FLASH REPORTS
Flash: Norcal Lost its Only BOI Investigator
Flash: Historic Decision about Lead
ARTICLES
Cal/OSHA Adopting E-Reporting Rules
Golden Gate Recognition
Steve Johnson: Keeping Workers Safe is Motivation for this Safety Manager
Cal/OSHA’s Publishes Workplace Violence Prevention Model
Workplace Fatality Update
A Law for Heat Illness Training?
Appeals Court Rules on Foot Protection Case
Fatalities: Citations Issued, Lessons Learned About these Workplace Tragedies
CASES
BMC WEST LLC
49 COR 40-8789 [23,279]
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(1) and (a)(4) and (b)(2) –
The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to establish an effective IIPP with all required elements. The IIPP failed to identify the person with authority and responsibility for implementing the Program. It lacked procedures for identifying hazards when the program was first established. Trainings were not appropriately documented as required.
HEAT INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (HIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(i) – The proffered evidence showed that Employer failed to establish an effective Heat Illness Prevention Plan.
SAFE OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3650(t)(11) – Employer failed to ensure that a powered industrial truck was operated in a safe manner in accordance with applicable operating rules.
DEFENSES –
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD):
Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD, the defense failed.
NEWBERY DEFENSE:
Employer knew or should have known of the potential danger to employees caused by the unsafe forklift driver. The evidence showed that the Employer failed to exercise adequate supervision to ensure safety. Violations of the requirements were foreseeable. All four elements of the defense existed. Employer did not meet its burden.
SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) –
Failure to take all the steps that a reasonable and responsible Employer should to control the forklift travel and avoid collisions, supported a finding that the Employer did not rebut the Serious classification.
ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
All citations were affirmed, and the associated penalties were assessed.
Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated February 16, 2024, Inspection No. 1399613.
KPRS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
49 COR 40-8785 [¶23,278]
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(4) and (a)(6) – The Division failed to prove that Employer did not implement, and maintain an effective IIPP.
FLOOR, ROOF AND SKYLIGHT OPENINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1632(b)(1) – The evidence presented showed that the roof access opening was not guarded. The cover over the opening was not secure.
FLOOR, ROOF AND SKYLIGHT OPENINGS–
Employer, a controlling employer, demonstrated that it was relieved of liability as it met the factors of the due diligence defense.
Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated January 12, 2024, Inspection No 1371294.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT DBA BARRY J NIDORF JUVENILE HALL
49 COR 40-8782 [23,277]
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(6) – The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP and failed to train employees on new hazards of workplace violence.
ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
One citation was affirmed and the associated penalty was modified and assessed.
Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated January 25, 2024, Inspection No. 1415736 (Sylmar, CA)
S.C. ANDERSON, INC.
49 COR 40-8781 [¶23,276R]
ROOF OPENINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1632(b)(3) – Employer violated the safety order by failing to ensure that roof openings were guarded by either temporary railings and toeboards or covers capable of supporting the greater of 400 pounds or twice the weight of the employees, equipment and materials. Such covers are to be secured against accidental removal or displacement and contain specific legible markings.
MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10(c) – Employer was responsible through actual practice, for safety and health conditions at the worksite and had the authority to ensure that hazardous conditions were corrected (controlling employer).
Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated January 30, 2024, Inspection No. 1405107.
BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.
49 COR 40-8777 [¶23,275]
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) –
The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to effectively train employees to recognize, understand and avoid the hazards of an unloaded crane.
CONTROL OF CRANE TRAVEL – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1616.1(t)(1) –
The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer did not effectively control the travel of crane resulting in the crane colliding with a stationary crane.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD): Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD, the defense failed.
NEWBERY DEFENSE: Employer knew or should have known of the potential danger to employees caused by the crane’s travel. The evidence showed that the Employer failed to exercise adequate supervision to ensure safety. The Employer’s efforts to ensure employee compliance with its safety rules were insufficient. Violations of the requirements were foreseeable. All four elements of the defense existed. Employer did not meet its burden.
SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) –
Failure to take all the steps that a reasonable and responsible employer should to control the Crane’s travel and avoid collisions, supports a finding that the employer did not rebut the Serious classification.
ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Two citations were affirmed and the penalties were assessed.
Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated December 29, 2023, Inspection No. 1466722 (Inglewood, CA)
T&R AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
49 COR 40-8775 [¶23,274R]
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – JURISDICTION – Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over Employer’s untimely petition for reconsideration.
Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated November 8, 2023, Inspection No. 1565033.
99 CENTS ONLY STORES, LLC #383
49 COR 40-8769 [¶23,272R]
FOOT PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3385(a) – Employer violated the safety order by failing to require appropriate foot protection for employees exposed to foot injuries from falling objects, crushing and penetrating hazards.
Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated Nov 8, 2023, Inspection No. 1314092.
CALVARY CHAPEL OF SAN JOSE
49 COR 40-8771 [¶23,273R]
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE –
The Appeals Board has the authority to review an inspection warrant issued by the Superior Court Judge. The Appeals Board found that the ALJ had jurisdiction to rule on the Motion and properly granted it after determining the warrant had been issued without probable cause. Further, the ALJ’s Order properly excluded the evidence obtained from the Division’s site inspection.
Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration and Order of Remand dated November 2, 2023, Inspection No. 1564732.