38 COR 40-6669 [¶21,917R]
HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL - LOCKOUT/TAGOUT
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3314(g)(2)(A) (2011) - Employer argued that it was not required to comply with §3314(g)(2)(A) because its forge could not be locked-out during normal operations. However, that argument failed to address the requirement of a written plan specific to the forge, for repair and service, as distinct from its normal operations.
HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL - REPAIR WORK AND SETTING-UP OPERATIONS
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3314(d) (2011) - The Board upheld the ALJ’s decision that the evidence did not establish a violation of §3314(d). Placing the pin between the hammer and the metal being forged was a routine part of normal production operations and an integral part of the forging process.
HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL - SCOPE OF SAFETY ORDER
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3314(g)(1) (2011) - The Board disagreed with the ALJ’s conclusion that the Division improperly sought to expand §3314 into all aspects of forging operations, and construed the citation to allege that Employer had not developed an energy control procedure for “cleaning, repairing, servicing, setting-up, or adjusting” of its forge. There was no evidence Employer had such a plan at the time of the accident.
EXPERT TESTIMONY - ADMISSIBILITY
Labor Code § 6304.5 (2011) - Expert opinion testimony of Division employees, in the context of the statute, applies to testimony in third-party actions, not hearings before the Board. The Board allows Division employees to offer expert testimony in Board hearings.
FOOT PROTECTION - EMPLOYER’S REQUIREMENT TO FURNISH
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3385(a) and Labor Code §§ 6401, 6403 (2011) - Employer was required to make its employees wear safety shoes. The ALJ incorrectly concluded that Employer was not required to pay for its employee’s safety shoes.