Workforce Bulletin

Got OSHA-Related Questions?  We Have the Answers!

Coming soon to the OSHA Law Update blog is a regular series of “OSHA Inspection Frequently Asked Questions” posts.  This series is in direct response to the many inquiries we received from our popular post last year entitled: Managing an OSHA Inspection: Answers to 5 Frequently Asked Questions.

The OSHA Inspection FAQ series will address inspection issues from the procedural to the substantive legal and strategic.  We will also look to our readers to send in questions that we can tee-up for responses.  Watch for the inaugural ...

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 Steven M. Swirsky, Adam C. Abrahms, Donald S. Krueger, and D. Martin Stanberry

In another foray by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) into new territory affecting non-union workplaces, a divided three-member Board panel found that an employer’s direction that employees not discuss matters under investigation with their co-workers violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) because it “had a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in the exercise of their rights” under the Act. Banner Health System, 358 ...

By:  Steven M. Swirsky, Adam C. Abrahms, Donald S. Krueger, and D. Martin Stanberry

In another foray by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) into new territory affecting non-union workplaces, a divided three-member Board panel found that an employer’s direction that employees not discuss matters under investigation with their co-workers violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) because it “had a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in the exercise of their rights” under the Act. Banner Health ...

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 Allen B. Roberts, Stuart M. Gerson, Frank C. Morris, Jr., and Michael J. Slocum

Our previous postings have noted the progression of decisions during the past two years by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) that have liberally expanded substantive provisions of whistleblower statutes under its jurisdiction. Now, the ARB has enabled whistleblowers to maintain their administrative complaints and survive dismissal in circumstances where recital of the factual bases of their claims would be fatally deficient if filed in federal ...

by Frank C. Morris, Jr.

Two recent decisions involving Netflix again raise the question of whether all online business activities are covered by the public accommodation requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") or whether a "bricks and mortar" presence is required to invoke ADA protections. In late June, in National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Judge Ponson of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts denied Netflix's motion for judgment on the pleadings that challenged the application of the ADA to its video streaming website. The court found ...

by William J. Milani, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Dean L. Silverberg, Steven M. Swirsky, and Jennifer A. Goldman

In a move that signals a trend to employers, the Acting General Counsel ("AGC") of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") recently claimed in two unrelated cases that allegedly overly broad "employment-at-will" disclaimers contained in employee handbooks have the effect of chilling or interfering with employees' exercise of their right under the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") to engage in protected concerted activity. As we previously discussed in ...

By:  Bill Milani, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Dean Silverberg,  Steve Swirsky, and Jennifer Goldman

EBG has prepared an Act Now Advisory on the NLRB’s recent stance on employment-at-will disclaimers, which are generally incorporated in employee handbooks. Two recent claims filed before the National Labor Relations Board in Arizona alleged that language used in employers handbooks regarding at-will employment (and how that arrangement could not be changed) were overly broad and could therefore chill employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

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.