• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Learn WordPress
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Personnel
    • Professional Safety Staffing
    • Safety Recruiting
    • Careers with FDRsafety
  • Expert Witness
    • Jim Stanley
    • Steve Hawkins
    • Expert Witness Services
  • Compliance
    • Risk Assessments
    • Industrial Hygiene
    • Fall Protection Safety Services
    • Forklift Safety Services
    • Machine Guarding Safety Services
    • Combustible Dust Compliance
    • Confined Space Safety
  • Safety Training
    • Safety Awareness
    • Instructor-led courses
    • Training Case Study
  • About
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Our Leaders
    • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
    • Safety Solutions Blog
    • Safety Terms Glossary
  • Careers
  • Contact
    FDRsafety
    • Personnel
      • Professional Safety Staffing
      • Safety Recruiting
      • Careers with FDRsafety
    • Expert Witness
      • Jim Stanley
      • Steve Hawkins
      • Expert Witness Services
    • Compliance
      • Risk Assessments
      • Industrial Hygiene
      • Fall Protection Safety Services
      • Forklift Safety Services
      • Machine Guarding Safety Services
      • Combustible Dust Compliance
      • Confined Space Safety
    • Safety Training
      • Safety Awareness
      • Instructor-led courses
      • Training Case Study
    • About
      • Our Mission and Values
      • Our Leaders
      • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
      • Safety Solutions Blog
      • Safety Terms Glossary
    • Careers
    • Contact

Enforcement

Employers may have more room to appeal willful violations

  • Posted by Jim Stanley
  • Categories Enforcement, OSHA
  • Date December 19, 2012

What’s the difference between a willful OSHA violation and a serious one?

One answer: About $63,000 in penalties – the maximum for a violation classified as serious is $7,000, while the maximum for a willful violation is $70,000. With multiple violations possible in each citation, those numbers can grow quickly.

And now a ruling by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission could encourage more companies to appeal willful citations in hopes of having them reduced to serious.

A serious violation is one in which there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and that the employer knew, or should have known, of the hazard. A willful violation is one committed with either an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, OSHA regulations.

In May, the OSHRC reclassified 99 violations against Dayton Tire from willful to serious.

As related by Safety News Alert, the fines stemmed from an October 1993 incident in which a Dayton Tire employee in Oklahoma City died from injuries suffered when a machine activated unexpectedly.

What had been $1.975 million in fines for lockout/tagout violations dropped to $197,500, a 90% reduction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, had ordered the commission to reconsider the gravity of the fines because it said Dayton Tire made some effort to comply with the OSHA lockout/tagout regulations, so the violations weren’t willful.

“It takes a lot to be plainly indifferent” to OSHA regulations, the DC Circuit Court wrote in its opinion.

A stronger basis to contest

Now, in a blog post, attorney Shannon Young of Harmon & Davies writes this decision “gives employers an even stronger basis from which to contest willful OSHA citations.”

“What this means is that as long as an employer is acting in good faith to comply with OSHA regulations, even if OSHA later determines that the employer’s actions fell short of what was required under OSHA regulations, the employer should not be cited for a willful violation,” Young wrote.

An administrative law judge for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission appeared to be following that same logic in a second case. The judge ordered that a willful citation issued to a construction company be reduced to serious because the supervisor at the trench site was “inexperienced, uninformed and confused about how to protect employees.”

“The facts of this case do not establish that [the supervisor] possessed a state of mind that, if he were informed of the [OSHA] standard, he would not care.”

Subscribe to this blog to receive Jim Stanley’s updates about OSHA in your inbox or on your reader.

  • Share:
Jim Stanley

Previous post

The new crane standard
December 19, 2012

Next post

Remedies to CSA’s problems high on industry, government lists
January 3, 2013

You may also like

1600px-Point_Guarding
Review Commission Machine Guarding Decision
16 February, 2021
FallingRocks-1
Is Gravity Part of OSHA’s LOTO Regulation?
15 April, 2020
FDR-070918
OSHA Alert: How to Prepare for an OSHA Inspection
19 March, 2020

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Categories

  • Accident Prevention
  • Articles
  • CSA
  • Enforcement
  • FDRsafety newsletter
  • Legislation
  • News and Announcements
  • OSHA
  • Recordkeeping
  • Research
  • Risk Assessments
  • Safety and sustainability
  • Temporary Safety Professionals / Recruiting
  • Training
  • Transportation safety
  • Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Additional Thoughts On Reevaluating OSHA
06Mar2025
Feasibility For Machine Guarding Is A Big Deal For Employers and Employees
13May2024
Online Powered Industrial Truck Operator Certification Problems
25Aug2023

Get In Touch

Contact

360 Cool Springs Boulevard,
Suite 101,
Franklin, TN 37067

1-888-755-8010

info@fdrsafety.com

Careers

Accreditations

Contact Us

Powered by WordPress.