49 COR 40-9017 [¶23,378R]
CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(f) The Division’s proffered evidence showed Employer failed to include adequate warnings regarding the safe use of the nail gun in its COSP. MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(b)(2) The Division’s proffered evidence showed the nail gun was not operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating instructions. TRAINING – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(g) The Division’s proffered evidence showed that Employer failed to train its employees on the safe use of the nail gun. SAFETY ORDER – VAGUE AND UNENFORCEABLE – The Appeals Board determined that safety order §1704(f) was not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous. Employer had adequate notice of the violation of the training requirement. CITATION NOTICE/PARTICULARITY – Labor Code §6317 The Appeals Board determined that the citation described with particularity the nature of the violation affording Employer due process. SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION – Labor Code §6432(a) – Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm. Employer did not rebut the presumption. ACCIDENT-RELATED CHARACTERIZATION – The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s determination that the Division demonstrated a causal nexus between the violation and serious injury for Citation 2. ABATEMENT – Employer did not demonstrate that the abatement requirements and timeframe for Citations 2 and 3 were unreasonable. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY – The citations were affirmed, with the Board’s adjustment in penalty for Citation 3.Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated December 3, 2025, Inspection No. 1692964.
Read More...