It was a day of gigantic surprises for the Cal/OSHA Standards Board with the indoor heat illness regulation on, then off, then back on the docket.

Cal/OSHA’s Bureau of Investigations is now down to two personnel for the entire state with the resignation of a senior investigator.

Here's how leading indicators can prevent the lagging variety and how employers use them to keep their workplaces safe.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board has published a revision to its controversial fall protection proposal for residential construction. Are there any big deals in this latest move?

Beginning her career in Washington, D.C., Rachel Conn found she could be more impactful by working in law. She now defends businesses facing workplace citations and help clients come into compliance with regulations.

Two workers died from falls at job sites and another two died of unknown causes after collapsing on the job.

The legal status of the controversial indoor heat standard approved last month remains questionable. A coalition of growers is challenging the legality of the Standards Board's vote. Get the inside details here.

The new legislation would allow applicant's attorneys to allege Cal/OSHA violations and require workers' comp judges to make findings about Cal/OSHA violations relating to a proposed heat presumption. Get the gory details here ...

California’s residential construction sector says Fed-OSHA’s imposition of the 6-foot fall protection trigger here will upend a carefully crafted regulation that has worked for over 20 years. The Feds say the state has plenty of alternatives to comply.

As an attorney for the California Chamber of Commerce, Rob Moutrie sometimes gives input to Cal/OSHA about proposed regulations affecting businesses and lobbies legislators considering bills that may affect his clients.

49 COR 40-8801 [¶23,281]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(4) and (a)(6) – The evidence proffered showed that the Employer did not effectively implement an IIPP, which included methods or procedures for correcting unsafe or unhealthy conditions, work practices, and work procedures.

HAULAGE and EARTH MOVING OPERATION – WARNING METHODS
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1592(e) – The evidence proffered showed that the Employer failed to implement sufficient controls for hauling operations to ensure vehicle operators were aware of the presence of workers on foot in the area of operation.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) –
The evidence proffered showed that Employer failed to successfully rebut the presumption that Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES
Citation 1 and Citation 2 were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 22, 2024, Inspection No 1349559 (Hayward, CA).

49 COR 40-8795 [¶23,280]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(2) – The evidence proffered showed Employer demonstrated that it have a system to ensure that its employees complied with safe and healthy work practices.

PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1670(a) –Evidence proffered by the Division demonstrated that Employer failed to ensure that employees exposed to a fall of over 7 1/2 feet wore an approved personal fall protection system.

LADDERS – CARE, USE, INSPECTION and MAINTENANCE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1675(b) with reference to §3276, subdivision (e)(11) and (e)(15)(E) – The evidence proffered at hearing demonstrated that Employer  failed to select the appropriate ladder to access attic space at the job site, failed to ensure that an employee used a ladder that extended at least 36 inches above the attic landing surface; and failed to ensure that an employee working on a step ladder did not step or stand on the topcap of the ladder.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD):
Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD, the defense failed.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) –
Employer successfully rebutted the presumption that Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as Serious by demonstrating that it did not know, and could not, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have known of the existence of the violations.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was not affirmed and the penalty was vacated.  All other citations were affirmed. Penalties for Citation 1, Item 2 and 3 were assessed as reasonable.  Citations 2 and 3 were reclassified, and the associated penalties were amended and assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 27, 2024, Inspection No 1355061.

49 COR 40-8789 [23,279]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(1) and (a)(4) and (b)(2) –
The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to establish an effective IIPP with all required elements.  The IIPP failed to identify the person with authority and responsibility for implementing the Program.  It lacked procedures for identifying hazards when the program was first established.  Trainings were not appropriately documented as required.

HEAT INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (HIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(i) – The proffered evidence showed that Employer failed to establish an effective Heat Illness Prevention Plan.

SAFE OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3650(t)(11) – Employer failed to ensure that a powered industrial truck was operated in a safe manner in accordance with applicable operating rules.

 DEFENSES –
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD):
Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD, the defense failed.

NEWBERY DEFENSE:
Employer knew or should have known of the potential danger to employees caused by the unsafe forklift driver.  The evidence showed that the Employer failed to exercise adequate supervision to ensure safety. Violations of the requirements were foreseeable.  All four elements of the defense existed.  Employer did not meet its burden.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) –
Failure to take all the steps that a reasonable and responsible Employer should to control the forklift travel and avoid collisions, supported a finding that the Employer did not rebut the Serious classification.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
All citations were affirmed, and the associated penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated February 16, 2024, Inspection No. 1399613.

49 COR 40-8785 [¶23,278]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN –
 Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(4) and (a)(6) – The Division failed to prove that Employer did not implement, and maintain an effective IIPP.

FLOOR, ROOF AND SKYLIGHT OPENINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1632(b)(1) – The evidence presented showed that the roof access opening was not guarded.  The cover over the opening was not secure. 

FLOOR, ROOF AND SKYLIGHT OPENINGS–
Employer, a controlling employer, demonstrated that it was relieved of liability as it met the factors of the due diligence defense.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated January 12, 2024, Inspection No 1371294.

49 COR 40-8782 [23,277]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(6) – The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP and failed to train employees on new hazards of workplace violence.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
One citation was affirmed and the associated penalty was modified and assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated January 25, 2024, Inspection No. 1415736 (Sylmar, CA)

 

49 COR 40-8781 [¶23,276R]

ROOF OPENINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1632(b)(3) – Employer violated the safety order by failing to ensure that roof openings were guarded by either temporary railings and toeboards or covers capable of supporting the greater of 400 pounds or twice the weight of the employees, equipment and materials. Such covers are to be secured against accidental removal or displacement and contain specific legible markings.

MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10(c) – Employer was responsible through actual practice, for safety and health conditions at the worksite and had the authority to ensure that hazardous conditions were corrected (controlling employer).

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated January 30, 2024, Inspection No. 1405107.

 

49 COR 40-8777 [¶23,275]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) –
The evidence proffered by the Division showed Employer failed to effectively train employees to recognize, understand and avoid the hazards of an unloaded crane.

CONTROL OF CRANE TRAVEL – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1616.1(t)(1) –
The evidence proffered by the Division, was sufficient to show that Employer did not effectively control the travel of crane resulting in the crane colliding with a stationary crane.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD): Employer failed to prove all five elements of the IEAD, the defense failed.

NEWBERY DEFENSE: Employer knew or should have known of the potential danger to employees caused by the crane’s travel.  The evidence showed that the Employer failed to exercise adequate supervision to ensure safety. The Employer’s efforts to ensure employee compliance with its safety rules were insufficient.  Violations of the requirements were foreseeable.  All four elements of the defense existed.  Employer did not meet its burden. 

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) –
 Failure to take all the steps that a reasonable and responsible employer should to control the Crane’s travel and avoid collisions, supports a finding that the employer did not rebut the Serious classification.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Two citations were affirmed and the penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated December 29, 2023, Inspection No. 1466722 (Inglewood, CA)

49 COR 40-8775 [¶23,274R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – JURISDICTION – Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over Employer’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated November 8, 2023, Inspection No. 1565033.