<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>JW POWERLINE, LLC, and its successors, OSHRC Docket No. 18-1469</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { widows:0; orphans:0; widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; }  p.style_Normal { widows:0; orphans:0; } 
.style_Normal span { } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 table.style_TableGrid { } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 p.style_Footer { } 
 span.style_PageNumber { } 
 p.style_Header { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { } 
.style_FooterChar span { } 
 span.style_LineNumber { } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_Revision { } 
.style_Revision span { } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-left:48px; } 
 span.style_cosearchterm { } 
 span.style_IntenseEmphasis { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4F81BD; } 
.style_IntenseEmphasis span { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4F81BD; } 
 span.style_PlaceholderText { color:#808080; } 
.style_PlaceholderText span { color:#808080; } 
 p.style_EndnoteText { } 
.style_EndnoteText span { } 
 span.style_EndnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_EndnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_EndnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 span.style_UnresolvedMention { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
.style_UnresolvedMention span { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
 p.style_BodyTextIndent { line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; } 
.style_BodyTextIndent span { } 
 span.style_BodyTextIndentChar { font-size:12pt; } 
.style_BodyTextIndentChar span { } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; ">United States of America</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; ">721 19<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; ">th</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Street, Room 407</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Denver, Colorado 80202-2517</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">Phone: (303) 844-2282<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Fax: (303) 844-3759</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:319.2px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
									</span></span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.6cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> v. </span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">JW POWERLINE, LLC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
									</span>and its successors,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHRC Docket No</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">18-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1469</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Appearances:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Matthew P. Sallusti</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Department of Labor, Office of Solicitor,</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Dallas, Texas</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">For Complainant</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Christopher V. Bacon</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Vinson & Elkins LLP, Houston, Texas</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">F</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">or Respondent</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Be</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">fore: </span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Judge<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Patrick B. Augustine</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>– U. S. Administrative Law Judge</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">DECISION AND ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Late at night on May 2,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2018</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the power went out at a drilling site in rural<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Texas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>after a thunderstorm. Respondent received<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">call to go out and restore power to the equipment. Ultimately, Respondent determined that a downed power line had caused the disruption and called out a two-person crew to perform the repair.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">1</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>crew</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>foreman misidentified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>downed line</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the source of the problem. He believed it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">belong</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to Respondent’s customer when, in fact, the line belonged to the power company. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">W</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hile he was in the process of splicing together the downed line,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the crew foreman was electrocuted when the power company restored power to the line at a recloser station nearly five miles away.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>OSHA<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">investigated</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the incident and determined Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">committed four violations of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Respondent admits</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the standards cited by Complainant apply</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>its foreman violated those standards</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(iii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">emplo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">yees were exposed to the hazards resulting from those violations.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Section II,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">infra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> However, Respondent contends it did not know, nor could it have known, of the violations</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent argues its</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>foreman had been properly trained and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">its</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>superintendent-in-training did not have adequate knowledge of the work being performed to know the foreman’s work practices were hazardous. Based on the Court’s review of the evidence and relevant law, it finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the foreman’s actions were foreseeable because Respondent did not conduct regular or even intermittent monitoring of its field employees’ or supervisors’ work practices, especially those employees who performed late night repair work, which Respondent estimated happened at least once per week.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Accordingly, the Court affirm</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">all</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>four violations alleged by Complainant. </span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">I.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">P</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ROCEDURAL HISTORY</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As stated above, this case was precipitated by the fatal electrocution of one of Respondent’s employees during the repair of a downed power line. Complainant was notified of the fatality and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Compliance Safety and Health Officer<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Alex Daniels</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">conducted an investigation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Respondent and the worksite on<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">May 3, 2018</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Although Respondent did what it could to maintain the condition of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">work</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">site, the actual owner of the power line,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Oncor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, came to the site to reconnect the lines and restore power. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">87</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Based on his review of the worksite, relevant documents, and interviews, CSHO<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Daniels</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>recommended, and Complainant issued, a four-part Citation and Notification of Penalty, which alleged<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">serious<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">violations of 29 C.F.R. §§<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.269</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(a)(4), 1910.269(c)(1)(ii), 1910.269(m)(3)(ii), 1910.269(n)(2).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty. Complainant grouped the foregoing citation items in pairs</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">resul</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ted</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in a total penalty of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">$25,611</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Respondent timely contested the Citation, bringing this matter before the Commission.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Prior to the trial in this matter, Complainant filed two</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">2</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>unopposed motions to amend the Citation and Complaint, requesting the following changes: (1) the relevant date be modified to include May 3, 2018, which is when the employee was electrocuted; (2) Citation 1, Item 1b be modified to allege a violation of § 1910.269(c)(1)(ii) instead of § 1910.269(c)(1)(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">); and (3) changing the narrative description of Citation 1, Item 2b, which accidentally repeated the narrative of Citation 1, Item 2a.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Court granted both motions.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The trial was held on July 23–25, 2019, in Midland, Texas. The following witnesses testified: (1) CSHO Alex Daniels</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(2) Respondent’s Superintendent, Joshua Fine;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(3) Respondent’s President, Justin Burris</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Both parties timely submitted post-trial briefs.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">II.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">S</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">TIPULATIONS & JURISDICTION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">parties stipulated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">numerous matters, which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">are</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>included in their joint stipulation statement. In addition to stipulating to the jurisdiction of the Commission</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that Respondent is an employer subject to the requirements of the OSH Act,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>other perfunctory matter</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the parties also stipulated: (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) the cited standards apply; (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ii</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) the terms of each of the cited standards were violated; (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">iii</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) Respondent’s employees were exposed to the hazards posed by violations of the cited standards</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; and (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">iv</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) subject to the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct, each violation, if proven, was properly characterized as serious<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Thus, the only matters for the Court’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">resolution are whether</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">proved</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent had knowledge of the violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent proved the violations were the product of unpreventable employee misconduc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t;</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(iii)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the penalties proposed by Complainant are appropriate.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">III.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">F</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></p>
			<p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent’s Operations</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent is an electrical contractor that builds and maintains power lines for utility companies and oil companies, as well as maintains electrical systems and equipment for the oil companies it services.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">3</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">589-90</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Respondent has roughly 130 employees spread across<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">four</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>locations, with about 120 of those employees working in the field. (Tr. 457</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-58). Those field employees were split up into two categories: line work and electrical work. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">589-90</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Line crews, as the name implies, work on power lines, and electrical crews work on electrical equipment at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">various</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>worksite</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Across the entire company, Respondent had<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">16-17 line</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>crews and 5-6 electrical crews. (Tr. 457-58). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Justin Burris is the President of JW Powerline and oversees<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">all of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>its operations, including the Midland yard, the employees of which were involved in this case. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">561</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Burris had recently hired a new superintendent for the Midland location, Joshua Fine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">came to Respondent with extensive experience, including<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">certifications<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as a journeyman electrician, unlimited electrical contractor in Oklahoma, and master electrician in Texas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">4</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">348-49</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Notwithstanding those certifications, he did not have any experience in line construction or maintenance. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">358</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As superintendent, however,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Fine was responsible for overseeing both the electrical and line sections of the Midland yard.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The electrical section was supervised by General<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Foreman Glenn Walker and the line section was supervised by General Foreman<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mojias</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Williams. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">334</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Burris hired Fine with the expectation he would learn the ins and outs of line work<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">over time</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, but he was principally concerned with the electrical side of the operation, which was in need of support. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">358</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Because of Fine’s credentials, Burris brought him on and set him to work before orientation training, which typically took place on the first of the month. (Tr. 578). Although Fine did not receive formal training, Burris had the safety director give Fine a brief primer on the use and importance of Job Safety Analyses. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">362-63, 578</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">B.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent’s Safety and Training Program</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although there are two principal divisions of Respondent’s operations, they<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">are more or less</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>governed by the same set of policies and are provided the same training. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">67, 361-62</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). According to CSHO Daniels’ investigation, all of Respondent’s employees attend the same training sessions on de-energization, lockout/tagout, job briefings, and grounding. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">67</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-20, C-25</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, R-1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Insofar as the content of the classroom training was concerned, linemen and electricians received the exact same information about the foregoing topics. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">216</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This appears to be consistent with Burris’ belief that the basic principles behind electrical work, regardless of whether it is line work or equipment, are the same. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">617</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>According to CSHO Daniels, Respondent’s policies were<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sufficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to address the hazards at issue in this case and the training provided by Respondent was given to all crew members involved (with the exception of Fine).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 247-48).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>As will be discussed later in this decision, however, it is unclear what program of monitoring, if any, Respondent had implemented to ensure its policies and OSHA regulations were being followed in the field. (Tr. 315). There<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">wa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s no evidence of any consistent monitoring/auditing program indicat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the number, frequency, or duration of workplace inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s occurring outside of the workplace</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which is most of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s business</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Instead, there is only evidence of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">remote monitoring via GPS and a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">proposed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>program of remote<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">JSA submission</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which wa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s not implemented until after the accident</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">201,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">581-82</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-22</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This is borne out by the evidence, which shows that, prior to the incident on May 2-3, Respondent’s only documented disciplinary actions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">involved</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: speeding</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in company vehicles caught on GPS software; failure to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) at Respondent’s yard; and no-call, no-shows, which are not safety-related violations. (Tr. 201-207; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-22</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Burris testified he once fired an entire crew on the spot for failing to complete a JSA and not wearing proper PPE. (Tr. 568). However, his observation appears to be a result of happenstance: he noticed the crew working on the side of the road while on his way to another client’s location. (Tr. 568). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Further, while Burris<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">testified</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>they had an audit program, he qualified what he meant by discussing programs designed to ensure people were qualified to perform jobs, such as equipment operators and doing electrical safety training. (Tr. 579-8</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>W</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hile<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Burris claims to have fired “people” before the accident, there was no documentation submitted in support of this to substantiate the reason for the termination, nor the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">way</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the behavior justifying the termination was discovered. (Tr. 568). While there may have been weaknesses in the HR and safety departments prior to Burris becoming president, this does not explain the lack of any in-the-field disciplinary actions or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">evidence of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employee monitoring. Burris admitted his crews conduct late-night, on-call repairs at least once a week, and yet there appears to be no evidence these employees, or any field employees for that matter, were ever monitored as part of a programm</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>inspection regime. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">467</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Indeed, it was not until after the incident occurred that Respondent’s records of discipline took a notable jump in number</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or indicated inspections occurring in the field</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">5</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">632-35</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-22,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>C-35</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The dearth of such records prior to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">accident, and the overwhelming amount of documented actions post-incident, suggests some failures of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">previous leadership</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, whether documentary or otherwise, lingered.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">It is also worth noting not one of the employees involved were disciplined, even though Respondent admitted OSHA regulations and company rules were violated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">C.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Events of May 2-3, 2018</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On May 2, 2018,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Burris</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>received a call from one of its clients,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who reported it had lost power</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">on a salt-water disposal unit (SWD)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">after a thunderstorm had come through the area. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">466, 589</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Burris contacted Fine, who sent out<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Glenn<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Walker to restore electricity to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>equipment. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">466</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). When he was unable to restore power locally, it became clear that a power line had been damaged. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">495-96</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Walker</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>contacted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mojias</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Williams, Respondent’s general foreman for line-side operations, who called in M.T. and Art Mejia, the on-call linemen for that night. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">234, 250</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). M.T.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and Mejia traveled to Respondent’s yard, got a company truck, and traveled out to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Nail Ranch location, which was in a remote, rural area</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in Midland</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Texas</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">442-43</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). M.T.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was a crew foreman,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who, under normal circumstances, would<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">oversee</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a crew of four,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and Mejia was his helper. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">468-69</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>M.T. and Mejia met up with Walker at the Nail Ranch<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">location</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to check meters and walk the lines to identify<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the location of the line</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>break. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">61-63, 251-52</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The roads in the area are winding and there are no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">street lights</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which meant the crew had to rely on</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>vehicle headlights</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>flashlights</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to see. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">442-443</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>In order to be more eff</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">icient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Mejia paired with Walker and walked<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">one way</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, while M.T. walked<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the other in order to find the source of the outage</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">251-52</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Eventually, M.T. identified a broken power line, which he believed was causing the power outage, and let Mejia and Walker know. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">62-63</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Without isolating</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the line,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">M.T. tested it with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a voltage meter, and confirmed it was dead. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">63</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). After testing it, Walker, Mejia, and M.T. drove 200 yards down the road to the primary meter, which they incorrectly believed was the power source for the downed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">line, and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>pulled the fuses.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">63-64,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">475-77).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Although they pulled the fuses, none of the crew members locked out or tagged the meter. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">476-77</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The crew</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>contacted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Williams and told him they needed a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">size<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1/0 splice to fix the broken line. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">497</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Williams asked<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">if</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>M.T. was sure he properly identified a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>line, because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Crown</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Q</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">uest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>typically used a size-two</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>line. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">68</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">M.T. told Williams he had walked the line and affirmed it was, in fact,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">68</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). In response, Williams contacted Terry Shipman, Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Master of Record, so the crew could obtain the necessary 1/0 splice. (Tr. 69). Shipman called Fine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who agreed to open the warehouse for M.T. and Mejia and volunteered to replace Walker at Nail Ranch, because Walker had another shift scheduled the next morning. (Tr. 70-71, 365-66).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>M.T. and Mejia drove back to the yard and met Fine at the warehouse, where they retrieved the splice. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">71</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Traveling in a separate company truck, Fine followed M.T. and Mejia back to the location of the broken line. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">71-72</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). On the way back to the site of the broken line, M.T., Mejia, and Fine stopped at an air switch just a short distance<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">away to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">northwest. (Tr. 72, 371-76; Ex. C-33). M.T.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">showed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Fine<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the box on the pole and told him a lock had been applied to the switch</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Fine never actually saw the lock, which, it was later discovered, did not belong to any of Respondent’s employees. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">374-75, 471</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Once they reached the broken line, Fine asked Mejia whether he and M.T. had filled out a JSA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">434</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mejia indicated they had</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; though, Fine did not ask to see a copy of the JSA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">434</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-21 at DOL383</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Being unfamiliar with the process of reconnecting a line, Fine asked M.T. how he could verify the line was, in fact, dead. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">378-79</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). M.T. took out a screwdriver and hovered it over the top of the line on the north and south<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sides of the break. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">377</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This process, which M.T. referred to as “fuzzing”, is a violation of company policy; though Fine testified he did not know that at the time.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">6</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">379</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex. C-11 at 467</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). M.T. told Fine if the line was energized, electricity would arc to the screwdriver. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">387</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). There was no arc, which illustrated the line was not energized at that time, and which the crew believed was the result of the air switch being locked out and the meter’s fuses being pulled. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As it turned out, the broken line belonged to Oncor, the local utility company.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">7</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">383</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">R-10</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Whether due to the darkness, distraction, or the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">manner in which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the power line from Oncor split at the post where<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>line began, M.T. mistakenly traced the path of the line, and what he believed was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest’s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>line was, in fact, Oncor’s.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, when the fuses were pulled<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">on the primary meter a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nd the lock on the air switch was identified, they did not cut off power to the line M.T. proposed to fix. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">394</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In reality, the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>line was powered down because a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">recloser, which serves as an automated circuit breaker, had tripped and had not been reset by Oncor. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">384, 477</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The recloser was located approximately 5 miles away from the broken line, and there is no evidence any of Respondent’s employees visited it. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">477</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>After fuzzing the line to Fine’s apparent satisfaction, M.T. instructed Mejia that he needed a hoist to splice the separated lines together. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">380-88</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Fine used his cellphone flashlight to help Mejia locate the hoist in the back of the service truck. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">441</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Realizing one hoist was insufficient, M.T. asked Mejia and Fine to retrieve an additional hoist. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">76</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). At some point while Mejia and Fine were retrieving the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">second<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hoist, an Oncor employee reset the reclosure, causing the line<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">M.T.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was working on to be re-energized. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">76-77</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As a result, M.T. was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">electrocuted when 14,400 volts coursed through the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">line</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>he mistakenly believed was de-energized. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">77, 188</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">IV.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">BURDEN OF PROOF AND LAW APPLICABLE TO 5(a)(2) VIOLATION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To establish a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violation of a specific standard promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Act, the Secretary must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the standard applies to the cited condition; (2) the terms of the standard were violated; (3) one or more of the employer’s employees had access to the cited conditions; and (4) the employer knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known, of the violative conditions.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Ormet</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corporation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 14 BNA OSHC 2134 (No. 85-0531, 1991).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.295cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Secretary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>must establish his<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case by preponderance of the evidence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Hartford Roofing Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC 1361 (No. 92-3855, 1995).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“Preponderance of the evidence” has been defined as:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:72px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-right:54px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Black’s Law Dictionary, “Preponderance of the Evidence” (10th ed. 2014).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">V.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ANALYSIS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND LEGAL APPLICATION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As noted above,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent admits to the first three elements of a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">section<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">5(a)(2) violation for each of the cited standards, including applicability of the standard, the terms of the standard were violated, and its employees were exposed to a hazard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Amended Joint Stipulation Statement. The only element<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of Complainant’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">case before the Court</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is knowledge, which also implicates Respondent’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">claim</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of unpreventable employee misconduct.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">With respect<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to each of the citation items, the Court finds Respondent knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the violative conditions</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Law Applicable to Knowledge Analysis</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To prove this element, Complainant must show Respondent knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dun-Par Engineered Form Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1962, 1965 (No. 82-928, 1986). The key is whether Respondent was aware of the conditions constituting a violation, not whether it understood the conditions violated the Act.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079–80 (No. 90-2148, 1995). Complainant can prove knowledge of an employer through the knowledge, actual or constructive, of its supervisory employees.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). If a supervisor is, or should be, aware of a hazardous condition, it is reasonable to charge the employer with that knowledge.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1980). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Because this case originated in the 5th Circuit, and due to the unique facts of this case, the analysis is more complicated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Kerns Bros. Tree Serv.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000) (“Where it is highly probable that a Commission decision would be appealed to a particular circuit, the Commission has generally applied the precedent of that circuit in deciding the case—even though it may differ from the Commission’s precedent.”) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 660(a)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, (b))</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Under Commission precedent, as well as that of other circuit courts</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant meets its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">burden when a supervisor engages in violative conduct. Because the supervisor is aware of his own conduct, such knowledge can be imputed to his employer.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Empire Roofing Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 25 BNA OSHC 2221 (No. 13-1034, 2016) (“Under Commission precedent, the Secretary can establish the knowledge element of his burden of proof by imputing a supervisor’s knowledge of a violative condition, including knowledge of his or her own<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">misconduct, to the employer.”).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This can be rebutted by Respondent showing the supervisor’s conduct was not foreseeable</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by pleading</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the unpreventable<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employee</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>misconduct defense.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 1013, 1017 (No. 87-1067, 1991) (holding defense of unpreventable employee misconduct involving a supervisor requires proof employer took all feasible steps to prevent incident, including adequate instruction and supervision of the supervisor)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to the 5th Circuit,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">however,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Commission<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">improperly relieves the Secretary of its</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>burden of proof as to knowledge in this situation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 459 F.3d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 2006)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Before imputing to an<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employer</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the knowledge of a supervisor whose misconduct is the subject of the citation, the 5th Circuit<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">requires</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Secretary<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>show “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the employer’s safety policy, training, and discipline</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">are</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>insufficient such that the supervisor’s conduct was foreseeable.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 608.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> In other words, the standard for proving foreseeability is ostensibly the same as the standard of proof for establishing the supervisory misconduct defense, albeit in reverse.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 459 F.3d at 60</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">9</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>n.7 (“Thus it appears that the required considerations for this affirmative defense closely mirror the foreseeability analysis required to determine if a supervisor’s knowledge of his own misconduct, contrary to the employer’s policies, can be imputed to the employer.”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In decisions subsequent to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the 5th Circuit has clarified its holding is a narrow one. For example, in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Byrd Telecom, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the court upheld an ALJ’s determination that the employer had constructive knowledge of the violation because it had no work rules governing the violation, did not properly train its employees, and failed to discipline the supervisor who engaged in the misconduct.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Byrd Telecom, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">657 Fed. Appx. 312, 316</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">5th Cir. 2016</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(unpublished)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. In other words, the inadequacy of the employer’s program alone was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sufficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to establish the employer’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">constructive knowledge “[</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">i</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rrespective</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of who was serving as foreman”, thereby rendering any such supervisor’s misconduct as foreseeable. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>“[A]n employer has a general obligation to inspect its workplace for hazards.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hamilton Fixture</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1073, 1993 WL 127949 at *16 (No. 88-1720, 1993) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 8 BNA OSHC 1384, 1387 (No. 76-5089, 1980)). The scope of that obligation “requires a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">careful and critical examination<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and is not satisfied by a mere opportunity to view equipment.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Austin Comm. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 610 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1979). Some factors to assess whether an employer has exercised reasonable diligence include an employer’s “obligation to inspect the work area, to anticipate hazards to which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Swidzinski</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC 1230, 1233 (No. 76-4627, 1981). Additionally, an employer “cannot claim lack of knowledge resulting from its own failure to make use of the sources of information readily available to it.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wiley Organics, Inc. d/b/a Organic Tech</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1586, 1597 (No. 91-3275, 1996),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">124 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 1997);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also N&N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">18 BNA OSHC 2121</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(No.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">96-0606</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2000) (“Reasonable diligence implies effort, attention, and action; not mere reliance upon another to make violations known.”).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Constructive knowledge, just like actual knowledge, can be imputed to the employer through the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knowledge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of its supervisory employees.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). If a supervisor is, or should be, aware of a hazardous condition, it is reasonable to charge the employer with that knowledge.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1980).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">B.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">a</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation 1, Item 1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as follows:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 CFR<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.269(a)(4)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Existing characteristics and conditions of electrical lines and equipment that are related to the safety of the work to be performed shall be determined before work on or near the lines or equipment is started:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On or about May 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and May 3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2018, the employer did not ensure that the existing characteristics and conditions of electrical lines, related to the safety of work, was determined before work was started. This exposed the employees to electrical hazards.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">8</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As noted above, multiple supervisors took part in the decision-making and repair process leading to M.T.’s electrocution, including Walker, Williams, Fine, and M.T.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref10" href="#ftn10">9</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant contends<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Walker, Williams, and Fine all</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>qualify as supervisors whose knowledge could (and should) be imputed to Respondent with respect to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">M.T.’s failure to identify the line as belonging to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref11" href="#ftn11">10</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Respondent argues Walker and Williams’ roles in the process were minimal; that Fine lacked the requisite knowledge as a superintendent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">training to qualify as a supervisor whose knowledge should be imputed; and that M.T.’s actions were unforeseeable. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">With regard to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>this citation item, t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Court agrees with Respondent as to Walker, Williams</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and Fine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. However,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">with regard to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">M.T., the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent had constructive knowledge of the violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>While there is some cachet to Complainant’s argument that Williams should have known M.T. misidentified the line, it is unclear what more he could have</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>reasonably</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>done under the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">circumstances. When M.T. called in with Mejia and Walker, he told Williams he found the downed line and needed a 1/0 splice to repair it. Because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not typically use 1/0 cable on its power line, Williams asked M.T. whether he was sure the line belonged to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and whether M.T. had walked the line to ensure that was the case. M.T. assured Williams he had done so. Burris testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>had multiple contractors that worked on its lines, any of whom could have installed a different size cable in response to a growing power load. (Tr. 498).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Considering Williams was not at the worksite, the Court finds he exercised reasonable diligence by asking follow-up questions in response to unusual information; namely, when he asked whether his experienced crew foreman performed an adequate survey of the line.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Walker’s role in the matter was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">even further</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>attenuated: he was initially called out to perform electrical repairs on equipment but could not do so until the lines were repaired. He helped Mejia and M.T. find the downed wire and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was around during the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>phone call to Williams, the line supervisor, but otherwise was uninvolved in the decision-making process or</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>repair. It is unclear to what extent he participated in the phone call or what the information discussed during the call should have prompted him to do, given his primary sphere of knowledge was in electrical equipment and not line work. Once the conversation with Williams concluded, Walker returned to work on the equipment in the oil fields. Given these facts, the Court sees no reason why Walker would<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">react any differently than Williams, who asked M.T. whether he had properly identified the line.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As for Fine, the Court finds this is one instance where his overall lack of knowledge regarding line work matters. It was not until after M.T. had “identified” the line and Williams had asked him whether he had confirmed that fact when Fine entered the picture. (Tr. 429). According to Fine, he was contacted by Shipman to open the warehouse to get a 1/0<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Auto</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">plice</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for M.T. and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mejia. (Tr. 429). Shipman commented they “don’t use them” to which Fine responded, “I don’t even know what that is, but I’ll open the warehouse.” (Tr. 429). Given Fine’s relative lack of knowledge about line sizes, splices, and what size line<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>used specifically, the Court<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">disagrees with Complainant that Fine’s conversation with Shipman should have raised a red flag. Given his inexperience,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it is unclear whether Fine would have known there was a concern about operating on an incorrect line; indeed, under such circumstances, it would make sense for him to rely on a competent person with more experience.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref12" href="#ftn12">11</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> As such, the Court finds Complainant failed to prove</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Fine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>exercise reasonable diligence when he failed to ask how M.T. knew the line belonged to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As regards M.T., however, the Court finds he should have known the line did not belong to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Crown</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Qu</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">est</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and that his failure to exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances was foreseeable by Respondent. Respondent attributed M.T.’s misidentification to his failure to complete a JSA and job briefing prior to conducting a repair, because “one of the purposes of a job briefing would have been to determine the conditions of the line and to ensure the right line was being worked on.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 18. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In other words, had M.T. taken the time to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">perform the company-mandated steps before performing the job, he would have noted the location where the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>line separated from the Oncor line and correctly identified the line as belonging to Oncor. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">474, 609</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-33</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). This, in turn, would have illustrated that neither of the switches he identified—the primary meter and air</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">switch—would cut off power to that location.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent asserts its safety policies, training, and record of discipline illustrate M.T.’s actions were unforeseeable and uncharacteristic. The Court disagrees.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Although Respondent claims M.T.’s actions were uncharacteristic, there is no evidence Respondent had a system in place to monitor the behavior of its employees such that it could be said to have exercised reasonable diligence.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See L.E. Meyers Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>16 BNA OSHC 1037 (No. 90-945, 1993)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“[O]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ne</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the factors considered in determining whether an employer effectively enforced its safety rules are the efforts it took to monitor adherence to those safety rules by supervisory employees.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>There is no dispute Respondent had rules in place to address this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—or the others for that matter—nor does it appear there is any question that M.T. was trained. (Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant contends Respondent’s training program was surely inadequate based on the multiple failures that occurred on the night of May 2-3, 2018; however, Complainant does not point to any<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular aspect</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Respondent’s training program that is deficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On the basis of this evidence, the Court refuses to conclude M.T. was not trained; however, as discussed in more detail below, the fact that all three employees failed to comply with multiple rules while in the field suggests something about Respondent’s program was deficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Perhaps training was lacking; though the more likely conclusion is that Respondent failed to adequately monitor and discipline its employees such that they felt compelled to comply.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Court is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">most<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">concerned about Respondent’s failure to inspect its many and varied workplaces and, as a result, impose meaningful discipline with respect to the work practices that substantially impact safety and health.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As noted above, reasonable diligence reflects an “obligation to inspect the work area, to anticipate hazards to which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Swidzinski</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC 1230, 1233 (No. 76-4627, 1981);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also N&N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2121 (“Reasonable diligence implies effort, attention, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">action; not mere reliance upon another to make violations known.”). There is nothing in Respondent’s safety program<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>indicate the existence of an internal inspection program</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or to suggest inspections took place at all</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Burris’ testimony regarding “audits” appear to be a reference to skills tests and certifications for the use of equipment rather than actual inspections occurring</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in the field, especially of crews<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">performing late-night power line repairs.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The lack of inspections is borne out by the disciplinary notices issued by Respondent prior to the incident on May 3, 2018. Of those disciplinary notices, most were related to speeding and no-call/no-shows. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">201-208</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-22</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). While there were a few disciplinary notices issued for failure to wear a hard hat, those notices were issued to employees working in the yard of Respondent’s facilities; not in the field, where a predominant amount of Respondent’s work took place. The speeding violations were caught by GPS monitoring, and no-call/no-shows have no relationship to safety and health. In fact, the only record of an in-the-field “inspection”, so-called, was Burris’ oral account of the time he fired a group of people for failing to wear PPE and draft a JSA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr. 568). Even then, Burris testified he was on his way to another client’s location when he happened to observe this crew. Otherwise, by Burris’ own admission, the disciplinary notices issued post-May 3, 2018, are the only documented instances of the disciplinary policy being enforced in the field. (Tr. 634). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent had crews working at night under the same conditions as M.T. and Mejia at least once a week,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and there is no evidence to suggest any of them had been inspected during the performance of their duties.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Commission precedent is rife with examples of what constitutes<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sufficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>monitoring and adequate, targeted discipline.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Thomas Indus. Coatings, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">23 BNA OSHC 2082</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(No. 06-1542, 2012)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(finding monitoring sufficient when: insurance company performed 9 audits over two-year period, safety manager performed unannounced inspections at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">various worksites, owner visited specific worksite periodically and inquired about “everything”, superintendent walked site weekly and completed checklist evaluating safety issues);</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1227 (No. 91-2897, 2000) (finding, upon remand by circuit court, twice daily visits of 30-45 minutes plus unannounced audits and worker’s compensation audits were sufficient);</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Stahl Roofing, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2179</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2182</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">No. 00-1268, 2003</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(finding supervision adequate where supervisors visited each work site at least once a day, safety manager visited ten to fifteen sites a week, and company president made unannounced visits to worksites)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Indeed, even site visits alone are not enough if the supervisors themselves are not being monitored for compliance with the rules.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1097 (No. 98-1748, 2000) (holding employer “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">failed to take reasonable steps to monitor its site supervisors’ compliance</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">” and imputing supervisor’s knowledge to it);</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 1378 (No. 88-2642, 1991) (finding that although union conducted periodic safety inspections, employer failed to show it took any measures to monitor adherence to safety rules by supervisory personnel)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The lack of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">persuasive</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">indicating</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>conduct</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>monitoring of its employees in the field</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who are performing high-risk work</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">—</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">undermines its claim its safety program was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">adequat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">e</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or its disc</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">iplinary record reflected<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">its employees followed the rules</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See L.E. Meyers</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1037 (holding scant evidence of disciplinary action</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, only one of which related to the violations at issue,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in face of history of OSHA violations suggests<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employer safety program insufficient).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Burris’ blanket statement that audits occurred, without indicating the number, frequency, or duration, is insufficient to show its monitoring program was adequate.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Without adequate monitoring of performance, Respondent could not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">accurately</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>assess whether its rules and policies were being followed. As such, any claim that non-complying behaviors, such as M.T.’s, were unforeseeable</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is difficult to accept.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Further the fact that neither<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Mejia nor Fine were disciplined after the incident also undermines Respondent’s suggestion its disciplinary program was adequately enforced.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Byrd Telecom</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 657 Fed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">App’x</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 316 (citing favorably to ALJ’s conclusion that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">safety program<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">inadequate when, amongst other things, Respondent failed to discipline the supervisor involved in the misconduct).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>While Respondent suggests prior leadership in the safety and health and human resources arenas<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">failed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to document disciplinary actions and conduct monitoring, th</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">e</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Court notes that improvements did not occur when new managers were put into place by Burris</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The safety director, Sammy<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Hunnycut</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, was hired in February of 2018, and David Roundtree, who was hired to handle training programming, was hired in January 2018. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">563,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">566</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The uptick in discipline</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">occur<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">until after the incident in this case</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">suggests some of those prior failures still lingered.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Accordingly, the Court finds Complainant established its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">case for constructive knowledge on behalf of M.T. Because he was a supervisor at the time of the violation, his knowledge is properly imputed to Respondent.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">C.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 1b</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation 1, Item 1b as follows:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 CFR<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.269(c)(1)(ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The employer shall ensure that the employee in charge conducts a job briefing that meets paragraph (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this section with the employees involved before they start each job.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On or about May 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and May 3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2018, the employer did not conduct a job briefing for employees performing repair work on an overhead power line. This exposed the employees to electrical hazards.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref13" href="#ftn13">12</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As with Item 1a, Respondent readily admits M.T. failed to conduct a job briefing meeting the requirements of subparagraph (c). Indeed, Respondent points out, had M.T. conducted<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">requisite job briefing, he likely would have correctly identified the downed line as belonging to Oncor instead of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CrownQuest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>According to Fine, he had a brief discussion with M.T. prior to M.T. attempting to fix the line. (Tr. 386). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Specifically, he testified, “We had a job briefing about as to how to fix [the line] as [M.T.] was showing me how to fuzz and what the procedure was, what he was going to do, just a general conversation as we were walking from point A to point B. But to answer, I think, the question you asked, no, we did not stop and have a job briefing to write it down.” (Tr. 386). Fine also admitted he was aware, at the time of the incident, a JSA was required to be completed prior to work beginning and that he, as part of the crew present to perform a job, was at least partly responsible for completing the document. (Tr. 392-93). Though he says he asked Mejia if a JSA had been completed—to which Mejia responded it had—he did not verify this fact, nor did he confirm with M.T. As it turns out, a JSA form was discovered, though it was missing most, if not all, vital information.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant argues Respondent had knowledge of the violation because Fine knew a job briefing was required, that such a briefing had not occurred while he was present at the worksite, and he had not participated in</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the drafting of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, nor signed, a JSA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent contends when Fine asked Mejia if a JSA had been performed and asked M.T. how the job was going to be performed, he exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining whether OSHA regulations were being complied with and whether company rules were being followed. The Court disagrees.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Even though he had been employed by</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for just over a week</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Fine had been given guidance from the Safety Director regarding JSAs and job briefings; indeed, it was the one area Burris wanted to ensure Fine was aware of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>before starting work</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">362-63</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 578</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, not only was he aware briefings/JSAs needed to be performed, his position as superintendent required more than simply relying on the word of the least senior member of the crew on duty that night,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">which he admitted during his testimony. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">364</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">N&N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2121</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Burris testified it was Fine’s responsibility to ensure a job briefing occurred</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and he expected Fine would carry out that duty. (Tr. 505, 552).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Fine traveled to the worksite with the crew, was present before work began</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and had a discussion</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with M.T.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, albeit brief and insufficient, about the nature of the job to be performed. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As crew foreman, M.T. was primarily responsible for conducting a job briefing; however, Fine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, by his own admission and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as testified to by Burris</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, had an obligation to ensure the briefing took place.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 364).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>According to Respondent’s rules, the JSA represented written evidence the job briefing took place, and each employee involved in the job was required to sign it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>indicat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>they were aware of the requirements of the job, regardless of whether they had been physically present for the briefing itself. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">364</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-22 § 2.10</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Fine knew this, and yet he</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified he did not participate in a complete job briefing and did not ask to review or sign a JSA documenting the elements of the job briefing (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">407</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Instead, he appeared to be satisfied with Mejia’s oral representation that a briefing had occurred and a JSA had been filled out. Regardless of whether a written document memorializing the job briefing is required, in this instance the lack of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a written and completed JSA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>highlighted Fine’s failure to ensure a briefing occurred. Accordingly, the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Fine had constructive knowledge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent, through Fine,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knew a compliant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>job briefing did not occur.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Thus, the Court finds Complainant established a violation of the standard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">D.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 2a</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation 1, Item 2a as follows:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 CFR<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.269(m)(3)(ii)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The employer shall ensure that all switches, disconnectors, jumpers, taps, and other means through which known sources of electrical energy may be supplied to the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular lines</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and equipment to be deenergized are open. The employer shall render such means inoperable, unless its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">design does not so permit, and then ensure that such means are tagged to indicate that employees are at work:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On or about May 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and May 3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2018, employees performing repair work on an overhead power line were exposed to electrical hazards when the employer did<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">n</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ot ensure that all switches were open.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref14" href="#ftn14">13</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This violation is, in some ways, an extension of Item 1a in that M.T. did not properly identify the line and, therefore, did not properly identify the switch designed to cut off power to the line. As noted earlier, the switch designed to cut off power to this<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particular location</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was the Oncor recloser, which was located roughly 5 miles away. While M.T. did not have actual knowledge of this fact, he could have known had he exercised reasonable diligence, just as with Item 1a. What is interesting about this citation item, however, is Complainant’s argument that it does not matter whether Respondent knew the Oncor recloser was the proper switch or not. Instead, Complainant argues, Respondent had actual knowledge that the crew never opened<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">and rendered inoperable</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">any</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>switches through which known sources of energy may be supplied.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.269(m)(3)(ii).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The Court agrees.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">It is undisputed the crew did not open the recloser switch, nor did they lock it out. Further, even though M.T. had incorrectly identified the air switch and primary meter as switches that could stop the flow of energy to the cable, he failed to apply a lock to either of them. While the evidence indicates he pulled the fuses on the primary meter, there is no evidence he applied a tag or lock to the switch as required by the cited standard. Likewise, when he stopped at the air switch on his return trip from the warehouse, along with Fine, he found a lock on the switch, but it did not belong to any JW Powerline employee.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While M.T. was mistaken about which switch needed to be opened, he nevertheless failed to “render such means inoperable” through the use of a lock or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">otherwise tag the switch to indicate his crew was working, one of which is required by 29 C.F.R. § 1910.269(m)(3)(ii). This constitutes actual knowledge of the violation, which, as concluded in the previous section</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was foreseeable by Respondent. Accordingly, the Court finds Complainant established its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">case for knowledge.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Alternatively, the Court also finds knowledge can be established through Fine.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As distinct from the previous item, the Court finds Fine had adequate experience and understanding of electrical principles to be aware that switches should have been opened and locks applied. As noted previously, Fine was a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>journeyman electrician and licensed in two different states as a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>master electrician and an unlimited electrical contractor. According to Burris, he expected an individual armed with such knowledge, regardless of their experience with line work, should have known how to lock out and tag out a line and Fine should have ensured that LOTO had taken place. (Tr. 551). Notwithstanding this knowledge, Fine did not ensure or verify M.T. and Mejia had locked out the switches they believed cut off power to the downed portion of line. Instead, he merely accepted M.T.’s word a lock had been applied to the air switch without conducting an independent inspection of it. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">374</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Although Fine may not have<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">had actual knowledge M.T. failed to lock out or tag out the various switches they believed supplied power to the broken line, he could have discovered this failure had he exercised reasonable diligence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See N&N Contractors, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2121</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Under the circumstances, Fine was merely an observer of M.T.’s misconduct and did not specifically fail to do anything except inquire further. As such,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates’<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">foreseeability analysis does not apply.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Calpine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">774 Fed. Appx. 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2019)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(“Yates addresses only when a supervisor’s knowledge of his<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">own<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">misconduct violates an employer’s policy or instructions.”). That said, even if it were to apply, the same failures of Respondent’s safety program identified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">under the analysis of M.T.’s behavior would apply equally to Fine. In fact, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">conclusion</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is stronger in Fine’s case, because Respondent only provided him with an impromptu session of “training”, which only addressed JSAs, with the safety director prior to sending him into the field. Further, to the extent Burris relied upon Fine’s credentials as a substitute for proper training, there is no evidence he performed any independent analysis of his abilities<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to suggest he was so qualified. Thus, any failure to comply with company rules regarding LOTO were certainly foreseeable, and therefore imputable to Respondent.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">E.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 2b</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation 1, Item 2b as follows:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 CFR<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.269(n)(2)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>For any employee to work transmission and distribution lines or equipment as deenergized, the employer shall ensure that the lines or equipment are deenergized under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this section and shall ensure proper grounding of the lines or equipment as specified in paragraphs (n)(3) through (n)(8) of this section:<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">On or about May 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">nd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and May 3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rd</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2018, employees performing repair work on an overhead power line were exposed to electrical hazards when the employer did not ensure proper grounding of lines.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><a name="ftnref15" href="#ftn15">14</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The analysis for this item is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">similar to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the analysis for item 2a, albeit much simpler. While items 1a and 2a involve a state of imperfect knowledge, i.e., neither Fine nor M.T.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knew</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the wire or switches were the incorrect ones, this item addresses something they failed to do and should have been readily apparent to both: grounding.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>When asked by Fine how he knew the lines were deenergized, M.T. fuzzed the line with his screwdriver, which would produce an arc if it were energized. However, beyond this rudimentary (and contrary to company policy) illustration, M.T. did nothing else to ensure compliance with the cited standard and Respondent’s rules governing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">grounding of power lines. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">388</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-23</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). In fact, Respondent discovered<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">later</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that M.T. and Mejia did not have grounding chains in their service truck,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>which means they were either unprepared or chose to proceed notwithstanding the lack of proper equipment</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">516-17</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> As such, M.T. had actual knowledge of the violative condition.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">For the reasons stated in the previous two sections, the Court finds this failure was foreseeable and, thus, M.T.’s knowledge is properly imputed to Respondent.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Alternatively, the Court also finds Fine’s knowledge is imputable to Respondent.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While Fine may have been unfamiliar with the specifics of grounding power lines, his certifications and background should have put him on notice that M.T. failed to ground the broken wires. Fine was not present for the initial assessment of the problem; however, he was there before any work started on the line. (Tr. 174-75). Based on the evidence, the only actions he observed were: (1) M.T. fuzzing the line; (2) Mejia collecting a hoist to install the splice; (3) M.T. starting to install the splice and requesting an additional hoist to complete the job; and (4) Mejia collecting an additional hoist. Notwithstanding the importance of grounding for electrical work generally, Fine did not ask M.T. or Mejia whether the line had been grounded, nor did he observe M.T. or Mejia do anything that could be reasonably construed as grounding. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">406-407, 426</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Given<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">these facts,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">his experience as a master electrician</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and his position as superintendent, Fine knew, or at the very least should have known, the line had not been grounded. Burris, who hired Fine, testified Fine should have known M.T. did not ground the power line and expected he would have ensured grounding had taken place. (Tr. 551-52). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While Fine could arguably be held to have participated in the misconduct, he was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">more of an observer in this situation. His participation in the repair amounted to holding a flashlight for Mejia to retrieve a hoist from the service truck. Nonetheless, according to Respondent’s work<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rules, he was responsible for ensuring workers complied with grounding procedures. (Tr. 217-18; Ex. C-23 at DOL-000101). Although he was required to ensure grounding took place, he was not specifically engaged in the misconduct alleged. As such, the foreseeability analysis of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>does not apply.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> And, as stated before, even if it were to apply to this situation, the Court would equally find Fine’s misconduct foreseeable, because Respondent either (a) failed to provide adequate training before sending him into the field or (b) failed to make a proper assessment of his knowledge, skills, and abilities prior to sending him into the field. Further, the analysis regarding the foreseeability of M.T.’s actions is equally applicable to Fine. Accordingly, his knowledge is also properly imputable to Respondent.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">VI.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Failed to Prove<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Unpreventable Employee Misconduct</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In order to prevail on a claim of unpreventable employee misconduct, Respondent must prove</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: (1) it has established work rules designed to prevent the violation, (2) has adequately communicated those rules to its employees, (3) has taken steps to discover violations, and (4) has effectively enforced the rules when violations have been discovered.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See W.G. Yates</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 459 F.3d at 609 n.7</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. As noted earlier</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the standard for determining whether a supervisor’s actions were foreseeable closely tracks the elements of the unpreventable employee misconduct defense.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Respondent contends M.T.’s misconduct should not be imputed to it, because his actions were unforeseeable based on Respondent’s policies, training, and discipline. For many of the reasons previously discussed, the Court disagrees.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">clearly had policies and rules to address the violations alleged in this case, and documentary and testimonial evidence indicates classroom and on-the-job training occurred. The problem, as previously discussed, was with Respondent’s lack of monitoring and inadequate discipline. While Respondent introduced evidence of disciplinary actions, they were not connected<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to monitoring occurring in the field; instead, the disciplinary notices were the product of remote monitoring of vehicle speed via GPS,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">violations of the hard hat rule in Respondent’s yard, and violations of the no-call/no-show rule, which has no relationship to safety and health.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent argues so long</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it has a disciplinary policy and shows it has disciplined employees in conformity with that policy, it does not need to show employees were disciplined for violating the particular standards at issue in the case</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, especially when there is no evidence such rules were routinely violated. The problem with this argument, however, is that it is unclear Respondent would have been capable of determining whether rules were routinely violated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Indeed, the lack of any disciplinary actions stemming from inspections of field work prior to May 3, 2018, whether related to the specific violations at issue in this case or not, indicates inadequate enforcement.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1097 (“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Although SWBT had a safety program and conducted site visits, there is no evidence that either the program or the visits pertained to enforcing the competent persons’ obligation to perform trench inspections.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Likewise, the fact that Respondent began issuing many more disciplinary notices after M.T.’s electrocution, including notices for failing to comply with rules related to the behaviors complained of in this case, suggests Respondent’s monitoring and disciplinary program was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">insufficient</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In order to show it had an adequate program to monitor its employees, Respondent needed to introduce evidence it performed inspections in the first instance, let alone evidence that it performed inspections<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of the employees who performed work at night</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Burris testified audits occurred, but then went on to describe training and competency evaluations, as opposed to a program of periodic and surprise inspections.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As discussed previously, t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Commission has held<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">an employer must provide evidence of the number, frequency, and duration of the inspections it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">performs in order to establish it appropriately monitored its employees’ compliance with company rules. This includes monitoring supervisory employees.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> There was simply no evidence of consistent, intentional monitoring of field employees, nor persuasive evidence of related disciplinary actions. Accordingly, the Court finds Respondent failed to establish the defense of unpreventable employee misconduct as to any of the violations alleged.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent failed to rebut Complainant’s proof of knowledge as to Citation 1, Items 1a,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1b,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>2a, and 2b. Accordingly, those citation items shall be AFFIRMED.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">VII.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Penalty</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Under the Act, the Secretary has the authority to propose a penalty according to Section 17 of the Act.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 U.S.C. §§ 659(a), 666. The amount proposed, however, merely becomes</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>advisory when an employer timely contests the matter. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Brennan v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 487 F.2d 438, 441</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">–</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">42 (8th Cir. 1973);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Revoli</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Constr. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1682, 1686 n. 5 (No. 00-0315, 2001).</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately, it is the province of the Commission to “assess all civil penalties provided in [Section 17]”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which it determines<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">de novo</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>29 U.S.C. § 666(j)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Valdak</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1135 (No. 93-0239, 1995)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“Regarding penalty, the Act requires that “due consideration” be given to the employer</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s size, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and any prior history of violations.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Briones Util. Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 26 BNA OSHC 1218, 1222 (No. 10-1372, 2016) (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">citing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>29 U.S.C. § 666(j)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">These factors are not necessarily accorded equal weight.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">J.A. Jones Constr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 2201, 2216 (No. 87-2059, 1993) (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">citation omitted</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Rather, the Commission assigns the weight that is reasonable under the circumstances. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Eric K. Ho,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>20 BNA OSHC 1361, 1379 (No. 98-1645, 2003) (Consol.),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd sub nom.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Chao v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 401 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">It is the Secretary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s burden to introduce evidence bearing on the factors and explain how he arrived at the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">penalty he proposed. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Valdak</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC at 1138</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“The gravity of the violation is the ‘principal factor in a penalty determination</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Assessing gravity involves considering: (1) the number of employees exposed to the hazard; (2) the duration of exposure; (3) whether any precautions have been taken against injury; (4) the degree of probability that an accident would occur; and (5) the likelihood of injury. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>e.g.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Capform</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1374, 1378 (No. 99-0322, 2001),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 34 F. Appx. 152 (5th Cir. 2002) (unpublished). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent is a mid-size employer, employing roughly<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">130 and 160</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees. As for the gravity of the violatio</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ns</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Court generally agrees with the assessments of Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">who determined the violations were of high gravity. The Court finds the following factors support that assessment. First,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">for a period of 30 minutes,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">three employees—Mejia, M.T., and Fine—</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">were exposed to an ungrounded, 14,400-volt line that was neither locked out nor deenergized. Second, w</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hile<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent had policies in place</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to address the electrocution hazard, M.T.’s crew appeared to take very few precautions to prevent injury, including<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">their failure to ground, lock-out/tag-out, or conduct a job briefing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Third,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the probability an accident would occur<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">wa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s not a mathematical certainty, but given the interconnection between CrownQuest and Oncor’s lines, the dark conditions, winding roads</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the potential for multiple crews to be working during an outage, and the crew’s failure to utilize any precautions, the Court finds the probability to be fairly high</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Finally,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as illustrated by what happened to M.T., the likelihood of a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>serious or fatal injury<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">stemming from an accident was high.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court finds Respondent, through the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">leadership</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Burris,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">wa</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">attempting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to become a safer and more conscientious employer</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>after what appears to have been years of mismanagement in the arena of safety and health. While the Court does not find this amounts to good faith warranting a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">reduction in the penalty originally proposed by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant, it does find such attempts militate against Complainant’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">argument, which the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Court takes as a motion, that</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Court ungroup the violations and propose individual penalties for each violation, essentially doubling the original proposed penalty. As originally proposed, Complainant grouped Citation 1, Item 1a and 1b, with a proposed penalty of $12,806, and Citation 2a and 2b, with a proposed penalty of $12,805. The grouping of the foregoing citations makes sense: 1a and 1b relate to the planning stage of the electrical work, while 2a and 2b relate to the execution of steps necessary to ensure the line was deenergized. The Court has found nothing in Complainant’s presentation of evidence to justify a 100% increase in the proposed penalty.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’s motion to ungroup the penalties is DENIED.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Accordingly, Citation 1, Item 1a and 1b shall be assessed a group penalty of $12,806, and Citation 1, Item 2a and 2b shall be assessed a group penalty of $12,805.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">O</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">RDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The foregoing Decision constitutes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclus</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ions of Law, it is ORDERED that:</span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and 1b are</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">AFFIRMED as</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
					</span>serious, and a grouped penalty of $12,806 is ASSESSED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2a and 2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">b<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">are AFFIRMED as serious, and a grouped penalty of $12,805 is ASSESSED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:24px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SO</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>ORDERED</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:336px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:22pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:22pt; text-decoration:underline ;">/s/ Patrick B. Augustine</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Patrick B. Augustine</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Judge, OSHRC</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Date:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>May 4, 2020</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Denver, Colorado</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1 </span></a>. The two-person crew was accompanied by Respondent’s newly hired superintendent of its Midland branch, who went to the worksite to relieve the electrician<span><span></span>
					</span>who<span><span></span>
					</span>had been sent to restore electricity to the customer’s drilling equipment. (Tr. 70-71, 365-66). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2 </span></a>. In its first unopposed motion, which was granted by the Court, Complainant failed to correct the alleged violation description narrative in Citation 1, Item 2b, which merely repeated the same description contained in Citation 1, Item 2a. The second unopposed motion, which was also granted by the Court, corrected this mistake.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">3 </span></a>. Respondent also has other business lines, but they were not involved in the events at issue in this case. (Tr.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>590-92). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">4 </span></a>. According to Fine, the designations of unlimited electrical contractor and master electrician are the same. (Tr. 349). Oklahoma and Texas basically use different nomenclature for the same status.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">5 </span></a>. Even then, Complainant’s counsel was quick to point out that many of the individual violations were the result of singular incidents wherein multiple people were cited for the same failure, i.e., completing a JSA and<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">lock out tag out (“LOTO’)</span>.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">6 </span></a>. The Court finds this hard to believe. Not only did Fine have extensive qualifications and knowledge that would highlight such a practice as improper, he also testified he testified he would use a voltmeter on an outlet, which might have 220V of electricity compared to the 7200-plus volts that are found on overhead power lines. (Tr. 379).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">7 </span></a>. Although Respondent occasionally performed work for Oncor, the utility’s own employees typically performed repairs after a loss of power.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">8 </span></a>. The Citation and Notification of Penalty was amended (twice) by Complainant. The most up-to-date version of the Citation narrative is contained in the Court’s<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Correct Typographical Error in the Secretary’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Citation and Complaint</span>. This is the case for each reference to the Citation and Notification of Penalty.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn10" href="#ftnref10"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">9 </span></a>. At trial Respondent questioned whether M.T. could properly be characterized as supervisor. (Tr. 33). The evidence shows M.T. was designated as a crew<span>
					</span>foreman, and<span><span></span>
					</span>would typically be in charge of a crew of four individuals. Though he did not have a full crew on the night of May 2-3, 2018, he had a helper, Mejia, whom he directed to perform tasks and for whom he was responsible.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See Tampa Shipyards, Inc.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1533, 1537 (No. 86-630, 1992) (“An employee who has been delegated authority over other employees, even if only temporarily, is considered to be a supervisor for the purposes of imputing knowledge to an employer.”).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn11" href="#ftnref11"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">10 </span></a>. Complainant opted to not discuss M.T. as a supervisor’s knowledge should be imputed to Respondent in its principal arguments, but instead focused on the two general foremen and the superintendent. Perhaps because Complainant asserts<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Yates<span>
						</span></span>is inapplicable to the present case that it only addresses M.T. as a source of imputable knowledge in its response to the Court’s certified questions.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn12" href="#ftnref12"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">11 </span></a>. While inexperience plays a factor under this set of facts,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Thomas Industrial Coatings</span><span><span></span>
					</span>does not compel this conclusion. In that case, the Commission determined that a foreman-in-training did not have an adequate view of the violative conduct such that it could<span><span></span>
					</span>conclude he should have known of the violation, nor was it able to ascertain how long the condition existed such that the foreman-in-training would have had opportunity to see it.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Thomas Indus. Coatings, Inc.</span>,<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>23 BNA OSHC 2082, 2012 WL<span><span></span>
					</span>1777086 at *4 (No. 06-1542, 2012).<span>
					</span>In either case, the Court notes the status of the foreman as one “in training” had no bearing on the outcome of the case.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn13" href="#ftnref13"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">12 </span></a>. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See, supra</span>, note 8.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn14" href="#ftnref14"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">13 </span></a>.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See, supra</span>, note 8.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn15" href="#ftnref15"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">14 </span></a>. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See, supra</span>, note 8.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>