49 COR 40-8765 [23,271]
OBSERVERS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2940(d) – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer did not have a qualified electrical worker in close proximity during the time work was being done on an exposed conductor or exposed parts of equipment. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2940.6(a) – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer failed to ensure that protective equipment was used by employees as required. DE-ENERGIZATION – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2941(h)(4) – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer failed to ensure that during the time work was being done a test had not been conducted to de-energize conductors or equipment. DISTANCE FROM EXPOSED ENERGIZED PARTS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2940.2(a) – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to show that Employer failed to ensure no employee was permitted to approach or take any conductive object without being protected. INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD) – Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD. NEWBERY DEFENSE – The violations were foreseeable and thus, the Newbery Defense was not applicable to any of the citations. SERIOUS INJURY – Labor Code §6432(a) – Citations 1, 2, and 3 were properly classified as Serious after review of the facts of the violations. SERIOUS VIOLATION - REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION - Labor Code §6432(e) – Failure to take all steps a reasonable and responsible employer would take to anticipate and prevent violations supports a finding that the employer did not rebut the Serious classification. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES – Three citations were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed. One citation was vacated.Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated October 3, 2023, Inspection No. 1233597 (Downey, CA)
Read More...