Masonry Magazine April 1973 Page. 10
OSHA info
Current Information
Relating To The Occupational
Safety and Health Act
by Lawrence P. Sands
(Fred S. James & Co.,
MCAA Insurance
Consultants)
GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THREE
SUB-CONTRACTORS CITED
A general contractor and three sub-contractors were cited for the same violation-failure to provide perimeter protection on floors in a building under construction in New York City. Remember, if your employees are exposed to a hazard even though it is not your general responsibility to control the hazard, you can be cited. This further emphasizes the importance of good job communication between the general contractor and all sub-contractors.
JUDGE RULES INSPECTOR DOES NOT HAVE TO
PRESENT CREDENTIALS TO SUB-CONTRACTOR
The compliance officer is not obligated to present his credentials to the sub-contractor before beginning any investigation at a construction work-site. In the job that set this precedent, the compliance officer came on the job-site and reported to the superintendent of the general contractor. He was accompanied by the superintendent during his inspection. In the judge's opinion, the compliance officer had legally entered the work-site when he presented his credentials to the general superintendent. Once legally on the work-site, he was not required to "wear blinders and restrict his view to only the operations of the general contractor."
MASON CONTRACTOR RULED TO BE NOT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN AN ACTIVITY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
A $500 penalty was vacated by an Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission judge and sustained by the commission when the employer appealed arguing that his company was not engaged in interstate commerce or in an activity affecting interstate commerce. In this case, the Department of Labor had not proved the firm was engaged in interstate commerce and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue a citation against the firm.
RECORD-KEEPING REMINDER
Remember, if your company employs no more than seven employees at any one time in the preceding calendar year, you will be exempt from OSHA record-keeping requirements effective January 1, 1973. A few companies with less than seven employees may be still required to participate in the statistical survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Small employers who are selected for the statistical survey will have to maintain only a log of occupational injuries and illnesses (OSHA 100) they will not have to prepare or maintain supplementary records (OSHA 101 or OSHA 102).
MASON CONTRACTOR NAMED IN VIOLATION
A mason contractor was cited for failure to provide a car arresting device and failure to insure that gates protecting the entrance to a hoist-way were equipped with a latching device.
SENATE LABOR COMMITTEE RECEIVES $1.7
MILLION FOR SAFETY OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
The Senate Labor & Public Welfare Committee received $1.7 million for the year beginning March 1 to conduct a series of oversight hearings on job safety and health, coal mine safety, and other subjects within its jurisdiction. It is hoped that through these oversight hearings a more reasonable approach may be taken on some of the more restrictive standards.
FIRST VOLUME OF OSHA SUBSCRIPTION
SERVICE DUE APRIL 16
The first of a five-volume looseleaf subscription service on job safety and health standards and rules is now being distributed, the Labor Department announced. As pointed out in a previous OSHA Info column, this service may be ordered prepaid from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. "Volume III Construction Standards & Interpretations" costs $8, and "Volume 1 General Industry Standards & Interpretations" costs $21. Volume II is on "Maritime Standards," Volume IV on "Other Regulations and Procedures," and Volume V on "Compliance Operations."
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
An OSHA Review Commission judge in Philadelphia told an employer that he must pay for personal protective equipment under Section 1910.132 of the OSHA standards. It was ascertained that the employer required foot protection for some of his employees due to hazards of the job on which they worked. The employer felt that the purchase of the equipment was the employees' obligation.
The judge disagreed, however, by interpreting the Act to the extent that the employee may elect to provide his own safety equipment, but if he does not, then the employer must.
Employers should note that this decision does not apply nationally, at least at this time, and should also note the reference to foot protection is not saying that the employer must pay for safety shoes. The employers are only required to pay in this case for foot protection of some kind.
The lack of national interpretations of rules of this type have been one of the most frequent criticisms of the OSHA administration. These interpretations are reported for your guidance, but as you can see at the present time each case stands on its own merit.
JUDGE AFFIRMS SERIOUS VIOLATION FOR
UNPROTECTED WORK ABOVE STEEL RODS
Permitting three carpentry employees to work 20 feet above vertically protruding rods without any type of protection in the event of a fall was a serious violation of a safety standard, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Judge James D. Burrows ruled. The employees in question were working above unprotected reinforcing bars which protruded vertically from the foundation walls on the side of the building.