries by requiring employers to proactively find and fix workplace hazards, have been on OSHA’s regulatory ...

By Eric J. Conn

In August of 2010, a Delta Air Lines (“Delta”) baggage handler was fatally injured in a workplace accident, when the employee was ejected from a baggage tug vehicle while not wearing a seat belt.  As a result of this incident, Delta was cited by OSHA in February 2011 for alleged violations of regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, including specifically, 1910.132—relating to personal protective equipment.

Corporate-Wide Settlement

To resolve the citations, Delta entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA on April 17, 2012 that required Delta to pay a modest penalty, $8,500, but also committed Delta to install seat belts on similar industrial vehicles operated at 90 of Delta’s locations nationwide over the next year.  Delta also committed to provide seatbelt training and to mandate the use of seatbelts for 16,000 of its employees.  Delta also agreed to waive its right to demand inspection warrants, and permit OSHA to monitor this issue. Finally, the agreement stipulates that general monitoring of implementation of this corporate-wide abatement will be conducted by a third party, not OSHA.

The Delta agreement was one of the first Corporate-Wide Settlement Agreement (“CSA”) reached under OSHA’s latest June 2011 Guidelines for Administering Corporate-Wide Settlement Agreements.  Under these guidelines OSHA expanded its use of the CSA to a broader range of enforcement cases, including high profile fatality cases.  This type is settlement has special implications for the airline industry, in which employers inherently operate at dozens or even hundreds of sites—magnifying both the potential penalties and compliance costs.  See our previous posts about the risks of enterprise enforcement.

Settlement in Context

Delta is a participant in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program (“VPP”).  On its website OSHA states “VPP corporate applicants must have established, standardized corporate-level safety and health management systems, effectively implemented organization-wide as well as internal audit/screening processes that evaluate their facilities for safety and health performance.”  Despite Delta being an active partner with OSHA over the last decade, the settlement agreement appears to be favorable to the Agency.  On the other hand, Delta avoided inclusion in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”), which can be an option when there is a fatality and OSHA finds “one or more willful or repeated violations.”  If SVEP qualification was on the table in these negotiations, it would certainly have given OSHA substantial leverage.

This week, Washington Legal Foundation published an article  regarding OSHA's New Enterprise-Wide Approach to Enforcement, authored by EBG attorneys Eric J. Conn and Alexis M. Downs.  The article expands on a February 2012 post entitled "Enterprise Enforcement: OSHA's Attack on Employers with Multiple Locations," here on the OSHA Law Update Blog.

The gist of the article and the prior blog post is that companies that operate multiple facilities in different locations, such as national retail and grocery chains, grain cooperatives, large national nursing and medical care ...

By Paul H. Burmeister

The OSHA/Hyatt Hotels saga continued with a recent exchange of letters between OSHA and the hotel chain’s attorney.  In April, OSHA issued a “5(a)(1) letter” to the CEO of Hyatt Hotels, indicated that OSHA believed there were ergonomic risks associated with the daily work activities of the company’s housekeeping staff. The letter put the hotel chain “on notice” that while OSHA did not believe that a “recognized hazard” existed at the time of the inspection, such that a General Duty Clause citation should issue, if the same hazard was later ...

By Paul H. Burmeister

The OSHA/Hyatt Hotels saga continued with a recent exchange of letters between OSHA and the hotel chain’s attorney.  In April, OSHA issued a “5(a)(1) letter” to the CEO of Hyatt Hotels, indicating that OSHA believed there were ergonomic risks associated with the daily work activities of the company’s housekeeping staff.  The letter put the hotel chain “on notice” that while OSHA did not believe that a “recognized hazard” existed at the  time of the inspection, such that a General Duty Clause citation should issue, if the same hazard was later ...

Join us Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 9:00 am Eastern either by Webinar or in person for a complimentary briefing presented by Epstein Becker Green attorneys Eric J. Conn and Amanda R. Strainis-Walker of the Firm’s national OSHA Practice Group.

The briefing will cover actions that employers should take now to prepare their workplaces and workforce for unexpected visits from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), review employers’ and employees’ rights during an OSHA inspection, and discuss inspection strategies to ensure the best possible outcome from ...

by Margaret C. Thering and Lauri F. Rasnick

Violence against women has been in the headlines lately – the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is engendering vigorous debate, and as of last month, federal agencies were ordered to implement policies to assist their employees who are victims of domestic violence.  Also last month, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Injury Control Research Center at West Virginia University published a paper entitled “Workplace Homicides Among U.S. Women: The Role of Intimate Partner Violence” in the ...

By Alexis M. Downs and Eric J. Conn

Although OSHA currently has no regulations specifically addressing Safety Incentive Programs, they have recently come under fire by OSHA because the Agency believes that such programs have a chilling effect on workplace injury reporting.  Incentive programs have been a serious focus of OSHA’s Director, David Michaels, since he assumed his position early in the Obama Administration.

Dr. Michaels explained that OSHA “strongly disapprove[s] of programs offering workers parties and prizes for not reporting injuries, or bonuses for managers ...

Last week, EHS Today Magazine ran our article in which we delve into more detail about OSHA's amended Hazard Communication Rule (“HazCom”), and the integration of the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (“GHS”).  Check out the full article here, in which we detailed 10 important things employers need to know about the final HazCom Rule.  Here's the short list:

1. New Hazard Classification Criteria
2. New Method for Evaluating Mixtures
3. Amended Label Requirements
4. Proscrictive Format for Safety Data Sheet
5. Inclusion of ...

By Amanda R. Strainis-Walker and Eric J. Conn

With the dog days of summer around the corner, OSHA just put out a press release reminding employers with outside workplaces about OSHA’s focus on the hazards of working in high heat.  The press release reinvigorates OSHA’s heat-related illness campaign that began leading into last summer, when OSHA produced a great deal of public information about heat-related illness, including a dedicated heat illness information page on OSHA’s website, a YouTube video, public press statements, speeches by senior Department of Labor and OSHA ...

By Eric J. Conn and Casey M. Cosentino

In what has been good news for hospitality employers, the past month has been a rough stretch for OSHA in terms of Injury and Illness Recordkeeping enforcement.  As we reported last month on the OSHA Law Update Blog, in March, the Seventh Circuit beat back OSHA’s attempt to expand the meaning of “work related” for purposes of determining whether an injury or illnesses is recordable.  Then last month, the District of Columbia Circuit further and dramatically limited OSHA’s authority to cite Recordkeeping violations, by insisting that the ...

Late last year, I delivered a keynote address to the National Grain & Feed Association’s (NGFA) annual Country Elevator Conference regarding:

1. Why it is important for grain handlers to prepare now for an OSHA inspection;
2. What to do now to prepare for an OSHA inspection; and
3. How best to manage an OSHA inspection once it begins.

By Kara M. Maciel

Sadly, workplace violence continues to be a topic that challenges many organizations.  Indeed, as the news reports continue to remind us, employees and non-employees often take out their aggression and violent acts within the workplace.  As the recent attacks at hospitals in Pittsburgh and in Washington, D.C. demonstrate, there remains a high rate of fatal and non-fatal assaults and violent acts committed within the workplace, and, in particular, within the healthcare industry.  One of the struggles that employers face is trying to prevent violent conduct by ...

By Eric J. Conn and Casey M. Cosentino

For years, OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (“HazCom”) has been the standard most frequently cited against hotel and other hospitality employers.

In FY 2011 37 hotel companies were cited for violations of the HazCom Standard, including, primarily, alleged failures to:

(1) maintain a written Hazard Communication Program;

(2) ensure each container of hazardous chemicals (such as cleaning agents) is labeled, tagged, or marked;

(3) maintain a complete set of Material Safety Data Sheets (“MSDS’s”) for each hazardous ...

By Julia E. Loyd and Eric J. Conn

Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) launched a new National Emphasis Program targeting Nursing Homes and Residential Care facilities (“Nursing Home NEP”).  In an accompanying Press Release, OSHA announced that the Nursing Home NEP aims to protect workers from safety and health hazards “common in medical industries.”  Effective upon its announcement and for a three-year period thereafter, the NEP focuses on ergonomic hazards (e.g., strains and sprains from patient  ...

Written By:  Eric J. Conn

OSHA is signaling a major departure from its position on acceptable exceptions to the Lockout/Tagout requirements in the agency’s electrical safety standards. Historically, employers have been permitted to conduct electrical maintenance near energized parts in data centers that host critical business operations (i.e., operations which must stay live 24/7), under an “infeasibility” exception to the general rule that electrical equipment must be deenergized and locked out before maintenance is permitted. A series of recent enforcement ...

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

On March 20, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated an ALJ’s decision penalizing Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. for allegedly failing to record an employee’s "work-related" musculoskeletal disorder (“MSD”) on the Company’s OSHA 300 log.  Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, No. 11-2958 (7th Cir., Mar. 20, 2012).  This case is significant because it stamps back (at least temporarily) an effort by OSHA to expand the meaning of “work-related” in the context of ergonomic ...

By Forrest G. Read, IV and Eric J. Conn

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announced earlier this month a new policy disguised as a nod to enhancing employee participation in CSB investigations, but which may actually represent a dramatic limitation in the investigation rights of both employees and employers.  The new policy expands the role of non-management employees in the CSB’s investigations into the causes of chemical accidents that occur at industrial facilities, but does so at the expense of employers’ involvement and employees’ rights.

By ...

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

“Texting while driving” is an epidemic in America, which has prompted forty-two states and the District of Columbia to ban (completely or partially) this conduct for drivers.  Here’s a map of the U.S. states that have enacted some ban on texting while driving.  Studies suggest that texting while driving distracts drivers’ cognitive focus and removes their eyes from the road and hands from the wheel.  It is not surprising, therefore, that distracted driving is attributed with sixteen percent (16%) of all traffic fatalities in 2009.

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

“Texting while driving” is an epidemic in America, which has prompted forty-two states and the District of Columbia to ban (completely or partially) this conduct for drivers.  Here's a map of the U.S. states that have enacted some ban on texting while driving.  Studies suggest that texting while driving distracts drivers’ cognitive focus and removes their eyes from the road and hands from the wheel.  It is not surprising, therefore, that distracted driving is attributed with sixteen percent (16%) of all traffic fatalities in 2009.

The ...

By Paul H. Burmeister and Eric J. Conn

At the end of January 2012, OSHA finally released its Fall 2011 regulatory agenda, which is intended to be an overview of what OSHA plans to accomplish in the next few months.  The agenda includes updates about the status of several major OSHA rulemaking efforts.  Below is a brief summary of the Reg Agenda.

This Reg Agenda was far less ambitious than each of the previous agendas set forth by the Obama Administration’s OSHA, but it does reveal the agency’s top priorities that will continue to be pressed even during an election year.  The highlights ...

Last week, the leaders of the grain industry in North Dakota gathered for their annual conference, this year the Centennial gathering of the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association.  I had the privilege of speaking at the conference, and share some background about OSHA's increasing focus on the grain handling industry, a review of grain handlers' rights vis-a-vis OSHA, and some strategies and tips for preparing for and managing an OSHA inspection.  I also had the opportunity to speak about OSHA's approach to inspections in the grain industry at the National Grain & Feed ...

By Eric J. Conn and Amanda R. Strainis-Walker

One of the questions we are most frequently asked by small employers is about the so-called "Rule of 10"; i.e., the long-perpetuated myth that OSHA does not have jurisdiction over employers or workplaces with fewer than 10 employees.  This is a commonly misunderstood policy, so let's set the record straight.

The short answer is, unless you are a small farming operation, OSHA does have jurisdiction in almost every circumstance.  There are some partial exemptions and exclusions from certain types of OSHA activity, such as ...

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

 According to statistics recently reported by OSHA, the number of workplace inspections conducted by federal OSHA in FY 2011 fell to a total of 40,215, down 778 from 2010.  The agency attributes this slight decline in the number of inspections to the fact that many inspections, particularly those focused on health hazards and recordkeeping compliance, require more time per inspection.  Gone are the days when the Compliance Officer drops by for a cup of coffee.  Now, OSHA wants to know which office in which they should set up because they are going to be ...

By Amanda R. Strainis-Walker and Eric J. Conn

OSHA’s keen interest in enforcement related to combustible dust shows no sign of waning as we close the door on 2011.  OSHA’s Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP), initiated in 2008, continued in earnest through 2011, and notably, has no expiration date.  The number of violations and the size of civil penalties arising out of the Combustible Dust NEP inspections continue to rise, and OSHA points to that data as support for its active pursuit of a comprehensive Combustible Dust Standard.

Combustible Dust NEP:

OSHA launched ...

By:  Casey Cosentino

There is an on-going trend by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) to leverage popular technology to increase public and consumer awareness of the laws and regulations it enforces. Indeed, the DOL is continually exploring creative ways to share information with the public using the fastest and most-wide reaching means available. Through technology, the DOL is intentionally providing employees and consumers with enforcement data about companies, particularly hotels and restaurants, so that they can make informed employment and patronage ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Group at Epstein Becker & Green

OSHA is signaling a major departure from its position on acceptable exceptions to the Lockout/Tagout requirements in the agency’s electrical safety standards.  Historically, employers have been permitted to conduct electrical maintenance near energized parts in data centers that host critical business operations (i.e., operations which must stay live 24/7), under an “infeasibility” exception to the general rule that electrical equipment must be deenergized and locked out before maintenance is permitted.  ...

By Amanda Strainis-Walker

OSHA’s recent string of hotel inspections in response to formal safety and health complaints filed by UNITE-HERE and others on behalf of hotel housekeepers is under serious scrutiny from the House of Representatives Subcommittee that oversees OSHA’s operations.  OSHA leadership is defending its decision to inspect hotels, and is signaling that OSHA will not shy away from inspecting employers in the midst of organizing campaigns and/or contentious bargaining over labor agreements.

Over the last year, OSHA received a number of formal, written ...

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

On June 2, 2011, OSHA launched an enforcement National Emphasis Program  focused on employers and hazards in the Primary Metals Industries (“Primary Metals NEP”).  Establishments in the primary metals industries are those involved in extracting and refining metals from rocks containing iron, lead, nickel, tin and other primary metals, and smelting ferrous and nonferrous metals, including ore, pig and scrap, during rolling, drawing, casting and alloying metal operations.  Some products manufactured in this sector include nails ...

By Alexis M. Downs and Eric J. Conn

Employers who operate laboratories are suddenly receiving a high level of attention from federal safety and health regulators.  Following a string of serious laboratory accidents, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (the “CSB”) posted an informational video on its website detailing hazards at chemical laboratories, based on a study of 120 explosions, fires, and chemical releases at university and other research laboratories (view the CSB’s Lab Safety Video here).  At the same time, federal OSHA just published a ...

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

By Eric J. Conn

by: Eric J. Conn

What do manufacturers, nursing homes, and chemical companies have in common?  They all represent industries receiving special enforcement scrutiny from today’s OSHA.

OSHA is targeting manufacturers under a major Recordkeeping Enforcement National Emphasis Program (Recordkeeping NEP).  OSHA launched the Recordkeeping NEP at the end of 2009, originally selecting inspection targets across a wide array of industries.  A senior OSHA official has explained that “there are several different goals here.  One is just to find out what’s going on.  Another is to send a ...

By: Jay P. Krupin and Kara M. Maciel

Last week, on November 9, 2010, housekeepers employed by Hyatt Hotels filed complaints with OSHA alleging injuries sustained on the job. The complaints were filed in eight cities across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, San Antonio, Honolulu and Indianapolis.  Similar OSHA actions may occur in Boston, NYC, DC, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Miami, and Orlando with higher concentrations of hotel properties. This is the first time that employees of a single private employer have filed multi-city OSHA complaints, and it ...

EBG is holding its annual NY briefing for clients and friends on Oct. 28. This full-day program will feature a special, two-hour workshop just for employers in the hospitality and retail industries, updating the many recent and significant labor and employment law developments affecting the industry. We will provide real-world guidance on how to manage the risks your company faces from increasingly aggressive plaintiffs' lawyers and government investigators who have openly and unabashedly targeted the industry.

Topics on the workshop agenda include:
 

• Wage and hour class ...