Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 22, 2025, Inspection No 1719334 (San Francisco)
Read More...ONE SOURCE PLUMBING & ROOTER INC.
49 COR 40-9033 [¶23,384]
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP -
Labor Code §§2772
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not establish the three parts of the ABC test. The workers were found to be Employer’s employees.
DUAL EMPLOYMENT –
The ALJ determined Employer was a secondary employer of the employees.
ANNUAL PERMIT –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §341(c)(2)(B)
The proffered evidence showed the excavation was for the purpose of performing emergency repair work, an exception to the permit requirement. The citation was dismissed.
CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(b)
The proffered evidence showed the CSP did not address the hazards involved in working in or around trenches.
APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
The proffered evidence showed no one certified to render first aid was available within a few minutes before a first responder would arrive.
EXCAVATION AND TRENCHES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541.1(c)(2)(C)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have written specifications for the trench protective system.
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(h)(1)
The proffered evidence showed one employee was inside the trench with accumulated water at the bottom.
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(k)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer allowed employees to work in the excavation without required cave-in protective system in place.
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(c)(2)
The proffered evidence showed the Employer did not provide a safe means of egress in the trench excavation over five feet in depth.
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(a)(1)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide an adequate protective system to protect employees from cave-ins.
SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Citations 2 through 5 – The proffered evidence showed there was a realistic possibility of serious injury for failure to have a sufficient protective system in the excavation. Employer did not rebut the presumption.
REPEAT VIOLATIONS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §334(d)
Citations 4 and 5 were determined to be a repeat of violations affirmed in a Settlement Order issued in August 2023.
DUPLICATIVE PENALTIES –
Citations 2, 3, and 5 involved a single hazard with the same abatement. The ALJ vacated the penalties for Citations 2 and 3, determining they were duplicative of Citation 5.
ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES -
Citation 1, Item 1, was vacated. Citation 1, Items 2, 3, and 4 were affirmed with penalties adjusted. Citations 2 and 3 were affirmed with penalties vacated. Citations 4 and 5 were affirmed with penalties adjusted.