49 COR 40-8835 [¶23,290]
SAFETY DEVICES MAINTAINED IN SAFE SANITARY CONDITION - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1514(d) - The evidence proffered showed that the Employer failed to ensure that personal protective equipment (hard hat) was maintained safely, sanitary. LABELING OF PERSONAL FALL RESTRAINT - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1670(l) - The evidence proved that Employer placed an SRL into service that was missing the required label, attesting that it met applicable ANSI requirements. MANUFACTURER’S RECOMMENDATIONS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1670(f) – The evidence proffered showed Employer did not inspect fall protection equipment and fall arrest systems prior to each use as required by the manufacturer. Employer did not remove unsafe or defective fall protective equipment from service. INSPECTION AND DOCUMENTATION OF FALL ARREST SYSTEMS – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1670(b) – The evidence proffered showed Employer did not inspect fall arrest systems at least twice annually. The evidence, therefore supported an inference that Employer did not document inspections of fall arrest systems. FALL HAZARD TRAINING – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1710(q) – The evidence proffered showed nothing in the record indicated that Employer trained its employees to inspect the labels of their issued equipment. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT (IEAD) – The IEAD was inapplicable here where a supervisor or foreperson committed the violation. VIOLATIONS – SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(a) – the Division established a rebuttable presumption that Citations 2, 3, and 4 were properly classified as Serious. SERIOUS VIOLATION - REBUTTAL PRESUMPTION OF CLASSIFICATION – Labor Code §6432(c) - Employer failed to rebut the presumption that Citations 2, 3 and 4 were properly classified as Serious by demonstrating that it took all the steps a reasonable and responsible employer should be expected to take, before the violation occurred. ACCIDENT-RELATED CHARACTERIZATION – The evidence proffered by the Division for Citation 2 established a showing of a “causal nexus between the violation and the serious injury”. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES Citations 1, 2, 3 and 4 were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed, except the stipulated for Citation 4 was assessed.Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated June 3, 2024, Inspection No. 1372705 (Bakersfield)
Read More...