Employer’s Protective Footwear Duty
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
Tagged in: Appeals Board
More Rulemaking about Personnel Hoists
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
Appeals Board Stakeholder Meeting
The Cal/OSHA Appeals Board is holding a “roundtable” discussion to seek ideas from stakeholders on improving its operations, processes and procedures. The meeting is at 10 a.m. on February 26th …
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
New Faces at Cal/OSHA
Committee, long a tradition in the community, is not only a sounding board for stakeholders and a chance to bring valuable input to the agency, but it has been languishing …
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
Appeals Board 1BY Ruling
When is 15 days actually 20 days? When the Division of Occupational Safety and Health mails the contentious 1BY Form to employers notifying that it intends to issue them a …
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
Cal/OSHA Likes New Ski Blasting Tech; Regulatory Language Not So Much
A proposal by two ski patrollers for official recognition of advanced avalanche-blasting technology could provide superior safety to the one which is traditionally in use. Both the Division of Occupational …
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
Appeals Court Takes CPH Case
Cal/OSHA cited Walsh/Shea Corridor Constructions for a willful-general violation for failing to install a construction personnel hoist (CPH) in an 800-foot excavation. The employer took the matter to the Appeals …
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in
A Young Worker’s Tragic Death and How it Could Have Been Prevented
Cal/OSHA concluded its investigation into the tragic workplace fatality of 18-year-old Enrique Vasquez Garcia several months ago. His employer, Aardvark Clay & Supplies, was cited with $237,000 in proposed penalties. …
This content is only available to premium subscribers. Please login here log in