Why did the Cal/OSHA Standards Board overrule its staff on a petition to develop an emergency regulation on silica exposures in the engineered stone industry? And what happens next? Click here to find out.

Following a mass shooting at two San Mateo County mushroom farms, Cal/OSHA cites the employers for various violations. Here’s what the agency alleges.

An employee dies, Cal/OSHA cites, and now an in-depth investigation has resulted in recommendations to prevent similar tragedies. It’s a lesson in automation safety.

Fed-OSHA has awarded almost $13 million in Susan Harwood Training Grants. Here are the California organizations who are part of this program for the coming year.

Three bills of interest to California’s occupational safety and health community have been approved by the state legislature and are awaiting action by the governor. Here are what they would do.

Cal/OSHA has cited several employers regarding fatalities. Here are the results of these investigations and what penalties the employers face.

Here are the latest fatal incidents from around California workplaces.

Wildland firefighters experienced an elevated risk of cancer from prolonged exposure to smoke. Now, an effort spearheaded by Cal/OSHA and including the firefighter community hopes to design a respirator that works under field conditions. Learn about the recent field testing by clicking here.

How many industries will be targeted by Cal/OSHA’s High Hazard Unit this year. Click here to see the latest list used for enforcement and consultation efforts.

Here are the latest reported fatal workplace incidents from around California.

 49 COR 40-8719 [¶23,258]

TIMELY REPORT OF A SERIOUS INJURY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342 (a)  – The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to establish that Employer failed to timely report a serious injury.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS –
Labor Code §6317 – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to establish that the citation was issued within six months of the time it discovered the violation.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated August 8, 2023, Inspection No. 1491229 (Sylmar, CA)

 

49 COR 40-8717 [¶23,257R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Labor Code §6614(a) – Employer failed to file its petition for reconsideration within 30 days of service of the final order dismissing the appeal. As a result, the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 28, 2023, Inspection No. 1600527.

 

49 COR 40-8711 [¶23,256]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509 (a)  – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to establish that Employer failed to effectively enforce its IIPP to the extent that the supervisor failed to adhere to Employer’s own safety policies.

Cleaning, Servicing and Adjusting Operations –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(a) –  The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to establish the applicability of §3314(a) and further, that actual unexpected energization or start-up was not required for §3314(a) to apply.
The evidence proffered by the Division established that Employer violated §3314(c) by failing to stop or de-energize or prevent inadvertent movement or release of stored energy during a cleaning or adjusting operation.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD) –
Employer established three elements of the IEAD, demonstrating that the employee was experienced in the job performed, that it had a well-designed safety program and that it had a policy of sanctions which it enforced.  Because all five elements of the IEAD had to be proved, the defense failed.

NEWBERY DEFENSE –
The evidence showed the violation was foreseeable.  Employer failed to exercise supervision adequate to ensure safety.  Employer’s efforts to ensure employee compliance with its safety rules were insufficient.  Employer did not meet its burden.

SERIOUS VIOLATION –  REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION
Labor Code §6432(c) – Failure to take all the steps a reasonable and responsible employer in like circumstances should be expected to take, before the violation occurred, supported a finding that Employer did not rebut the Serious classification.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES
Citation 1 and Citation 3 were affirmed, including a classification of Serious for Citation 3, and an adjusted penalty of $950 was assessed.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated July 21, 2023, Inspection No. 1420923 (Davis, CA)

49 COR 40-8711 [¶23,255R]

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Remand from Superior Court dated August 16, 2023, Inspection No. 1320327.

 

49 COR 40-8709 [¶23,254R]

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD – Independent Employee Act Defense (IEAD)
IEAD is an affirmative defense that requires the employer to prove five elements.   Employer failed to establish the IEAD with respect to a citation issued for failure to maintain the rod tongs in safe operating condition while in use.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Remand from Superior Court dated August 14, 2023, Inspection No 1004280.

49 COR 40-8707 [¶23,253R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359(d) – An appeal is timely if the intent to appeal is mailed to or received by the Appeals Board within 15 working days of the date the citation is received by the cited employer. The time for filing any appeal may be extended or a late filing permitted upon a written showing of good cause that contains sufficient facts to show or establish a reasonable basis for the late filing.

Labor Code §§ 6600, 6601– The 15-day period may be extended by the appeals board for good cause. Employer failed to demonstrate good cause for its late appeal of Citation 1, Items 1 and 2.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated      August 11, 2023, Inspection No. 1538332.

 49 COR 4-08705 [¶23,252]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) – EFFECTIVE TRAINING
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, § 3203(a)(7) –  Evidence at the hearing established that Employer failed to effectively train and instruct the employee on the use of the Shark pressure washer.

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ADJUSTMENT
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, § 3328(a)(2) – Evidence at the hearing established that Employer allowed the Shark pressure washer to be operated under a condition of stress contrary to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated July 18, 2023, Inspection No. 1465119 (San Diego, CA)

49 COR 40-8703 [¶23,251R]

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE REASSIGNMENT
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 375.2(b) provides that a party wishing to object to the assignment of any proceeding to a particular Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Government Code section 11425.40, shall, at least 5 working days prior to the scheduled hearing, file with the Appeals Board or ALJ a motion to disqualify the assigned ALJ together with supporting affidavit or declaration.

Labor Code section 6606, states the parties may object to an ALJ assignment “upon any one or more grounds specified in Section 641 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” and the Appeals Board must hear and dispose of such objections. Code of Civil Procedure section 641 authorizes the parties to object to an ALJ assignment on seven different bases.

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 375.1(c) grants the Board authority to transfer a case to another ALJ as long as “no oral testimony has been received.”  Good cause need not be demonstrated by the parties or the Appeals Board for the transfer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration and Order of Remand dated August 2, 2023, Inspection No 1360156.