OSHA

Subscribe to OSHA

On November 6, 2020, the Oregon Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OR-OSHA”) published final temporary rules for workplace safety protections specific to COVID-19. Our alert about the new rules is available here.

Among other requirements, the new rules require employers to adopt a COVID-19 Infection Notification policy for notifying exposed and affected employees of…

On November 6, 2020, the Oregon Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OR-OSHA”) published final temporary rules for workplace safety protections specific to COVID-19. The text of the final rules is available on OR-OSHA’s website.

The effective date for the new rules is November 16, 2020, although the timeline for different requirements under the rules…

In the wake of an onslaught of employee complaints about social distancing in the workplace, the Oregon Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OR-OSHA”) announced that it would begin workplace inspections in order to enforce the social distancing requirements imposed by Governor Brown’s March 23 Executive Order.  Our blog post describing the Executive Order is here, a link to a media article about OR-OSHA’s announcement is here, and a link to OR-OSHA resources regarding workplace safety during the COVID 19 pandemic is here.

Here are some general guidelines to keep in mind if OR-OSHA conducts an inspection at your workplace:

  • OR-OSHA has the legal authority to inspect workplaces for compliance with safety standards, with or without notice. This includes the right to enter the workplace “during working hours or at other reasonable times, within reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner.”  What is “reasonable” will depend on the circumstances, but in general it means that investigators may access your facility during regular business hours and may inspect portions of the facility as much as necessary to determine whether sound safety practices are being followed.
  • The OR-OSHA investigator will generally begin the inspection by holding a short conference with the employer’s representative. This is why it is important now to plan ahead and designate your representative(s), who may or may not be the same individual(s) who are enforcing social distancing compliance with Governor Brown’s Executive Order, and prepare them for how to cooperate with OR-OSHA.  During the conference the investigator will present his/her credentials and explain the purpose and scope of the visit, request any records he/she intends to review, determine whether any personal protective equipment is necessary while touring the facility, and inform the employer of OR-OSHA’s right to speak to employees and take photographs or conduct sampling.
  • The employer is entitled to have a representative accompany the investigator during the inspection. Inspectors have the right to question employees confidentially without management representatives present.
  • At the conclusion of the inspection, the investigator will conduct a closing conference to discuss his/her findings and advise the employer of any violations and safety hazards that have been identified. The investigator will also discuss OR-OSHA’s remediation and enforcement plan, including items like timelines for correcting any hazards, possible penalties, and the employer’s appeal rights.

…
Continue Reading OR-OSHA Announces Workplace Social Distancing Investigations

A new enforcement policy from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) states employers may face citations for subjecting their employees to hazardous air contaminants even if the levels are below or not covered by a permissible exposure limit.

This new enforcement policy comes from OSHA’s recent memorandum released to the public on December 7,…

As previously reported, OSHA’s latest revisions for covered employers will dramatically impact routine post-accident drug testing programs.  The new rules are available for review here, but here’s what you need to know:

  • OSHA Postponed Enforcement. OSHA just delayed the date on which it will begin enforcing these new requirements. OSHA’s memo postponing

…

Employers that promote workplace safety by ensuring workers are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol after they suffer a workplace injury will soon face greater scrutiny from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).  A new OSHA rule that goes into effect August 10, 2016 casts serious doubt on whether employers can lawfully maintain mandatory post-incident drug and alcohol testing.

OSHA Thinks Mandatory Testing Deters Reporting

The new OSHA rule becomes effective August 10, 2016, though compliance deadlines may vary from state to state (check with your employment counsel to confirm).  When the rule becomes effective, employers must have a reporting procedure for workplace injuries that is “reasonable and [will] not deter or discourage employees from reporting” workplace injuries.  To which you say, “My business already has that.”  Perhaps you do, but if that procedure includes mandatory post-incident drug or alcohol testing, OSHA may no longer consider it to be reasonable.  Though OSHA claims that “the [new] rule does not prohibit drug testing of employees,” the Agency also states that “mandating automatic post-injury drug testing [is] a form of adverse action that can discourage reporting.”  In other words, OSHA has determined that mandatory post-incident drug and alcohol testing may be unlawful because it may deter someone from reporting an injury.
Continue Reading OSHA Promotes Workplace Safety by . . . Limiting Drug and Alcohol Testing?

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed by President Obama on November 2nd, contains a buried provision with the potential to substantially impact employers. Section 701 of the Act significantly increases the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. OSHA penalties — which have not changed…

Our colleague, Alyson Palmer, noted on our Food Liability Law Blog that the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published an interim final rule on February 13, 2014 creating the process for handling retaliation complaints brought by whistleblowers under Section 402 of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Under the new rule, any…

In an unapologetic rejection of a decades-old legal fiction hatched by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") and embraced by Utah Division of Occupational Safety and Health ("UOSH"), on January 31, 2014, the Utah Supreme Court repudiated the multi-employer worksite doctrine. Hughes General Contractors v. Utah Labor Commission, 2014 UT 3. The Court based its repudiation on the doctrine’s “incompatibility with the governing Utah statute.”

The so-called multi-employer worksite doctrine makes a general contractor responsible for the occupational safety of all workers on a worksite, including those who are not even the general contractor’s actual employees. In rejecting that doctrine, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the responsibility for ensuring occupational safety in Utah is limited to an employer’s actual employees.

Hughes was a general contractor overseeing a construction project involving multiple subcontractors, including a masonry subcontractor. UOSH invoked the multi-employer worksite doctrine and cited Hughes for improper erection of scaffolding in connection with the masonry subcontractor’s work, concluding that Hughes was responsible as a “controlling employer” under Section 34A-6-201 of the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act (UOSH Act) given Hughes’ “general supervisory authority over the worksite.” Hughes challenged the legal viability of the doctrine before the Administrative Law Judge, who upheld the citation; and then the Labor Commission’s Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The Board based its decision on the notion that Section 34A-6-201 “mirrors its federal counterpart, which was interpreted [by the 10th Circuit] to endorse” the doctrine. Id., ¶5.…

Continue Reading Utah Supreme Court “Repudiates” the Federal Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine