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.

California injuries and illnesses increased significantly in 2022. Here is the latest data from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses and what drove the rise.

Employers are concerned about Cal/OSHA’s proposed indoor heat prevention standard. Here’s what they have to say ahead of a late November deadline on proposed revisions to the much-anticipated standard.

Here are the latest fatal incidents from California workplace in recent days.

Cal/OSHA is moving closer to an indoor heat illness prevention standard, after years of delay. Here are the latest changes to the proposal and how you can weigh in to the Standards Board.

Mining has many hazards. Here are some companies who doing things right, as recently honored by the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association.

Cal/OSHA and employers have resolved several fatality cases from recent years. Here’s how these cases settled out.

This week’s fatality roundup includes three deadly falls.

The hard hat has been a fundamental personal protective equipment for over a century. But safety helmets are starting to become the head protection of choice. Here’s why and how some contractors came to that decision.

49 COR 40-8759 [23,270]

RESPIRATOR USE – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5199(g)(4)(b) –
The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer failed to ensure that employees used a respirator when the employees performed procedures or services for an airborne infectious disease (AirID) case or suspected case.

AMENDMENT OF CITATION – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §371.2 –
The Division’s citation amendment to allege alternate theories of liability was permitted.  Employer failed to show prejudice.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION – Labor Code §6432(c) –
Employer did not rebut the Serious classification.  Employer knew or should have known by the plain language of the safety order that it was required to use airborne precautions to protect its employees.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The citation was affirmed, and the proposed penalty was assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated October 9, 2023, Inspection No. 1475491 (Berkeley, CA)

49 COR 40-8753 [23,269]

CONSENT TO INSPECTION – Labor Code §6307–
The evidence established that Employer’s representative had apparent authority to consent to the inspection and did so.  The Division’s inspection was lawful.
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a) and (b)(1) and (2) –
The evidence established the Employer failed to keep records of scheduled and periodic inspections.
The evidence failed to establish that Employer did not have a written IIPP.

CAL/OSHA FORM 300 LOGS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §14300.31(a) –
The evidence was insufficient to establish that Employer failed to document recordable injuries on the 300 logs. 

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –  Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(b) –
The evidence proffered by the Division, was insufficient to show that Employer did not have a written Code of Safe Practices at the time of the inspection.

TOOLBOX OR TAILGATE MEETINGS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(e) –
 The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show that Employer did not conduct tailgate safety meetings every 10 days.

APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSONNEL – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer did not have appropriately trained persons to render first aid at the jobsite.

COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM (CPP) – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3205(c)–
The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show that Employer did not have a written CPP during the inspection.

HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN (HIPP) – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3395(c) and (i) –
The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show that Employer did not provide drinking water to employees.
The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show that Employer did not have a HIPP during the inspection.

WRITTEN RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM and RESPIRATOR MEDICAL EVALUATION and FIT TESTING – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§5144(c)(1), (e)(1) and (f)(2) –
The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show there was a hazard requiring the use of respirators or that an employee had voluntarily done so.
The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show there was employee exposure to a hazard that an ill-fitting mask may have posed.
The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to show employer did not have a written RPP  or that employees were at risk of any harmful exposure during the relevant period.

IDENTIFY, EVALUATE and CORRECT WORKPLACE HAZARDS  – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(4) and (a)(6) –
The Division proffered insufficient evidence to show that Employer regularly engaged in the practice of violating a regulation and thus, Employer did not fail to identify and evaluate the hazard.
The evidence established that Employer failed to correct a workplace hazard.

LEAD EXPOSURE – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1532.1(d)(1)(A) –
The evidence proffered by Employer showed it performed lead testing to determine employee exposure.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION – Labor Code §6432(c) –
Failure to formally train the employee as to how to secure and balance a load before moving the load supports a finding that the employer did not rebut the Serious classification.

SERIOUS INJURY – ACCIDENT RELATED – Labor Code §6432(c) –
The Citation was properly characterized as Serious Accident-Related after review of the facts of the violation.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
 Three citations were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated September 29, 2023, Inspection No. 1568252 (Piedmont, CA)

49 COR 40-875 [¶23268R]

JURISDICTION – GOOD CAUSE
Labor Code §6601 – Good Cause is a substantial reason; one that affords a legal excuse.  The Appeals Board found good cause for filing of the late appeal and reinstated Employer’s appeal.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated October 6, 2023, Inspection No. 1652414.

 

49 COR 40-8745 [23,267]

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
 Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1510(a) – The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer did not have a written Code of Safe Practices at the time of the accident.  Employer failed to provide instruction to employees regarding the hazards and safety precautions applicable to the work being performed.

CRANES AND OTHER HOISTING EQUIPMENT – HANDLING LOADS
 Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4999(a) – The evidence proffered by the Division showed the Employer failed to ensure the rigging operation was performed by a qualified person or by a trainee under the direct visual supervision of a qualified person.

CRANES AND OTHER HOISTING EQUIPMENT – SLINGS, SAFE OPERATING PRACTICES, EMPLOYEES KEPT CLEAR OF LOADS ABOUT TO BE LIFTED AND OF SUSPENDED LOADS
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5042(a)(10) – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer failed to ensure that an employee’s hands or fingers were not placed between the sling and its load while the sling was being tightened around the load.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION
 Labor Code §6432(c) – Failure to formally train the employee as to how to secure and balance a load before moving the load supports a finding that the employer did not rebut the Serious classification.

SERIOUS INJURY – ACCIDENT RELATED
 Labor Code §6432(c) – The Citation was properly characterized as Serious Accident-Related after review of the facts of the violation.

EMPLOYER DEFENSES – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION
 Employer failed to meet all five elements of the defense.

NEWBERY DEFENSE
Employer failed to demonstrate the violation was, among other criteria, unforeseeable.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES
Three citations were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated September 19, 2023, Inspection No. 1409863 (Bakersfield, CA)

49 COR 40-8739 [23,266]

REPORT OF SERIOUS INJURY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342(a) – The evidence proffered by the Division, showed Employer failed to report the serious injury to the Division.

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) – Implementation of IIPP –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(2) – The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer failed to ensure compliance with safe and healthy work practices as an employee was operating equipment, in an improper manner, without utilizing protective equipment designated by Employer.

HEAD PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3381(a)  – The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer railed to require head protection when there was a danger of falling or flying objects.

 SECURE and BALANCE LOAD –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4999(d)(2) – The evidence proffered by the Division showed the Employer failed to ensure that a load was well secured and properly balanced in a sling or lifting device before it was lifted more than a few inches.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Two citations (four violations) were affirmed and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated September 8, 2023, Inspection No. 1497263 (Torrance, CA)

49 COR 40-8733 [¶23,264R]

HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (HIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3395(h) and (i) – The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s finding that Employer’s HIPP did not have all necessary elements related to the provision of water, access to shade, emergency response and acclimatization. Further, Employer failed to provide its employees all required training regarding the contents of the HIPP. 

FLOOR OPENING – SECURED AND PROPERLY MARKED
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1632(b)(3) – The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to ensure the cover over the opening was marked as required by the safety order.

MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITES – CONTROLLING EMPLOYER, DUE DILIGENCE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10 – Employer failed to establish the due diligence defense.  The Appeals Board affirmed the decision of the ALJ.

 

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 26, 2023, Inspection No. 1340561.

 

49 COR 40-8735 [23,265]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Maintain records – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(b)(2)   – The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer failed to maintain documentation of safety and health training for each employee.

Implementation of IIPP – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4) –
The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer failed to conduct scheduled and periodic inspection of the secondary employer’s work site as required by its IIPP.

DUAL EMPLOYER –
The Division proffered evidence that Appellant had the right to control and direct the activities of the employee.  It was established that the Appellant was an Employer.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES – Two citations were affirmed.  The penalties were modified.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated September 19, 2023, Inspection No. 1330829 (Carlsbad, CA)

 49 COR 40-8729 [¶23,263]

CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY FOR CLEANING, REPAIRING, SERVICING, SETTING-UP, AND ADJUSTING OPERATIONS OF PRIME MOVERS, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING LOCKOUT/TAGOUT –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c) – Employer failed to de-energize a power source during cleaning operations.  causing an employee to be injured. A serious, accident-related violation.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(g) – Employer failed to develop and utilize machine specific hazardous energy control procedures to prevent inadvertent movement during cleaning operations.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD)
Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES
The Citations, including a classification of one violation as Serious-Accident Related due to a serious injury, were affirmed and associated penalties of $33,300 were assessed.

Summary of OSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated August 17, 2023, Inspection No. 1398352 (Van Nuys, CA)