49 COR 40-9027 [¶23,382]
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP - Labor Code §§2772 and 2750.5 The proffered evidence showed Employer did not establish all three parts of the ABC test. The workers did not have a license which was required for the work performed. They were found to be Employer’s employees. INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM – Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(a) The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written IIPP at the time of inspection. CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES – Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(b) The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written CSP at the time of inspection. APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON – Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1512(b) The Division failed to present sufficient evidence to establish Employer violated the cited regulation. Appeal was granted. LIGHT-DUTY EXTERIOR SCAFFOLDS - Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(2) The proffered evidence showed that scaffold ledgers surrounding the exterior of the house did not meet the regulation requirements. Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(3) The proffered evidence showed the scaffold did not have sufficient diagonal bracing. Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(4) The proffered evidence showed the scaffold did not have midrails at the working levels. Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(5) The proffered evidence showed platform planks did not cover the entire space between the uprights on the working levels. STEP LADDER USE – Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1675(b) The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to ensure proper use of portable ladders. COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM – Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3205(c) The ALJ decided the requirements of the COVID-19 Prevention Program were no longer in effect and dismissed the citation. HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN – Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3395(i) The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written HIPP. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – LOGICAL TIME DEFENSE - Employer failed to show that implementing the safeguards in the safety order would expose an employee to a greater danger than non-compliance. SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION – Labor Code §6432(a) and (c) Citations 2 through 5 – the proffered evidence showed there was a reasonable possibility of serious injury due to the fall hazard. Employer did not rebut the presumption. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES - Citation 1, Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were affirmed along with their associated penalties. Citation 1, Items 3 and 6 were vacated. Citations 2 through 5 were upheld with the Serious classification and penalties affirmed.Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 22, 2025, Inspection No 1628750 (San Francisco)
Read More...