Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01208/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01208-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fabi Construction Company, Inc.
Petitioner
Secretary of Labor
Respondent

Document Text:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 15, 2004 Decided June 4, 2004

No. 03-1208

FABI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

RESPONDENT

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Joseph P. Paranac, Jr. argued the cause for the petitioner.

Michael P. Doyle, Attorney, United States Department of

Labor, argued the cause for the respondent. Allen H. Feldman, Associate Solicitor, and Nathaniel I. Spiller, Deputy

Associate Solicitor, United States Department of Labor, were

on brief.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 1 of 17
2

Before: EDWARDS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The Secretary

of Labor (Secretary), through the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA), cited Fabi Construction Co.

(Fabi) for eight violations of OSHA safety regulations after

one of Fabi’s employees suffered a fatal fall while demolishing

a ‘‘knock-out’’ panel on the roof of a 10–story garage. Fabi

challenges each of the eight findings of violation. For the

reasons set out below, we reject each of Fabi’s challenges and

uphold the citations affirmed by the Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission (Commission or OSHRC), 20

O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1535 (2003). That said, with regard to the

citations relating to the demolition itself (Citation 1, items 1a,

2, 3a; Citation 2, item 1), we find it troubling that the

Secretary cited Fabi only for failure to instruct and train

demolition workers and to ensure the panel integrity rather

than for using improper techniques to carry out the demolition.1

 The Secretary’s decision in this respect is particularly

problematic because as a consequence the Commission was

not called upon to consider and failed to identify what specific

safety measures Fabi should have employed—but did not—

during the actual demolition. Nonetheless, we agree with the

Commission that the danger in the demolition method used—

drilling holes in concrete slabs while standing atop them—

was plain enough to put Fabi on notice of the need to

adequately implement demolition safety measures and that

the evidence supports the findings that Fabi did not do so.

Accordingly, we cannot say that it was error for the Commission to uphold the Secretary’s citation of Fabi for failure to

warn and instruct in advance only and not for improperly

implementing the demolition itself. Cf. W.G. Fairfield Co. v.

OSHRC, 285 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2002) (employer with actual

knowledge that trench-digging employees crossed busy inter1 OSHA has promulgated specific regulations governing demolition. See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926, subpt. T (29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.850–

1926.860).

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 2 of 17
3

state in course of work and took no steps to prevent it

violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(1)).2

I.

Fabi was a subcontractor performing concrete installation

and demolition work for the construction of a 21-story TropWorld Hotel addition atop an existing 10-story parking garage in Atlantic City, NJ. Among Fabi’s assignments was

demolition of a number of concrete ‘‘knockout’’ panels (or

slabs) that had been installed when the garage was built to

accommodate future expansion. On February 5, 1995 Fabi

demolished three knockout panels covering elevator pits on

the ground floor of the garage. Four days later, on February

9, 1995, Fabi demolished two knockout panels covering elevator shafts on the second floor. In each instance, before actual

demolition of the panel, workers stood on top of the panel and

drilled a pilot hole with a jackhammer to find out the type

and position of the steel bars, or ‘‘rebar,’’ used to reinforce

the panels. With this knowledge, workers hammered away

concrete at locations along the slab’s perimeter where the

rebar should be and then sawed through the rebar. Each of

the 5 panels was demolished without incident.

Three panels remained to be demolished on the garage

roof: one over a stairway and two over elevator shafts. The

rooftop stairway panel was, like the previous five panels,

demolished without incident. The first rooftop elevator panel

was scheduled for demolition on Saturday, June 10, 1995, by

employees Thomas Kane and Frank Caucci, under the supervision of foreman Charles Cincotti. Kane had been hired by

Fabi the previous month and Caucci the previous week. This

was the first knockout panel demolition project at TropWorld

for both. Before they began the demolition work, Cincotti

gave them the following instruction:

We’ll shoot our pilot hole, we’ll look for our rebar, if

anything doesn’t look, you know, where it should be,

2 We note that Fabi has not objected to the Secretary’s citation

specification.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 3 of 17
4

you stop the job. And we would call it a day. Until

we could discuss it.

Hearing Tr. (Tr.) 281–82. When they began the task, Kane

stood on top of the panel with a jackhammer and drilled a

pilot hole in the southeast corner of the panel to check the

rebar. While he was jackhammering, Kane noticed two or

three stress cracks emanating from the pilot hole. At Kane’s

direction, Caucci periodically stepped onto the panel to strike

the pilot hole area with a sledgehammer. The final time he

did so, the northwest corner of the slab tilted up and the slab

fell into the shaft, carrying Kane and Caucci with it. Kane

managed to grab onto the floor below but Caucci fell down

the shaft to his death.

On June 10, 1995 OSHA began an investigation of Caucci’s

death. On December 8, 1995 OSHA issued Fabi three citations specifying thirteen safety violations. After a five-day

evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed eight of the cited violations and assessed fines totaling

$31,500. Sec’y v. Fabi Constr. Co., No. 96–0097 (filed April 8,

1998), (ALJ Dec.). The Commission upheld the eight violations and the penalties as assessed by the ALJ, concluding,

without elaboration, that her ‘‘decision finding that Fabi

violated the Act with respect to the citations at issue on

review is supported by the evidence and applicable legal

precedent.’’ Sec’y v. Fabi Constr. Co., No. 96–0097, slip op.

at 2 (May 30, 2003) (Comm’n Dec). Fabi filed a timely

petition for review of the Commission’s decision.

II.

Fabi challenges each of the violations affirmed by the

Commission. Our review of the Commission’s decision is

deferential. We must treat as ‘‘conclusive’’ the Commission’s

findings of fact so long as they are ‘‘supported by substantial

evidence on the record considered as a whole,’’ 29 U.S.C.

§ 660(a); and we may ‘‘set aside the Commission’s application

of legal standards to facts only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.’’ American

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 4 of 17
5

Bridge/Lashcon v. Reich, 70 F.3d 131, 133 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

(citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Century Steel Erectors, Inc. v.

Dole, 888 F.2d 1399, 1403 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). Applying these

standards, we reject each of Fabi’s challenges in turn.

A. Citation 1, item 1a

First, the Commission found a serious3

 violation of 29

C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(1) and assessed a penalty of $5,000. Section 1926.20(b)(1) provides: ‘‘It shall be the responsibility of

the employer to initiate and maintain such programs as may

be necessary to comply with [Part 1926 of title 29].’’4

 The

ALJ found Fabi violated this provision because, although

Fabi maintained a written safety program and conducted

weekly on-site ‘‘toolbox talks’’ on various safety issues, ‘‘Fabi

failed to fully implement and maintain a safety program with

specific instructions about what precautions to take when

performing demolition.’’ ALJ Dec. at 7. Fabi challenges this

finding on both legal and factual grounds.

First, Fabi contends the Commission has not previously

interpreted section 1926.20(b)(1) to require ‘‘task specific

training and instructions on demolition.’’ Pet’r Br. 1. Fabi is

incorrect. In Sec’y v. Northwood Stone & Asphalt, 16 O.S.H.

Cas. (BNA) 2097 (1994), the Commission interpreted section

1926.20(b)(1) to mean that ‘‘an employer may reasonably be

expected to conform its safety program to any known duties

and TTT a safety program must include those measures for

detecting and correcting hazards which a reasonably prudent

employer similarly situated would adopt’’ and held that ‘‘a

reasonably prudent employer in [the employer’s] position,

having experienced numerous prior instances of a truck’s

becoming entangled in overhead power lines, would have

understood that an adequate safety program under section

1926.20(b)(1) would include specific measures to be taken

3 The Occupational Safety and Health Act sets three degrees of

violation, in order of decreasing severity: ‘‘willful,’’ ‘‘serious’’ and

‘‘not serious’’ (or ‘‘other than serious’’). 29 U.S.C. § 666.

4 Part 1926 contains ‘‘Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.’’

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 5 of 17
6

when a dump truck became entangled in overhead electrical

lines.’’ Northwood Stone & Asphalt, 16 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) at

2099 (1994).5

 Consistent with precedent, the Commission

here applied section 1926.20(b)(1) to conclude that a reasonably prudent employer should be aware of the dangers inherent in demolition—and that Fabi was in fact aware of them as

demonstrated by its use of a demolition safety video which it

showed to some, but not all, of its demolition workers—yet

failed to adequately implement a safety program addressing

the hazards.

Fabi next challenges the evidentiary sufficiency for the

citation, contending that in fact ‘‘numerous Fabi employees’’

testified they had ‘‘received specific instructions on topics

integral to demolition safety.’’ Pet’r Br. 4. The ALJ adequately responded to this argument in finding the following

facts, supported by the record: Fabi’s written program did

not specifically address ‘‘demolition,’’ Fabi’s Weekly Jobsite

Safety Meeting Reports did not disclose any toolbox meeting

addressing demolition hazards in particular, there was no

evidence Caucci or Kane attended any tool box meeting

addressing any but the most basic demolition safety measures,6

 Fabi’s demolition video was not shown to all demolition employees—in fact it was not shown to anyone hired

after early spring, including both Kane and Caucci—and new

hires were simply given only ‘‘brief guidelines’’ of the written

5 Although Fabi challenges the Commission’s interpretation of

section 1926.20(b)(1), Pet’r Br. at 3, we note that we will defer to

the Commission’s interpretation, as expressly adopted in the Secretary’s brief, see Respondent Br. 23–24, ‘‘so long as it ‘sensibly

conforms to the purpose and wording of the regulations.’ ’’ Montgomery KONE, Inc. v. Sec’y, 234 F.3d 720, 722 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

(quoting Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 194

F.3d 125, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

6 There is no evidence that Caucci attended any meetings on

demolition safety. Kane testified that the demolition topics covered

in talks he attended were ‘‘just basic, you know, stuff like, you

know, if you are working with a jackhammer you would need

goggles, dust mask, hearing protection, and the safetying off of

areas that were to be demoed.’’ Tr. 877.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 6 of 17
7

program and told the full program was available for their

review.7

B. Citation 2, Item 1

Second, Fabi challenges the citation for serious violation of

29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2), for which it was assessed a $7,000

penalty. Section 1926.21(b)(2) provides: ‘‘The employer shall

instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of

unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work

environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other

exposure to illness or injury.’’ We affirm the Commission’s

determination that Fabi violated this regulation.

Fabi contends that section 1926.21(b)(2) was not ‘‘meant to

extend ‘to all aspects of an employee’s job training’ or ‘to

govern specific employer instructions for each particular

task.’ ’’ Pet’r Br. 6 (quoting Klug & Smith Constr., Inc., 15

O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1204 (1991)).8

 As the ALJ noted, however,

the Commission has given the provision just such a construction:

Section 1926.21(b)(2) requires instructions to employees on (1) how to recognize and avoid unsafe conditions

7 Fabi relies on two decisions—Sec’y v. Capitol Tunneling, 15

O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1304 (1991), and Sec’y v. Odyssey Contracting

Corp, 16 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1753 (1994)—to argue that its safety

programs were adequate. These two unreviewed ALJ decisions,

however, are without precedential value. See Sec’y v. Star Brite

Constr. Co., 19 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1687, 2001 WL 1668967, at *4 n.8

(2001) (‘‘Unreviewed administrative law judge decisions have no

precedential value.’’) (citing Sec’y v. Leone Constr. Co., 3 O.S.H.

Cas. (BNA) 1979 (1976)); accord In re Cerro Copper Prods. Co., 752

F.2d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1985); Fred Wilson Drilling Co. v. Marshall, 624 F.2d 38, 40 (5th Cir. 1980); Willamette Iron & Steel Co. v.

Sec’y, 604 F.2d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942

(1980); cf. Stanford Hosp. & Clinics v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,

325 F.3d 334, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (ALJ decision to which exceptions are not filed with National Labor Relations Board has ‘‘no

precedential value’’).

8 Klug & Smith, on which Fabi relies, is an unreviewed ALJ

decision and is therefore without precedential value. See supra

note 7.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 7 of 17
8

they may encounter on the job, and (2) the regulations

applicable to those hazardous conditionsTTTT An employer’s instructions are adequate under section

1926.21(b) if they are ‘‘specific enough to advise employees of the hazards associated with their work and

the ways to avoid them’’ and are modeled on the

applicable standards.

Sec’y v. Superior Custom Cabinet Co., 18 O.S.H. Cas. 1019,

1020–21 (1997) (quoting El Paso Crane & Rigging Co., 16

O.S.H. Cas. at 1425 nn.6 & 7 (1993); internal citations omitted); cf. Sec’y v. Pressure Concrete Constr. Co., 15 O.S.H.

Cas. (BNA) 2011, 2015 (1992) (in interpreting section

1926.21(b)(2), ‘‘the Commission and the courts have held that

an employer must instruct its employees in the recognition

and avoidance of those hazards of which a reasonably prudent

employer would have been aware’’).9

 Because the Secretary

has agreed with the Commission’s interpretation of the regulation, see Respondent Br. 23–24, we defer to the interpretation and uphold it ‘‘so long as it ‘sensibly conforms to the

purpose and wording of the regulations.’ ’’ Montgomery

KONE, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 234 F.3d 720, 722 (D.C.

Cir. 2000) (quoting Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Surface

Transp. Bd., 194 F.3d 125, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). The Commission’s interpretation so conforms. The Commission’s individualized ‘‘reasonably prudent employer’’ standard is consistent with the regulation’s directive that the employer ‘‘shall

instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of

unsafe conditions.’’ (Emphasis added.) Further, the ALJ

reasonably found that Fabi’s instructions fell short of this

standard. The ALJ specifically found that the sole ‘‘instruction’’ in the record—‘‘Cincotti’s instruction that ‘if anything

did not look, where it should be’ ’’ Kane and Caucci should

stop demolition immediately—was not adequate because it

9 Fabi asserts that ‘‘under Commission precedent’’—namely

Capitol Tunneling, 15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1304 (1991)—Fabi was

‘‘permitted TTT to rely on Mr. Kane’s experience to perform the

demolition of the slab properly and safely.’’ Pet’r Br. 8. As

previously noted, supra note 7, Capitol Tunneling is an unreviewed

ALJ decision without precedential value.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 8 of 17
9

‘‘provides no advice as to what condition he was referring and

provides no guidance or precautions as to what conditions

would be hazardous’’ and thus ‘‘provide[s] no measures for

detecting and correcting hazards, and gives the employees

the discretion to determine what was unsafe.’’ ALJ Dec. at

18. It is hard to quibble with the ALJ’s characterization of

Cincotti’s vague instruction.

C. Citation 1, Item 2

Third, Fabi challenges the citation for serious violation of

29 C.F.R. § 1926.503(a)(1), for which it was assessed a $5,000

penalty. Section 1926.503(a)(1) provides:

The following training provisions supplement and clarify

the requirements of § 1926.21 regarding the hazards addressed in subpart M of this part.

(a) Training Program.

(1) The employer shall provide a training program for

each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards.

The program shall enable each employee to recognize

the hazards of falling and shall train each employee in

the procedures to be followed in order to minimize

these hazards.

29 C.F.R. § 1926.503(a)(1).10 Fabi challenges the citation on

two grounds. We find neither persuasive.

First, Fabi asserts the Commission was mistaken in construing section 1926.503(a)(1) to require a training program

that addresses fall hazards specific to each task employees

perform. The Commission has interpreted section

1926.503(a)(1) to require that an employer ‘‘provide the instructions that a reasonably prudent employer would have

given in the same circumstances,’’ Sec’y v. N & N Contractors, Inc., 18 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 2121, 2126 (2000). We defer

to the Commission’s interpretation because it has been

adopted by the Secretary, see Respondent Br. 31, and it

‘‘sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording of the regula10 Subpart M contains regulations addressing ‘‘Fall Protection.’’

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 9 of 17
10

tions,’ ’’ Montgomery KONE, Inc., 234 F.3d at 722. The

Commission’s focus on the task-specific fall hazard training is

consistent with the language of section 1926.503(a)(1) which

expressly requires that an employer provide training ‘‘for

each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards’’ that will

‘‘enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling’’

and ‘‘to minimize these hazards.’’ (Emphases added.)

Second, Fabi contends that even under the Commission’s

interpretation of the regulation, Fabi complied with its obligation to train employees regarding fall hazards during demolition. The ALJ found, however, that, while Fabi trained

some employees on ‘‘floor hole openings, perimeter protection, and personal protective equipment during various phases of the job,’’ it did not instruct ‘‘all of their employees in the

recognition and avoidance of fall hazards while engaged in

demolition, a component of their work activity.’’ ALJ Dec. at

10. This finding is supported by the record, which contains

no evidence that any employee received fall protection training specifically tailored to demolition or that Caucci received

any fall protection training whatsoever before being assigned

to demolish the slab but contains affirmative evidence that at

least one employee received no safety training. See Tr. 726

(testimony of compliance officer that one interviewed employee received no safety training and others were ‘‘vague TTT as

to what type of training’’ they received). Accordingly, we

conclude the ALJ permissibly determined that Fabi did not

satisfy its duty to instruct demolition employees on demolition

fall hazards.

D. Citation 1, Item 3a

Fourth, Fabi challenges the citation for serious violation of

29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(a)(2), carrying a $7,000 penalty. Section 1926.501(a)(2) provides:

The employer shall determine if the walking/working

surfaces on which its employees are to work have the

strength and structural integrity to support employees

safely. Employees shall be allowed to work on those

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 10 of 17
11

surfaces only when the surfaces have the requisite

strength and structural integrity.

The Commission determined that Fabi violated this standard

because it ‘‘failed to exercise reasonable diligence in determining what effect, if any, the jack hammering and the

creation of a hole would have on the strength and structural

integrity of the slab,’’ noting that Fabi’s ‘‘visual review of the

slab and its structural drawings only revealed the integrity of

the slab undisturbed.’’ ALJ Dec. at 12.

Fabi challenges the Commission’s interpretation of

1926.501(a)(2) to prohibit work on a surface that is made

unsound solely as a result of demolition, in the apparent belief

that it has a duty to ensure a safe working surface only at the

start of a project. The Commission reasonably determined

otherwise. The Commission construes the second sentence of

the regulation to require that the surface be sound whenever

workers are present: ‘‘The plain language of the second

sentence clearly permits employees ‘to work on those surfaces

only when the surfaces have the requisite strength and

structural integrity.’ ’’ Sec’y v. Agra Erectors, Inc., 19 O.S.H.

Cas. (BNA) 1063, 1066 (2000) (citation omitted). Because, as

the Commission indicated, its construction is consistent with

the plain language of the regulation’s second sentence and the

Secretary has agreed, Respondent Br. 34, we defer to the

Commission’s interpretation, Montgomery KONE, Inc., 234

F.3d at 722.

Fabi also contends the Commission’s finding of a section

1926.501(a)(2) violation is inconsistent with the ALJ’s own

finding, in rejecting a separate citation against Fabi,11 that

11 The Secretary had cited Fabi for violating 29 C.F.R.

§ 1926.850(a) which provides in relevant part:

Prior to permitting employees to start demolition operations,

an engineering survey shall be made by a competent person, of

the structure to determine the condition of the framing, floors,

and walls, and possibility of unplanned collapse of any portion

of the structure. Any adjacent structure where employees may

be exposed shall also be similarly checked.

The ALJ vacated this citation.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 11 of 17
12

site superintendent Troy Blevin competently ‘‘conducted a

pre-demolition survey TTT to determine the condition of the

slabs,’’ which included ‘‘visual observations combined with his

review of the demolition plans and structural plans’’ and ‘‘took

into the consideration of [sic] the possibility of unplanned

collapse.’’ ALJ Dec. at 15. We see no such inconsistency.

The ALJ based her finding of violation on Fabi’s failure ‘‘to

make a determination as to what the [sic] effect the pilot hole

would have upon the strength and structural integrity of the

slab TTT prior to the assignment.’’ ALJ Dec. at 11. In so

finding, the ALJ reasonably relied on ‘‘evidence from several

witnesses which supports a finding that the strength and

structural integrity of the slab was not maintained as the pilot

hole was created,’’ a proposition that should surprise no one.12

ALJ Dec. at 11; Tr. 553 (testimony of expert witness Donald

Orr); Tr. 555–57 (testimony of OSHA Engineering Chief

Mohammad Ayub).13

E. Citation 1, Item 4

Fifth, Fabi challenges the citation for serious violation of 29

C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(1) for which Fabi was assessed a $7,000

penalty. Section 1926.501(b)(1) provides:

Unprotected sides and edges. Each employee on a walking/working surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with

an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet (1.8 m) or

more above a lower level shall be protected from falling

12 Fabi also points to various other examinations by Fabi

employees of both the slabs and the rebar, Pet’r Br. 12. but none of

them took into account the effect of drilling on the slab’s integrity.

13 Fabi also argues that the ALJ’s violation finding ‘‘ignores the

critical fact that prior to the elevator slab’s demolition, six slabs

were safely demolished using exactly the same method as used in

demolishing the elevator slab.’’ Pet’r Br. 14. This ‘‘critical fact’’

simply means that in those instances the integrity was not weakened sufficiently to cause the slab to completely fall apart; it does

not undermine the ALJ’s logical finding, supported by the expert

testimony, that drilling holes into the concrete weakens the integrity of the surface.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 12 of 17
13

by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or

personal fall arrest systems.

We uphold the ALJ’s finding that Fabi violated this regulation.

The ALJ based her finding of violation on the testimony of

Compliance Officer Bernard DeZalia who visited the site on

June 14, 1995 in response to a formal complaint about fall

protection. DeZalia testified that he saw four men on the

36th floor stripping reshoring forms without any fall protection despite the proximity to an elevator shaft and to the

unguarded perimeter of the building, which had fall distances

of, respectively, 10 feet and 6 stories. DeZalia testified that

he saw four workers ‘‘immediately adjacent to’’ the elevator

shaft and two workers about 10–15 feet from the edge of the

building, although he stated ‘‘they had been closer when we

approached.’’ Tr. 688–89. Fabi challenges DeZalia’s credibility, pointing to Blevin’s testimony that the employees were

at least 18–21 feet from the edge and 14–16 feet from the

elevator shaft. The ALJ was entitled to credit DeZalia over

Blevin and we ‘‘ ‘must accept the ALJ’s credibility determinations TTT unless they are patently unsupportable.’ ’’ AJP

Constr., Inc. v. Sec’y, 357 F.3d 70, 73 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting

Tasty Baking Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 254 F.3d 114,

124 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). The ALJ’s determination here was

not.14

F. Citation 1, Item 5a

Sixth, Fabi challenges the citation for serious violation of 29

C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(i) and the accompanying $2,500 penalty. Section 1926.501(b)(4)(i) provides: ‘‘Each employee on

walking/working surfaces shall be protected from falling

through holes (including skylights) more than 6 feet (1.8 m)

above lower levels, by personal fall arrest systems, covers, or

guardrail systems erected around such holes.’’ The ALJ

14 Fabi argues that the ALJ’s credibility determination was

inconsistent with the decision in Sec’y v. Delta Dry Wall, Inc., 15

OSHC (BNA) 1291, 1292–93 (1991), which is an unreviewed ALJ

decision of no precedential value. See supra note 7.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 13 of 17
14

based this finding of violation as well on DeZalia’s testimony.

DeZalia testified that on the 39th floor he observed a partially

unguarded shaftway being used for access by ladders, presenting a 10–foot fall distance to the floor below. He further

testified that Fabi carpenter Eugene Kabbeko told him Fabi

employees had used the shaft ladders to access the 36th floor

and identified as Fabi employees workers DeZalia saw climbing the ladder to the 39th floor. Fabi challenges the credibility of both DeZalia and Kabbeko15 but again we accept the

ALJ’s credibility determinations because they are not ‘‘ ‘patently unsupportable.’ ’’ AJP Constr., Inc., 357 F.3d at 73

(quoting Tasty Baking Co., 254 F.3d at 124).16

G. Citation 1, Items 6a and 6b

Seventh, Fabi challenges the citation, and accompanying

$2,500 penalty, for serious violations of 29 C.F.R.

§ 1926.1052(b)(2) and 1926.1052(c)(1). These regulations provide:

(b) Temporary service. The following requirements apply

to all stairways as indicated:

TTTT

(2) Except during stairway construction, foot traffic is

prohibited on skeleton metal stairs where permanent

treads and/or landings are to be installed at a later

date, unless the stairs are fitted with secured tempo15 Fabi also asserts that to establish a violation of section

1926.501(b)(4)(i) the Secretary must demonstrate that access was

‘‘on a continuous and sustained basis,’’ Pet’r Br. 18, citing as

authority Sec’y v. Century Steel Erectors, Inc, 13 O.S.H. Cas.

(BNA) 1484, 1485 (1987), which is an unreviewed ALJ decision of no

precedential value. See supra note 7.

16 The ALJ acknowledged that Kabbekko was subsequently

discharged—according to Blevin because he refused to install fall

safety protection—and that Blevin and Kabbeko were obviously not

on good terms. Nonetheless, she expressly stated that, ‘‘in light of

the fact [Kabbeko’s] firing occurred after the inspection, the undersigned does not automatically discredit his identification of Fabi

employees during the inspection.’’ ALJ Dec. at 25.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 14 of 17
15

rary treads and landings long enough to cover the

entire tread and/or landing area.

TTTT

(c) Stairrails and handrails. The following requirements

apply to all stairways as indicated:

(1) Stairways having four or more risers or rising

more than 30 inches (76 cm), whichever is less, shall be

equipped with:

(i) At least one handrail; and

(ii) One stairrail system along each unprotected side

or edge.

The ALJ based these violations also on DeZalia’s testimony.

DeZalia testified that metal stairways running from the 31st

to the 34th floors had unfilled treads and landings and lacked

handrails. He further testified that he observed two persons

using the stairs, whom Kabbeko identified as Fabi employees,

and that a Fabi carpenter had told him Fabi employees used

the stairways.

Again Fabi urges the court to prefer Blevin’s contrary

testimony over DeZalia’s but again we accept the ALJ’s

permissible credibility findings. See AJP Constr., Inc., 357

F.3d at 73.17 Fabi also asserts it did not violate section

1926.1052(b)(2) or (c)(1) because it neither installed nor controlled the stairway. Under Commission precedent, to establish the multi-employer worksite defense an employer must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it ‘‘(1) did not

create the hazardous condition, (2) did not control the violative condition such that it could have realistically abated the

condition in the manner required by the standard, and (3)

took reasonable alternative steps to protect its employees or

did not have (and could not have had with the exercise of

reasonable diligence) notice that the violative condition was

hazardous.’’ Sec’y v. Capform, Inc., 16 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA)

2040, 2041 (1994). The ALJ found there was no evidence that

17 Fabi again relies on an unreviewed ALJ decision to assail

DeZalia’s credibility. See Sec’y v. Tampa Bay Plumbing & Mech.,

Inc., 13 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1045, 1047 (1987).

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 15 of 17
16

Fabi ‘‘took any action to restrict Fabi employees from using

the stairs’’ and that ‘‘with the exercise of reasonable diligence

Fabi could have known of the presence of the violative

condition,’’ which was ‘‘in plain view.’’ ALJ Dec. at 28.

Accordingly, the ALJ reasonably rejected Fabi’s proffered

defense.

H. Citation 3, Items 1a and 1b

Finally, Fabi challenges the citation (with no penalty) for

other than serious violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(i)(3)-(4)

which provides:

(I) Covers. Covers for holes in floors, roofs, and other

walking/working surfaces shall meet the following requirements:

TTTT

(3) All covers shall be secured when installed so as to

prevent accidental displacement by the wind, equipment, or employees.

(4) All covers shall be color coded or they shall be

marked with the word ‘‘HOLE’’ or ‘‘COVER’’ to provide warning of the hazard.

The ALJ based the findings of violation on the testimony of

Compliance Officer Kenneth Steinburg, who inspected the

site on July 6, 1995 in response to a complaint. Steinburg

testified he saw an unmarked, unsecured 3x3 plywood board

covering a hole near the 41st floor elevator. Steinburg’s

testimony provides substantial evidentiary support for the

ALJ’s findings that the elevator was used by Fabi employees

and that Fabi employees therefore ‘‘were exposed to the cited

condition.’’ ALJ Dec. at 29.18

18 Fabi challenges Steinburg’s credibility based on the unreviewed ALJ decision in Sec’y v. Wachsherger Roofing, 12 O.S.H.

Cas. (BNA) 1101 (1984), which has no precedential value. See

supra note 7.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 16 of 17
17

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied.

So ordered.

USCA Case #03-1208 Document #825433 Filed: 06/04/2004 Page 17 of 17