Workforce Bulletin

Although OSHA’s new reporting rule has been in effect for almost seven months now, it has caused some major changes in the way that OSHA operates.  Since the new reporting rule went into effect on January 1, 2015, OSHA has received more than 5,000 reports of work-related deaths, inpatient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye.  As OSHA anticipated, compliance with the rule has focused the agency’s attention on industries and hazards that it had not focused on before.  For example, because of the unexpectedly high number of reports of amputations from supermarkets ...

By:  Kara Maciel, Adam Solander and Lindsay Smith

As the Employer Mandate compliance deadline looms for employers under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and employers are closely monitoring employee hours, it is critical that employers take appropriate and lawful steps to record all hours worked by an employee.  If employers try to play games and manipulate how time records are maintained, they could find themselves in hot water under both the ACA and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

In what appears to be one of the first lawsuits challenging how hours are recorded under the ACA, an employee filed a putative collective action against Sun Holdings, LLC, a fast food franchisee.  The employee, a busboy at a Golden Corral restaurant, alleged that his managers required him to work under his real name and an alter ego to avoid paying him for all hours worked.  This set-up allegedly was designed to avoid having to pay overtime compensation under the FLSA and to count him as a full-time employee eligible to receive health benefits under the ACA.   

Accurate calculation and recording of the total number of hours worked by an employee is essential to compliance with the provisions of both the FLSA and the ACA.  Under the FLSA, an employer must pay an employee at least the minimum wage for all hours worked.  An employer must also provide overtime compensation at one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, unless that employee is classified as exempt.  Therefore, if an employer attributes some amount of time worked by one employee to an alter ego through which the employee cannot claim his time, the employee may be deprived of the overtime compensation he has earned.

Additionally, the ACA only provides benefits to employees who reach a certain amount of hours and binds employers with a certain amount of employees meeting that hour threshold.  The ACA applies to employers with 50 or more employees working 30 or more hours per week.  Only those employees working 30 hours or more per week are entitled to the health care coverage required by the ACA.  Therefore, an employee may lose the benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled if a portion of his hours worked is attributed to someone else, causing him to fall below the 30-hour minimum.  Furthermore, an employer may avoid the obligations of the ACA if it records 30 hours or more of work time for less than 50 of its employees. Although the Employer Mandate, which puts the employer-provided coverage into effect, does not kick in for large employers until January 1, 2015, applicability of the ACA depends upon the size of the affected workforce during the prior calendar year.      

A claim of this kind could be very costly for an employer because, as is the case here, such claims are often brought as collective actions.  In this case, the employee filed his claim on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.  Although the amount of unpaid wages and liquidated damages he seeks only amounts to approximately $15,000.00, the franchisee owns roughly 400 restaurants in Texas and Florida.  Thus, a court award, or even a settlement, could be quite significant.

These allegations demonstrate the importance of correctly tracking employee hours and ensuring that an employee receives compensation and benefits in accordance with the total amount of hours worked.  Often times, this may mean training your managers as to the correct protocol for recording and compensating hours worked and monitoring to ensure managers are following that protocol. 

Importantly, this case forecasts what could be an emerging and growing area of litigation under the ACA, so employers must be ever vigilant about putting into practice protocols that ensure they are complying with the ACA and not manipulating hours to avoid the Employer Mandate’s requirements.  Considering that an analysis under the Employer Mandate’s look-back methodologies should be done this year, any changes to employees’ hours should be closely reviewed with legal counsel.  Although overtime compensation and benefits coverage can create increased financial burdens on employers, the cost of not complying can be even greater. 

As the clock ticked down and the apple dropped to start a new year, many of us reflected on the year that had passed and our resolutions and New Year's wishes for the upcoming year.  Probably not many of you were thinking about your resolutions and New Year's wishes as they related to everybody's favorite regulatory agency, OSHA, so let us do that for you.  Here are three New Year’s wishes about OSHA enforcement that the national OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green hopes to see come true in 2014 for our clients and friends in Industry:

1.      We wish for OSHA to drop or amend its proposed changes to the Injury & Illness Recordkeeping rule.

Late last year, OSHA proposed some major changes to its Injury and Illness Recordkeeping regulations. The proposed rule would transform the current Recordkeeping framework in which employers’ records of workplace injuries remained private to the employer unless: (i) OSHA requests them during an inspection at the workplace; or (ii) the employer receives a rare request for the recordkeeping data from OSHA or the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a special survey.  Under the proposed rule, employers’ injury and illness data will become an open book, requiring the collection of larger amounts of data on work-related injuries and illnesses, as well as making much of that information public.  Here are the major provisions of the proposed rule:

• Requirements for Large Employers: The new rule will require employers with 250 or more workers to submit to OSHA every quarter the individual entries on their OSHA 300 Logs and the information entered on each OSHA 301 Incident Report.  OSHA would then post the data on its public website after redacting only injured employees’ identifying      information.
• Requirements for Small Employers: The proposed rule would also require employers with 20 or more workers in designated industries to submit information electronically from their 300A Annual Summary forms to OSHA, which OSHA also intends to publicize.

We anticipate that the new reporting requirements and publication of employers’ injury records will significantly increase the burden on employers, both in man hours and cost, and will trigger significant unexpected implications for the regulated community, including: (i) extraordinary burden on employers to comply; (ii) more inspections and citations by OSHA; (iii) discourage employers from recording all recordable injuries; (iv) invasion of injured employees’ privacy; and (v) harm to employers’ reputations.  The public perception of certain employers may be skewed because this reported information would be publicized. Specifically, under the proposed rule, OSHA would only make public the basic data provided in injury and illness recording forms.  The public, therefore, could take the injury and illness data out of context, as the public would not be privy to the details behind injuries, safety measures employers adopt, how the data compares to industry averages, or any other relevant information related to the circumstances of the injury or illness.  For more information about the proposed rule and its potential impacts, check out our article from last month.

Our New Year’s wish for the regulated community is that this rule not be implemented, or at least for the “publication” element of the rule to be stricken.  OSHA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule as written and several alternatives published in the Federal Register. Considering the extensive impact the proposed rule will have on employers, industry participation in the comment stage of the rulemaking process, especially with the help of experienced OSHA counsel, will be essential in driving fundamental and necessary revisions to the proposed rule.

2.      We wish for OSHA to change the way it implements the Severe Violator Enforcement Program to respect Constitutional Due Process.

As one would expect for a program designed for recidivists, the punitive elements of OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”) are significant, including: (a) inflammatory public press releases branding employers as a “severe violators”; (b) adding employers’ names to a public log of Severe Violators; (c) mandatory follow-up inspections at the cited facilities; (d) numerous inspections (up to ten) at sister facilities within the same corporate enterprise; and (e) enhanced terms in settlements (such as corporate-wide abatement, requiring third party audits, etc.).

Our major frustration with the SVEP is not with the severity of the consequences, it is with the timing in which employers are “qualified” into the Program.  As OSHA currently implements the SVEP, employers are qualified into SVEP before final disposition of the underlying citations.  In other words, employers begin to face the 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.  We have written extensively about the SVEP here on the OSHA Law Update Blog.  For more information, check out any of these articles.

Our New Year’s wish that OSHA amend the Severe Violator Enforcement Program to delay qualifying employers into the Program until the underlying qualifying citations become a Final Order of the OSH Review Commission.  In the alternative, we wish for a Court to evaluate and strike down the Constitutionality of this element of SVEP.

3.      We wish for OSHA to revisit its unlawful interpretation regarding participation in OSHA inspections by union representatives at non-union worksites.

Last year, OSHA issued a formal Interpretation Letter of its regulation governing who may participate in OSHA walkaround inspections (29 C.F.R. 1903.8(c) – Representatives of Employers and Employees).

Last month, we published an article about OSHA’s proposed new Injury and Illness Recordkeeping and Reporting rule that would create a minefield for hundreds of thousands of employers nationwide.  In a January 6, 2014 press release, OSHA announced that it would extend the comment period for this proposed rule by 30 days in response to a request from the National Association of Home Builders (“NAHB”).  NAHB made the request because the rulemaking overlaps with the proposed crystalline silica rulemaking and it needed more time to disseminate the relevant information to its members and coordinate responses.  March 8, 2014 is now the deadline by which all interested parties must submit comments

on the injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting rule, replacing the original deadline of February 8, 2014.  For planning purposes, note that the new comment deadline is on a Saturday (likely because OSHA was looking at a 2013 calendar when setting it).

OSHA’s proposed rule lays out several major changes, including requiring employers to electronically submit to OSHA their injury and illness records, whereas the current rule require employers to maintain these records internally, and to share them only in very limited circumstances.  That is hardly the most troublesome element of the proposed new rule, however.  OSHA also intends now to broadcast the injury and illness information on a public website, for no legitimate safety reason.  Indeed, OSHA has no reason to advertise employers’ injury and illness information other than for public shaming.  Employers, therefore, are rightfully concerned about the rule.

Employers and trade associations have expressed a host of different concerns about the proposal to publicize injury and illness records:

1. Employers fear that publicized injury and illness records will be mischaracterized, and employers’ public perceptions will be unjustly skewed.  Without context as to how the injuries actually occurred and what safety measures the employer had implemented to prevent workplace injuries, the public could jump to incorrect and harmful conclusions about the employer.
2. Unions will almost certainly use the out-of-context injury and illness information to mislead employees to facilitate organizing campaigns or to advance their interests in contract negotiations.
3. The publication of injury data will likely discourage some employers from recording all injuries and illnesses, driving the precise opposite result OSHA was hoping to achieve.
4. Publication of injury and illness records may also lead to disclosure of employers’ proprietary information as well as private health information of injured employees.
5. OSHA’s publication of injury and illness records deliberately places fault for all injuries upon the employer, despite the express understanding during the rulemaking for the original Recordkeeping rule that the act of recording workplace injuries should not create any implication of fault.  OSHA has recognized that many injuries and illnesses caused in the workplace are outside employers’ control.  This proposal to publish the injury information, however, implies that all recorded injuries were the fault of the employer, because OSHA’s sole motivation for publishing the information is to hold employers accountable in the eyes of the public.

Employers have also presented concerns about the cost and burden of actually submitting the injury and illness information to OSHA electronically, as set forth in the proposed rule.  The literature included with the proposed rule suggests that OSHA assumes a majority of employers already keep their injury and illness records electronically, so submission to OSHA should be doable without much extra time or expense.  Most employers, however, particularly small businesses, still keep injury records in hard copy.  Therefore, the time and expense to comply with the new rule will be far greater than predicted by OSHA, especially if the employer has 250 or more employees and, therefore, must submit records to OSHA four times every year.

Last month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) put out a press release announcing a proposed new rule that would significantly increase employers’ injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting responsibilities.  OSHA first submitted its proposal to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) two years ago, on November 22, 2011, but OIRA did not approve the proposed rule to advance through the rulemaking process until last month.

In essence, the proposed rule would transform the current Recordkeeping framework in which employers’ records of workplace injuries remained private to the employer unless: (i) OSHA requests them during an inspection at the workplace; or (ii) the employer receives a rare request for the recordkeeping data from OSHA or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) for survey purposes.

Under the proposed rule, employers’ injury and illness data will become an open book, requiring the collection of larger amounts of data on work-related injuries and illnesses, as well as making much of that information public.  Dr. David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, has expressed publicly that “[t]his is not an enforcement initiative,” but employers are rightfully concerned about the ramifications of this new proposed rule.

OSHA’s Current Reporting Practices

Currently, OSHA compels employers to report a workplace injury or illness to OSHA or to produce injury and illness recordkeeping data to OSHA or the BLS in only four circumstances:

1. the injury or illness results in death or the overnight hospitalization for more than observation of three or more employees;
2. the recordkeeping data (e.g., OSHA 300 logs, 300A Annual Summaries, or 301 incident reports) is requested or subpoenaed during an enforcement inspection by OSHA at the employer’s workplace;
3. the recordkeeping data is requested pursuant to OSHA’s Data Initiative Survey specific to certain industries with high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses; and
4. recordkeeping forms are requested by BLS for its Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, for which a select few representative employers are requested to participate each year.

In conjunction with the new rulemaking, OSHA claims that these four outlets for the Department of Labor to acquire injury and illness data are insufficient because the information is generally not collected timely, is too limited in scope, and is often not establishment-specific.  OSHA believes that the proposed rule, detailed below, would resolve these so-called insufficiencies.

Provisions of the Proposed Rule

OSHA’s new Recordkeeping rule proposal contains three major provisions:

1. Requirements for Large Employers (250+ Employees):  If implemented, the new rule will require employers who had 250 or more workers (including full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers) at peak employment during the prior calendar year to submit to OSHA every quarter the individual entries on their OSHA 300 Logs and the information entered on each OSHA 301 Incident Report.  OSHA would then post the data on its public website after redacting only injured employees’ identifying information.  Employers will submit this information through a secure website using direct data entry into a template form or by uploading electronic documents already maintained by the employer.  Approximately 38,000 private employers nationwide would be covered by this provision, and OSHA predicts the cost to each of these employers would be only approximately $183 per year.
2. Requirements for Small Employers (20+ Employees):  The proposed rule would also require employers with 20 or more workers in designated industries to submit information electronically from their 300A Annual Summary forms to OSHA, which OSHA also intends to publicize.  Employers will submit this information through the same secure website using direct data entry or through a batch file upload.  This portion of the proposed rule projects to impact approximately 441,000 employer establishments, and OSHA estimates the cost at only approximately $9 per employer per year.
3. Requirements for All Employers:  Under the proposed rule, any employer who receives notification of a request from OSHA must submit information from its injury and illness records (i.e., 300 Logs, 301 forms, and 300A Annual Summaries) for the time periods specified in OSHA’s notification.  This provision only requires submission after notification by OSHA.  Through this provision, OSHA intends to collect data specific to certain industries or hazards.

Dr. Michaels has stated that the information collected from employers through these three data-collection provisions will be used to help employers better identify and eliminate hazards, determine where OSHA’s consultation and educational resources should be focused, and direct inspection priorities.  OSHA has also suggested that the proposed rule imposes only a slight burden on employers, because those subject to the proposed rule are already required to record the information now being demanded for production.

We anticipate, however, that the new reporting requirements and publication of employers’ records as set forth in the proposed rule will significantly increase the burden on employers, both in man hours and cost, and will trigger significant unexpected implications for the regulated community.

Top 5 Impacts to Industry From the Proposed Recordkeeping Rule

1. Unforeseen (Grossly Underestimated) Costs of Compliance:  We are deeply concerned about the inaccuracy of OSHA’s cost estimates around this rule.  In addition to the burdensome steps outlined in the rule, the proposed rule will likely require employers to take additional steps outside of those described by OSHA to comply.  For instance,

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 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.

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 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 ...

By: Anna Kolontyrsky and Jeffrey Landes

As summer internship season approaches, financial service employers should confirm that their internship programs comply with all relevant laws, including the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and applicable state laws.  Ascribing the term “intern” to a college or postgraduate student working for an employer for a short duration during the summer months does not automatically exempt the employer from federal and state minimum wage and overtime requirements. Unless the position meets certain statutory and ...

By Eric J. Conn and Casey M. Cosentino

The last 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 injury that is the subject of the recordable case ...

by Amy J. Traub, Anna A. Cohen, and Jennifer A. Goldman

Effective April 3, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") extended its existing recordkeeping requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act to employers covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA"). The burden on employers to comply with the recordkeeping requirements under GINA will likely be minimal, as employers should already have recordkeeping policies in effect for personnel and other employment ...

by Amy J. Traub, Anna A. Cohen, and Jennifer A. Goldman

Effective April 3, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") extended its existing recordkeeping requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act to employers covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA"). The burden on employers to comply with the recordkeeping requirements under GINA will likely be minimal, as employers should already have recordkeeping policies in effect for personnel and other employment ...

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:  Amy Traub 

Following up on our previous blog posting from November 2, 2010, on December 16, 2010, the New York State Department of Labor issued a new minimum wage order (the “Order”) which will bring immediate changes to the restaurant and hotel industries. Under the Order, employees will be due a higher minimum wage and subject to new tip pooling rules. Meanwhile, employers will need to comply with more stringent recordkeeping requirements. Although employers have until February 28, 2011, to adjust their payrolls, they will still owe their employees back pay as of ...