T:1-888-755-8010  E: info@FDRsafety.com

T: 1-888-755-8010
E: info@FDRsafety.com

 

Occupational Safety Blog

By Jim Stanley, former No. 2 official at OSHA and President of FDRsafety


Archive for the ‘Recordkeeping’ Category

Radical change to OSHA advancing in Congress

July 7th, 2010

Prison terms of up to 10 years could be imposed on officers and directors of companies that knowingly violate OSHA rules under a proposed revision to the Occupational Safety and Health Act now advancing through Congress.

The 10-year term would apply in situations where a violation contributed to the death of an employee. The current maximum sentence under the OSHA act is six months and the law does not specify that officers and directors can be held criminally responsible.

Employers need to pay close attention to this bill since the provision on criminal penalties is only one of several proposed enforcement changes in the bill that would radically alter the occupational safety and health landscape for employers. In my view the bill would significantly change OSHA as we now know it.

The proposed measure is in keeping with the Obama administration’s philosophy of substantially increasing enforcement, which OSHA has already been carrying out administratively in such areas as training, recordkeeping, ergonomics and severe violations.

The proposed revisions to the law, introduced as the Protecting America’s Workers Act, have been percolating for months. But it now appears that the House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing on the bill on July 13, followed soon after by a committee vote. The bill could reach the floor of the House by the end of the month.

The bill originally was a standalone measure, but now has been combined with a bill to make changes in the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Pressure is strong to change MSHA because of the fatal accident that occurred earlier this year at a Massey Energy Co. mine in West Virginia and that in turn makes it more likely that changes to OSHA will pass as well.

One especially significant change to the OSH Act would allow officers and directors to be held criminally liable In cases where they had knowledge of violations that led to a fatality. The law currently states that an employer may be held criminally liable, but the definition of an employer is vague enough that it rarely is enforced against individual managers. The new bill specifies that the term “employer” means officers and directors.

Other changes In the bill:

  • Employers would be required to immediately begin abating serious, willful or repeated violations. Currently abatement requirements are automatically stayed if an employer contests a violation. Under the bill, employers who want a stay would have to ask for one from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. (I call this provision the “guilty until you prove yourself innocent” clause.)
  • Protections for “whistleblower” employees would be significantly strengthened. It appears to me that the bill would make it virtually impossible for employers to discharge an under-performing employee for cause if that employee makes any kind of complaint about safety conditions, warranted or not. This has a potential to severely inhibit employers’ ability to hold employees and managers accountable.
  • Prison terms of up to five years could be imposed on any officer or director of a company that knowingly violates any OSHA standard, rule or order if that violation contributes to serious bodily harm to an employee. Currently there is no provision in the OSHA act for a prison term in such situations.
  • The maximum civil penalty for willful and repeated violations would increase from $70,000 to $120,000. If the violation resulted in a death, the maximum penalty could be $250,000.
  • The maximum civil penalty for serious violations would increase from $7,000 to $12,000. However, if the serious violation resulted in a death, the maximum penalty could be $50,000.
  • The maximum civil penalty for other-than-serious violations would also increase from $7,000 to $12,000.
  • Minimum and maximum penalties would be adjusted for inflation at least once every four years beginning in 2015.

For tips on how to prepare your company for increased OSHA scrutiny, see my article “How to meet the challenge of greatly increased OSHA enforcement.”

  • Share/Bookmark

A recordable injury may not be what you think

June 16th, 2010

With OSHA putting enforcement pressure on recordkeeping, it may be helpful to refresh your memory on just what constitutes a recordable injury.

Arthur Sapper of the McDermott Will & Emery law firm has written an excellent article that straightens out some misconceptions he says are prevalent in the construction industry about what injuries must be recorded.

Here’s what he has to say:

Work restrictions

“The single most common of mistakes that lead to recordkeeping charges is misunderstanding what an OSHA-recordable work restriction is. Employers commonly but honestly believe that if an injured employee can still perform useful work, the injury is not recordable as a work restriction.

“Thus, employers may try to avoid an OSHA recordable by assigning office work to an injured tradesman. Other employers believe that an injury case is not recordable if the employee can still perform work within his job description. So they might, for example, give purely sedentary electrical work to electricians who otherwise would climb ladders daily to perform their jobs.

“Both ideas would be mistakes. OSHA’s regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1904.7(b)(4)(i)-(ii)) state that a restriction occurs when either:

“1) The employer keeps an occupationally injured employee from performing one or more “routine functions” of his job; or
“2) A licensed health care professional recommends that the employee not perform one or more “routine functions” of his job. The term “routine function” is specially defined as a work activity regularly performed at least once per week. In the case of the injured electrician now unable to climb a ladder, the case is recordable because the electrician otherwise regularly climbs ladders every day.

Light duty

“A second and related misconception is that light duty is not a work restriction. A recordkeeping regulation (§ 1904.7(b)(4) (vii)) indicates that light duty can indeed amount to a work restriction. In fact, this regulation indicates — although indirectly — that light duty is presumptively a restriction.

“The regulation starts with the question, “How do I handle vague restrictions from a physician or other licensed health care professional, such as that the employee engage only in ‘light duty’ or ‘take it easy for a week’?” After stating that the employer “may” ask the physician whether this means that the employee may not perform all of his routine job functions or work his entire normally assigned work shift, the lengthy provision ends with this: “If you are unable to obtain this additional information from the physician … who recommended the restriction, record the injury or illness as a case involving restricted work.”

“OSHA officials take this last sentence to mean that “light duty” is a recordable work restriction unless the physician affirmatively states that the employee may perform all of his routine job functions and may work a full shift. Employers are thus well advised that when faced with a vague restriction such as “light duty” to contact the physician and get clarification on what tasks the employee may not perform.

“If even one of these tasks is among the work duties regularly performed at least once a week, an OSHA recordable case must be entered on the log.
“Another aspect of light duty work restrictions that employers overlook is that the recordability of a restriction depends on the particular employee’s routine functions. Hence, two employees can be identically injured, treated and restricted, but the restriction might be recordable for only one of them. A restriction for an ironworker might not be a restriction for a receptionist.

“An employer therefore needs to review with the employee or the employee’s immediate supervisor what tasks the employee regularly performs at least once per week and whether the restriction prevents any from being performed.

Final caution

“A caution can be offered about these misconceptions. Even OSHA’s online Recordkeeping Handbook, of which few employers are aware, gives inadequate information about gray areas in the regulations.

“Employers with questions are understandably reluctant to call OSHA, plus area offices are often too busy for an employer to reach a knowledgeable person; moreover, different OSHA offices may offer different advice. Even so, employers should make every effort to get definitive guidance from OSHA or legal counsel rather than guessing what the recordkeeping requirements are. A wrong guess may mean big penalties from a less than sympathetic agency.”

  • Share/Bookmark

More evidence of OSHA’s recordkeeping crackdown: Lowe’s cited

May 11th, 2010

Companies continue to be uncertain what OSHA’s new focus on recordkeeping may mean for them. A large national retailer just found out.

OSHA tagged Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. in Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio, with $110,000 in proposed penalties for continually failing to document and report employee injuries and illnesses.

Here’s what OSHA said about it:

“As a result of an October 2009 inspection in Cincinnati, OSHA issued Lowe’s four willful citations with a proposed penalty of $40,000. Based on a November 2009 inspection, OSHA issued the Dayton store seven willful citations with a proposed penalty of $70,000. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health.”

OSHA requires employers to record and maintain occupational injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 log.

If you have a question about how to handle recordkeeping in your business, ask us.

  • Share/Bookmark