Browsing articles in "News"

Opposition to OROSHA Penalty Increase Rules Grows

Dec 21, 2011   //   by Ryan Hopman   //   News, Oregon  //  Comments Off

The Oregon Self Insurers Association files opposition to OROSHA’s proposed rule changes.   OSIA’s membership includes certified self-insurers/employers, large-deductible insurereds /employers, and persons, firms, and organizations associated with its members.

OR-OSHA v. Moore Excavation

Sep 28, 2011   //   by Ryan Hopman   //   News, Oregon  //  Comments Off
WCB # 08-00169SH (7/28/11) – OR-OSHA cited employer for failure to tag and remove a damaged ladder from the worksite. At hearing, OR-OSHA argued that the “employee exposure” element of its burden of proof was satisfied with evidence that the ladder “could possibly” be used. The Administrative Law Judge rejected OR-OSHA’s argument. HELD: A violation would be established if it were reasonably predictable that, as a result of the employer’s failure to tag and/or withdraw from service the defective ladder, an employee would attempt to use the damaged ladder. No such evidence was offered. Citation and Notification of Penalty vacated. OR-OSHA has appealed the matter to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

WISHA Litigation – Repeat Violations

Sep 28, 2011   //   by Ryan Hopman   //   News, Washington  //  Comments Off

On June 1, 2006, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a significant decision concerning WISHA’s burden of proof to cite for a “repeated” violation as well as an Employer’s ability to recover attorney fees in WISHA litigation. The case involved fall protection violations of Cobra Roofing Services, Inc (“Cobra”). A number of construction industry groups, including AGC and ABC, filed supplemental briefs in the case.

The issues were: (1) whether Cobra Roofing’s fall protection citation was properly classified as a “repeat” violation and, therefore enhanced penalties were appropriate? and (2) whether attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) are available in proceedings before the Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, Superior Courts, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Read more >>

OR-OSHA – Legislative Update

Sep 28, 2011   //   by Ryan Hopman   //   News, Oregon  //  Comments Off

HB 2222 

  • Signed by Governor June 18, 2007
  • Amends ORS 654.176 and 654.182.
  • Effective January 1, 2008

All public and private employers, regardless of size, must now have a safety committee or hold safety meetings. Employers of ten or fewer employees used to be exempt unless certain criteria were found by the Director of DCBS. Now, if an employer is agricultural, classified as “small”, or has mobile work sites, rules must be adopted to meet their special needs and providing for alternate forms of safety committees and meetings. “Small” no longer appears to be defined by statute and is left to rule-making. Read more >>

Federal OSHA – Multi-Employer Work Sites

Sep 28, 2011   //   by Ryan Hopman   //   Federal, News  //  Comments Off

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Commission has issued the long anticipated decision in the Summit Contractors case. At issue was the Federal OSHA’s application of the multi-employer worksite citation policy. The essential facts in the case were as follows:

  • Summit is a general building contractor.
  • Summit had 4 employees (1 Supervisor; 3 Asst. Supers) on the site in question.
  • They were responsible for coordination; scheduling; work quality.
  • Summit subcontracted the exterior brick masonry work to a subcontractor.
  • An OSHA Safety Compliance Officer observed subcontractor employees working on scaffolds 12-18 feet above the ground without guardrails.
  • Summit’s Supervisor previously observed the subcontractor’s employees working on scaffolds that lacked guardrails.
  • Summit’s Supervisor instructed the subcontractor to install guardrails 2 or 3 times. Each time they would be installed but as the work moved the issue would reoccur.
  • OSHA cited the subcontractor. More importantly OSHA cited Summit as the “controlling employer” under their multi-employer worksite policy. Read more >>