49 COR 40-8777 [¶23,275]
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) – The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to effectively train employees to recognize, understand and avoid the hazards of an unloaded crane. CONTROL OF CRANE TRAVEL – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1616.1(t)(1) – The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer did not effectively control the travel of crane resulting in the crane colliding with a stationary crane. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD): Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD, the defense failed. NEWBERY DEFENSE: Employer knew or should have known of the potential danger to employees caused by the crane’s travel. The evidence showed that the Employer failed to exercise adequate supervision to ensure safety. The Employer’s efforts to ensure employee compliance with its safety rules were insufficient. Violations of the requirements were foreseeable. All four elements of the defense existed. Employer did not meet its burden. SERIOUS VIOLATION - REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) – Failure to take all the steps that a reasonable and responsible employer should to control the Crane’s travel and avoid collisions, supports a finding that the employer did not rebut the Serious classification. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES – Two citations were affirmed and the penalties were assessed.Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated December 29, 2023, Inspection No. 1466722 (Inglewood, CA)
Read More...