OSHA watch

Posted on by davidrleng

Regulatory agenda

The 2019 Regulatory Agenda had no surprises in its short-term regulatory docket but in the long-term schedule there was a surprise announcement about rulemaking activity for “Drug Testing Program and Safety Incentives Rule.” The proposed rule would solidify in a new standard the current position that the electronic record-keeping rule does not prohibit employers from establishing workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing. Other items on the long-term list, which means action is not expected in the next 12 months, include: musculoskeletal disorders injury and illness recording and reporting requirements, infectious diseases, process safety management and prevention of major chemical accidents, and shipyard fall protection and personal protective equipment in construction.

Additional regulatory actions under consideration:

RULE ANTICIPATED AGENCY ACTION
Beryllium rule for general industry Final rule December 2019
Communication Tower Safety Complete SBREFA May 2019
Emergency Response Initiate SBREFA May 2019
Lockout/Tagout Request for Information May 2019
Tree Care Initiate SBREFA June 2019
Update to the Hazard Communication Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking September 2020
Prevention of Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance Initiate SBREFA October 2019

For the full federal Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan

Mugno withdraws from consideration

Re-nominated for Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA on January 16, Scott Mugno has withdrawn his name from consideration, extending the longest period without a permanent administrator.

Final rule expected to save $6.1 million as part of the Standards Improvement Project

The rule revises 14 provisions in the recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards that may be confusing, outdated, or unnecessary. Reducing annual lung X-ray requirements, eliminating the collection of employee Social Security numbers and removing feral cats from the list of “rodents” in shipyard sanitation standards are among the 14 revisions.

Noteworthy the controversial proposal to revise the scope provision of the LOTO standard to remove the term “unexpected energization” as a prerequisite for the requirements of the LOTO standard was not included in the final rule.

More information.

Comments for possible update of lockout/tagout solicited

Comments on a possible update to the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard must be submitted before August 18. Emphasis is being placed on how employers have been using control circuit devices and new risks of increased worker contact with robots.

Noteworthy, the RFI does not mention the controversial “unexpected energization” but that does not mean it’s dead. The regulated community voiced opposition in the SIP IV process.

More information.

Webpage provides information on protecting workers from CMV exposure

A common virus, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), affects thousands of workers in childcare centers and healthcare facilities. These workers are at the greatest risk of exposure because the virus is often spread through saliva and other body fluids of young children. A new webpage on CMV, explains how to minimize health risks associated with workers’ exposure to this virus.

New oil and gas exploration safety video

A video developed by a Training Institute Education Center features ways to prevent injuries and fatalities in the oil and gas industry. The video focuses on falls, transportation, struck-by/caught-in/caught between, hydrogen sulfide gas, and heat illness.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Morgan Hill, California-based Pacific States Industries Inc., doing business as Redwood Empire Sawmill, settled a civil lawsuit regarding workplace safety laws following the death of a mill worker. The company agreed to pay civil penalties, restitution, and costs totaling $375,000.
  • Mercer-Fraser Co of Eureka received four citations and $63,560 in penalties after a worker driving a truck collided with a front-end loader and suffered a serious head injury. Inspectors determined that the company failed to require seat belt use, develop and implement safe practices for workers operating haul trucks, and ensure that trucks were operated at safe speeds.
  • Carlton Forge Works received three citations related to crane operations and $51,185 in penalties when a worker suffered injuries after becoming pinned between a saw table and a workpiece.

Florida

  • After an employee suffered serious injuries from a fall at the Avery Square residential construction site in Naples, four residential construction contractors received 12 citations and fines totaling $220,114 for exposing employees to safety hazards. Southern Living Contractors Inc., Paramount Drywall Inc., operating as Paramount Stucco LLC, and Crown Roofing were cited for failure to provide fall protection and other violations and Sunny Grove Landscaping and Nursery Inc. was cited for exposing employees to struck-by hazards from falling debris.
  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, Ohio-based Hiebert Bros. Construction LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards after the worker was injured from a 26-foot fall at a construction worksite in Gainesville. The company faces penalties of $56,828.
  • Walt Disney Company has been fined $13,260 for failing to report two workers’ injuries in a timely manner.
  • Two citations alleging serious violations of the fall protection standard were confirmed against All-Pro Construction Services Inc., which had a pleaded the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. The fine was reduced 10% to $8,149.
  • An online retailer of pet supplies, Chewy, Inc., faces the maximum penalty of $14,323 for exposing employees to struck-by and crushing hazards. An employee suffered fatal injuries while operating a stand-up industrial truck at the company’s Ocala plant.
  • Remodeling contractor, Stettinius Construction Inc of Winter Haven, faces $26,142 in proposed penalties after a worker suffered a fatal fall at a worksite in Naples.

Georgia

  • Kumho Tire Georgia Inc., Sae Joong Mold Inc., and J-Brothers Inc. received 22 citations and collectively face $523,895 in proposed penalties after a follow-up inspection found safety and health hazards at the tire manufacturing facility in Macon. $507,299 of the proposed penalties were issued to Kumho Tire Georgia Inc., which failed to submit abatement documents and was placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

Missouri

  • DDG Construction Services Inc., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, faces $98,693 in penalties for exposing workers to fall hazards at a commercial site in Springfield. The company has been cited for more than 15 fall violations since 2014.
  • Belfor Property Restoration and subcontractor Custom Crushing & Company, both based in Kansas City, were cited for failing to comply with asbestos removal standards while performing rehabilitation work at Kansas State University’s Hale Library in Manhattan. Custom Crushing & Company faces $193,596 in proposed penalties, and Belfor Property Restoration faces proposed penalties totaling $39,780.

New York

  • In Secretary of Labor v. All Wall Builders LLC, a judge held that East Syracuse-based All Wall Builders LLC had committed a serious safety violation of the fall protection standards. After the company agreed to participate in a voluntary state site inspection program and followed up with recommendations on further training, the judge reduced the proposed penalty by $1,622, bringing the total penalty to $5,622.

Nebraska

  • After two employees were seriously injured in a trench collapse at a construction site in Lincoln, T.H. Construction Co. was cited with one willful violation of trench safety standards and faces $106,078 in penalties.
  • A steel erection company, Daubert Construction, based in Fremont, was cited for failing to protect employees from fall hazards and faces $19,890 in penalties.

Pennsylvania

  • A general duty citation against Johnstown-based Berkebile Auto Service Inc. after a tow truck driver was fatally injured was upheld by an administrative law judge of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The company was assessed a $3,803 penalty.
  • Champion Modular Inc. was cited for exposing employees to safety and health hazards at its Strattanville facility. The company faces $687,650 in penalties. The inspection was initiated after an employee suffered an amputation. Violations related to machine guarding, fall protection, and training workers on hazard communication and hearing conservation.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: EEOC update – Wellness programs

Posted on by davidrleng

Employers remain in limbo on when they can impose penalties or rewards to encourage employees to disclose medical information in health risk assessments. The EEOC had delayed the proposed rulemaking to June but according to the agency’s spring 2019 regulatory agenda, it now expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by December.

In December 2017, a district court vacated the regulations, effective Jan. 1, 2019, that had allowed penalties or rewards of up to 30 percent of the cost of employee-only health care coverage to encourage employees to disclose ADA- and GINA-protected information.

Employers now have to weigh their options based on risk tolerance until December.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

5 ways to make visual communication more effective

Posted on by davidrleng

Much has changed in the area of safety communications. Gone are the days when wordy messages printed on paper with a burst of color sufficed. The channels for communication are many, including email, signage, bulletin boards, intranet, tool talks, meetings, apps, videos and so on. Furthermore, workers from different generations have different communication preferences. So it’s understandable that employers struggle to simplify their workplace communication and keep it relevant.

Here are 5 suggestions:

  1. MessagingSafety communications must resonate with workers or they will be forgotten or ignored. Know your takeaway and keep it simple. Focusing on real-life incidents with the use of visuals and a few powerful words that engage emotions is most impactful. Not only are they remembered longer, they are more visible from a further distance and reach a multi-language workforce. This contrast in messaging was shown in a recent webinar by The Marlin Company.
  2. Keep it fresh and repeatEven the best messaging gets stale. A cardinal rule in advertising known as the Rule of Seven says that a prospect needs to see or hear your marketing message at least seven times before they take action and buy from you. Using different channels can help convey a consistent message in different ways, but not all workers have access to email and their smartphones during working hours. Signage is often a solution.

    Yet over time, static signage can have a wallpaper effect – present but unseen. Digital signage offers great opportunities here. It is easily changed, software updates can be done for multiple locations, and employers aren’t dependent on personnel physically rotating signs. Multiple screens enable employers to target groups of workers and display unique content for the area in which they work. Messaging for call center personnel can differ from those in production.

  3. PlacementWhile proper placement seems like a no brainer, employers commonly get it wrong. Signs that are too far from a hazard aren’t effective because employees may not be able to see the hazard, making it easy to ignore. If a sign is too close to a hazard, employees may not have enough time to take precautions. And they need to be at eye level and not obscured.
  4. Be strategic 
    • Too much communication can send mixed messages and be confusing. Workers can ignore all of it because it’s just too much to take in at one time, or simply not really see it because something else caught their attention.
    • Keep it short. Unless there is a captive audience, videos should be less than a minute. Think of them as a commercial. Emails and texts should be concise and clear.
    • If there is a captive audience and a PowerPoint is used, put one topic or idea on each slide with appropriate graphics, then talk about it in plain language. Don’t read from the slides.
    • Be selective about the messaging you use in places where employees gather -breakrooms, cafeterias or time clock areas. Promoting health and wellness programs, recognizing employees, information on company events, and appropriate humor can be appropriate here.
  5. Have workers contribute contentTap experts on staff and use them in your messaging. It’s often been said that Millennials are the selfie generation and that the sweet spot to reach Millennials is a 30 – 60-second video, particularly if they are in it. But workers of all ages value recognition even though most are reluctant to step forward and volunteering to participate is not human nature. Invite workers to share stories from their own work histories about how following a safety practice protected them or a co-worker – or near misses or mistakes that could have been prevented. Stories are memorable.

Case study:

An article in the March issue of Risk and Insurance told the story of the Vermont School Board Insurance Trust (VSBIT) challenges of frequency and costs of claims related to snowy weather and icy paths. Shoveling and salting sidewalks were only as effective as the staff involved and the commitment of leadership to safety.

After exploring solutions, they embarked on a pilot program at 10 schools, placing signage at every entrance and exit, alerting passersby of icy conditions. A small mechanism would change colors – from silver to blue – when temperatures dropped below 37 degrees (car warning start at 37 degrees because icy conditions are not always obvious).

These schools had 39 losses that cost almost $240,000 the prior 5 years. After implementation, the same schools had only one slip and fall in total. The feedback from member schools was all positive and the program is expanding.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Important information on the classification of independent contractors vs. employees

Posted on by davidrleng

Department of Labor opinion letter

Issued April 29, the opinion letter addresses whether a service provider for a virtual marketplace company is an employee of the company or an independent contractor under the FLSA. It concludes that the workers who provide services to consumers through this company’s virtual platform are independent contractors, not employees of the company. To make this determination, the Department’s Wage and Hour Division applied its longstanding and unchanged six-factor balancing test, derived from Supreme Court precedent:

  • The nature and degree of the potential employer’s control
  • The permanency of the worker’s relationship with the potential employer
  • The amount of the worker’s investment in facilities, equipment, or helpers
  • The amount of skill, initiative, judgment, or foresight required for the worker’s services
  • The worker’s opportunities for profit or loss and
  • The extent of integration of the worker’s services into the potential employer’s business

Other factors also may be considered. The DOL “does not determine employee status by simply counting factors but by weighing these factors in order to answer the ultimate inquiry of whether the worker is ‘engaged in business for himself or herself’ or ‘is dependent upon the business to which he or she renders service,'” stated the letter.

While the opinion deals with a specific company, wages, and fair labor standards and is not legally binding, legal experts suggest it has an effect beyond the employer addressed in the letter. Under the Trump administration there is more flexibility in defining independent contractors and the likelihood that some employer/employee relationships would be challenged is lower.

The key issue is control. When classified as independent contractors, workers should be able to control their own schedules, work in other jobs or businesses, choose whether to accept a project, and not receive extensive training.

Cautionary note: The opinion letter is based on the facts presented by the company and these facts may not be true of other gig economy workers. It does confirm employers must conduct the six-factor test when confronted with a classification question. Further, employers still must abide by laws in states such as California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey that are more restrictive.

National Labor Relations Board memorandum

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), handed an important victory to Uber when it determined that the company’s drivers are contractors, not employees. In the first major policy action concerning the gig economy, the NLRB’s move relates primarily to unionization and other collective activities.

The decision was outlined by the board’s general counsel in a memorandum dated April 16, but made public in mid-May. In effect, the action tells gig economy workers not to report labor abuses to the Board because they are outside its jurisdiction. This judgment and the opinion letter cited above reverse the stance of the Obama administration that people who found work through apps could be considered employees. While the memo can be reversed by future general counsels, it carries considerable weight in how the Board enforces the law.

California: Independent contractor classification dealt another blow – ABC test must be applied retroactively

About a year ago, the California Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision when it adopted a new legal standard known as the “ABC Test,” making it much more difficult for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors in Dynamax vs The Superior Court of Los Angeles County. In a subsequent case, Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, a Court of Appeals held that the new test is limited to claims arising under the California Wage Orders. A May 3 letter from the California DLSE confirmed that the Dynamex decision extends to obligations imposed by the Industrial Welfare Commission wage order, making employers who misclassify workers responsible for California Labor Code obligations such as overtime, minimum wage, reporting time pay, record-keeping, business expense reimbursement, and meal and rest periods.

Moreover, the case was remanded, and pending legislation (AB5) would extend the reach of Dynamex’s ABC independent contractor assessment to unemployment and disability insurance and workers compensation.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the “ABC” test, used in the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis in cases involving IWC Wage Orders, must be applied retroactively. The ruling in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l Inc. means that the “ABC” test not only will be applied to cases going forward, but also to disputes dating back to before the new test was enacted. Based on California’s statute of limitations, employers could be liable for misclassifying workers as contractors going back four years before the 2018 decision.

The decision has significant implications for businesses using a franchise model or independent contractor model, including gig economy companies, since employees have more rights and benefits than independent contractors. The court essentially held that the “ABC” test applies to both a franchisee and the parent franchisor when deciding whether a group of workers are formal employees, pointing to increased exposure to liability for franchisors.

The unanimous federal appeals court ruling vacated an earlier dismissal of the complaint, and remanded the issue back to the lower district court, with instructions to follow the test issued in the Dynamex ruling. California employers who routinely enter into independent contractor arrangements with individuals should promptly and carefully review the status of those workers.

Note: AB5 advanced May 29 with the state Assembly passing the legislation 59-15

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com