Cal/OSHA issues citations to 11 employers for allegedly failing to protect workers from COVID exposures. Here's who they are.

An employee sues the online giant over conditions at its San Francisco grocery warehouse related to COVID-19. Here's why the judge says a restraining order is not warranted.

Outraged Employers think they are being taken advantaged of – or at best ignored by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board. When this emergency regulation end up being heard and is unfairness afoot? A Must read Story click here …

Cal/OSHA's latest investigations include seven new workplace cases of COVID.

Cal/OSHA is now working on its second emergency standard in as many years. Here's how the process works and how you can be part of the discussion.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board split the baby, so to speak, on a Northern California woman's petition to address mold exposure from water-damaged buildings. Click here to see what the decision was and Cal/OSHA's reasoning.

Cal/OSHA is simultaneously trying to get a handle on the COVID crisis and rebuild its ranks. It addressed both issues before a state Senate panel, including whether it needs even more authority.

Prosecutorial referrals from Cal/OSHA reached a low in 2019, largely due to resource issues. Here are the cases that made it to the district attorney level.

The latest workplace fatality tally includes multiple COVID deaths at two California sites.

Fed-OSHA says portions of Cal/OSHA's proposed regulations on technical diving aren't equal to federal standards. But the Standards Board has pushed back. Here's why, and what happens next.

47 COR 40-8341 [¶23,072R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Labor Code § 6614(a) (2020) – 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 October 2, 2020, Inspection No. 1328184.

 

47 COR 40-8337 [¶23,071R]

SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION, PERSONAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SAFEGUARDS – FOOT PROTECTION
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3385(a) (2020) – Employer had a program that provided most employees with effective protection from exposure to the hazard of foot injuries. However, some employees remained exposed to possible foot injuries during the process of loading and unloading items from industrial vehicles. Employer failed to provide those employees with required foot protection. The Appeals Board reinstated a citation that the ALJ had vacated, but reclassified the violation from serious to general.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 17, 2020, Inspection No. 1251604.

47 COR 40-8337 [¶23,070R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Labor Code § 6614(a) (2020) – 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 September 8, 2020, Inspection No. 1322702.

 

47 COR 40-8335 [¶23,069]

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS – HAULAGE AND EARTH MOVING, WARNING METHODS
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 1592(e) (2020) – Employer failed to implement sufficient controls for hauling operations to ensure vehicle operators knew of the presence of workers on foot in the area of operation, a serious, accident-related violation.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated August 5, 2020, Inspection No. 1290383 (San Jose, CA).

47 COR 40-8331 [¶23,067]

SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION, PERSONAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SAFEGUARDS – HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3395(f)(2) (2020) – Employer failed to implement its emergency procedures when a new employee exhibited signs of possible heat illness, a serious violation.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated August 3, 2020, Inspection No. 1332715 (Delano, CA).

47 COR 40-8329 [¶23,066R]

ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS, LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS – REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS, IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT, MOTORS AND APPLIANCES
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 2340.22(a) (2020) – The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to label electrical panels, a general violation.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS, LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS – CONDUCTORS ENTERING BOXES, CABINETS, OR FITTINGS, UNUSED OPENINGS IN CABINETS, BOXES, AND FITTINGS EFFECTIVELY CLOSED
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 2473.1(b) (2020) – The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to close unused openings in electrical panels, a general violation.

POINTS OF OPERATION AND OTHER HAZARDOUS PARTS OF MACHINERY, FOOD AND TOBACCO MACHINERY, GARBAGE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 4559(a) (2020) – Reversing the ALJ’s finding, the Appeals Board concluded the Division did not prove Employer failed to use any of the alternative means of compliance permitted in the safety order. Thus, it did not establish that Employer failed to adequately guard the feed throat of a sink-mounted disposal unit.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 7, 2020, Inspection No. 1300039.

 

47 COR 40-8327 [¶23,065]

JURISDICTION – FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations governing a pressure test procedure for aircraft engines preempted application of the lockout/tagout provisions of §3314. The safety order could not be enforced without impairing the FAA’s acknowledged supremacy in the area of inflight safety.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated July 15, 2020, Inspection No. 1356645 (Lancaster, CA).

47 COR 40-8323 [¶23,063]

GENERAL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURES ORDERS, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS – FLOOR OPENINGS, FLOOR HOLES, SKYLIGHTS AND ROOFS
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3212(a)(2)(A) (2020) – The Division failed to establish Employer violated the safety order with respect to any one of the four platforms that were the subject of the citations.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated July 13, 2020, Inspection No. 1303461 (Oakland, CA).