Secretary of Labor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

OSHRC Docket No. 09-1013 

Respondent’s Opening Brief 

Exhibit E 

Transcript of June 1, 2010, Deposition of Vicky Heza 

Filed on June 20, 2011
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

Original File 93713.TXT

Min-U-Script® with Word Index
1

 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 2 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 -----------------------------------------------x

 3 SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 4 Complainant,

 5 -against-

 6 WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

 7 Respondent.

 8 OSHRC Docket No. 09-1013

 -----------------------------------------------x

 9

10

 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW

11 Washington, DC

12 June 1, 2010

 1:35 p.m.

13

14

15 Videoconference Deposition of VICKY

16 HEZA, taken before John L. Harmonson, Registered

17 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and

18 for the District of Columbia.

19

20

21

22

23 ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC

 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor

24 New York, New York 10022

 212-750-6434

25 Ref: 93713
2

 1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

 2

 3 ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT SECRETARY OF LABOR:

 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

 5

 201 Varick Street

 6 Room 983

 New York, New York 10014

 7

 BY: DARREN COHEN, ESQUIRE

 8 (646) 264-3675

 9

10

11 ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT WAL-MART STORES, INC.:

12 GIBSON DUNN

13 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW

 Washington, DC 20036

14

 BY: BARUCH A. FELLNER, ESQUIRE

15 -and-

 DANIEL RATHBUN, ESQUIRE

16 (202) 955-8500

17

18

19 ON BEHALF OF CAL-OSHA AND THE WITNESS:

20 WILLIAM CREGER, ESQUIRE

21 1515 Clay Street

 Room 1901

22 Oakland, California 94612

 (510) 286-7348

23

24

25
3

 1 ------------------- I N D E X -------------------

 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE

 3 VICKY HEZA MR. FELLNER 5

 4

 5

 6 ---------------- E X H I B I T S ----------------

 7 EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION FOR I.D.

 8

 9 (NO EXHIBITS MARKED)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
4

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S

 2

 3 THE COURT REPORTER: We are going on

 4 the record for the video conferenced deposition of

 5 Vicky Heza, in the matter of Secretary of Labor v.

 6 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., pending before the United

 7 States Occupational Safety and Health Review

 8 Commission, OSHRC Docket No. 09-1013. Today's

 9 date is June 1, 2010, and the time is 1:35 p.m.

10 My name is John Harmonson. I am a

11 court reporter and notary public in and for the

12 District of Columbia, appearing on behalf of Ellen

13 Grauer Court Reporting of New York, New York, and

14 will be reporting these proceedings from the

15 offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington,

16 D.C.

17 At this time would counsel please

18 identify themselves and state whom they represent.

19 MR. FELLNER: This is Baruch Fellner.

20 I'm with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of

21 Wal-Mart, the respondent in this matter. I'm

22 joined by Dan Rathbun here in Washington, D.C.

23 MR. COHEN: And this is Darren Cohen in

24 New York from the Office of the Solicitor,

25 Department of Labor, representing the complainant,
5

 1 HEZA

 2 the Secretary of Labor.

 3 MR. CREGER: William Creger. I'm an

 4 attorney with Cal-OSHA, the Los Angeles legal unit

 5 of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

 6 THE WITNESS: And I am Vicky Heza with

 7 Cal-OSHA.

 8 V I C K Y H E Z A ,

 9 after having been first duly sworn, was examined

10 and did testify under oath as follows:

11 MR. FELLNER: Once again, let me

12 apologize to everyone for both the delay and the

13 technical difficulties that prevent this

14 deposition from being taken in a video format.

15 This is the first one in my career that is voice

16 only. But I suspect we can get it done, and I

17 hope we can get it done with dispatch.

18 Again, this is Baruch Fellner with

19 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of Wal-Mart in

20 this matter. It deals with a general duty clause

21 citation involving an unruly crowd of shoppers on

22 Blitz Day 2008, in Valley Stream, Long Island.

23 EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. FELLNER:

25 Q. Ms. Heza, I assume that you know the
6

 1 HEZA

 2 process and procedures of taking depositions, but

 3 at the risk of belaboring the point, first you

 4 know that you are and have been sworn in and

 5 therefore are under oath.

 6 Let me ask you whether you've been

 7 through the drill before and have given a

 8 deposition.

 9 A. I believe once.

10 Q. Just let me remind you, and that is if

11 there is anything unclear about my questions,

12 please let me know so that I can clarify the

13 questions. I think it may be a little trickier

14 since this is exclusively audio, but we'll give it

15 a whirl.

16 Also, if you need a break at any point,

17 please let me know and we can obviously take a

18 brief recess.

19 As a preliminary matter, are you taking

20 any medications that might affect your memory or

21 your ability to give this deposition today?

22 A. I have been taking cough medicine, yes.

23 Q. And would that cough medicine, in your

24 view, affect your ability to recall?

25 A. I don't think so.
7

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Okay. And I hope you feel better if

 3 you've been taking the cough medicine.

 4 A. Thank you.

 5 Q. How did you prepare for this

 6 deposition?

 7 MR. COHEN: Baruch, before you go

 8 further, I just want to for the record note again

 9 the Secretary's objection to the deposition and to

10 the possible admission of the deposition at the

11 hearing. I just want to have that on the record.

12 MR. FELLNER: Duly noted.

13 BY MR. FELLNER:

14 Q. Ms. Heza, how did you prepare for this

15 deposition?

16 A. You know, to be honest, I did not have

17 much time at all to prepare for this deposition.

18 And so this is, to a large extent, off the top of

19 my head.

20 Q. Did you have an opportunity to speak

21 with anyone concerning this deposition?

22 A. Well, yeah, I spoke with the chief.

23 Q. And who is the --

24 MR. CREGER: She spoke with me.

25 MR. FELLNER: You being counsel?
8

 1 HEZA

 2 MR. CREGER: I am counsel, yes.

 3 BY MR. FELLNER:

 4 Q. Right. And the chief being Len Welsh?

 5 A. Correct.

 6 Q. Okay. And did you speak with anybody

 7 outside of California OSHA with respect to this

 8 deposition?

 9 A. No.

10 Q. Did you review any materials in

11 preparation for the deposition?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Let me just briefly get into your

14 education and employment background, if I may.

15 Would you describe for me your formal educational

16 background, please.

17 A. I have a bachelor's in biology and a

18 master's in toxicology.

19 Q. And when did you receive your

20 bachelor's, please?

21 A. Oh, I don't know. It was in the '80s,

22 I think.

23 Q. And your master's?

24 A. '90s. '95, maybe.

25 Q. Have you received any other formal
9

 1 HEZA

 2 training?

 3 A. In what?

 4 Q. Related to safety and health issues.

 5 A. Well, in my career with Cal-OSHA I've

 6 attended training classes.

 7 Q. All right. And what kind of classes,

 8 off the top of your head, can you recall

 9 attending?

10 A. Oh, policy and procedure. It was so

11 long ago, I actually don't remember. I think

12 industrial hygiene techniques.

13 Q. Okay. Do you have any other degrees

14 other than the two that you mentioned?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Are you a Certified Safety

17 Professional?

18 A. No.

19 Q. A CIH, Certified Industrial Hygienist?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Let me get in a little bit into your

22 employment history. How long have you worked for

23 California OSHA?

24 A. I think about 23 years.

25 Q. And what positions have you held?
10

 1 HEZA

 2 A. I have held industrial hygiene

 3 consultant; district manager of San Diego

 4 enforcement; regional manager of Cal-OSHA

 5 consultation; deputy chief enforcement; and I am

 6 now the program manager of Cal-OSHA consultation.

 7 Q. Could you go back to those various

 8 positions and give me time frames and content of

 9 responsibility, please.

10 A. Industrial hygiene consultant would be

11 '86 through '91, and I was conducting on-site

12 surveys at the employer's request.

13 District manager in San Diego was '91

14 to '94. Wait a minute. When was that? '91 to

15 '93. And that was the district office, the

16 enforcement office, so those duties included

17 assignment of work, review of work product, and

18 then personnel-related issues.

19 And then from ninety -- I'm missing

20 some years here. But through 1999 I was regional

21 manager for the consultation service, and that

22 position entailed establishing strategic goals,

23 working with the various offices in

24 implementing those, keeping track of the

25 consultation and service activities, conducting
11

 1 HEZA

 2 outreach and training.

 3 And then the next position as deputy

 4 chief of enforcement from '99 to 2009, it was

 5 working with the regional managers and the

 6 district managers as they conducted their

 7 enforcement activities. You know, outreach and

 8 education, again establishing strategic goals and

 9 performance goals and tracking that kind of

10 information, and then personnel activities.

11 And then most recently as program

12 manager for the consultation service it is

13 overseeing the consultation program, ensure its

14 consistency with federal requirements, working

15 with the various managers and senior staff in, you

16 know, working towards achieving our goals.

17 Q. That's a very impressive list,

18 Ms. Heza.

19 And is it fair to say that your

20 knowledge of California regulations and

21 enforcement and consultation issues is thorough

22 and comprehensive?

23 A. I -- I don't know if I would use those

24 terms. You know, I'm reasonably knowledgeable

25 about the Cal-OSHA consultation program.
12

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. With respect to enforcement issues, and

 3 you were deputy chief of enforcement for a period

 4 of ten years, I would assume that applies to

 5 enforcement issues as well as consultation issues,

 6 that you're reasonably knowledgeable insofar as

 7 enforcement issues?

 8 A. Yes.

 9 Q. Have you played any role with respect

10 to developing Cal-OSHA's regulations?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Any advisory role with respect to any

13 regulatory initiatives?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Have you at all been involved in or had

16 responsibility for administering the IIPP program?

17 A. Administering the IIPP program? What

18 does that mean?

19 Q. Well, if there is a better gerund to

20 use than administering the IIPP program -- How

21 about reviewing the IIPP program, being conversant

22 with respect to the kinds of programs that

23 employers would implement in response to the IIPP

24 regulation?

25 A. I'm familiar with the IIPP
13

 1 HEZA

 2 requirements.

 3 Q. And are you also familiar with how

 4 employers generally attempt to meet those

 5 requirements?

 6 A. Am I familiar with how employers would

 7 generally attempt to meet those requirements?

 8 Q. To comply with IIPP.

 9 A. Yeah, I would say so.

10 Q. Same question with respect to special

11 orders. And let me be a little bit more specific.

12 Do you have any responsibility for issuing or

13 monitoring the compliance with special orders?

14 A. I personally have not.

15 Q. Have you supervisory responsibility or

16 have you had supervisory responsibility with

17 respect to individuals who have issued or

18 monitored compliance with special orders?

19 A. I did supervise managers whose offices,

20 you know, would have issued special orders.

21 Q. Now, let's get into the operation of

22 California's OSHA Act, an area in which I'm

23 considerably less familiar than I am with the

24 federal program. I assume, of course, you are

25 totally familiar and conversant with the design
14

 1 HEZA

 2 and operation of California's Occupational Safety

 3 and Health Act.

 4 A. I'm familiar.

 5 Q. And let me ask you with respect to the

 6 design and operation of the federal Occupational

 7 Safety and Health Act. Are you at all conversant

 8 in that?

 9 A. No. I'm familiar with it, but I'm not

10 conversant in it.

11 Q. Got it. Who admit -- Let me ask it

12 more directly and you'll allow me this leading

13 question.

14 The California OSHA Act is administered

15 by the Department of Industrial Relations; is that

16 right?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. The California OSHA Act is an approved

19 state plan under Section 18 of the federal OSHA

20 Act; is that correct?

21 A. We don't have final approval.

22 Q. Yeah, that's always been an anomaly.

23 When is California going to finally

24 have final approval? Do you have any idea?

25 A. You would have to ask the chief.
15

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. In order to gain and maintain whatever

 3 interim approval under the federal OSHA Act

 4 California OSHA must be -- I think the operative

 5 phrase is at least as effective as the federal

 6 program; is that correct?

 7 A. Correct.

 8 Q. Now, are you familiar at all with any

 9 policy or programmatic interactions between

10 California OSHA personnel and federal OSHA

11 personnel?

12 A. Could you maybe state that differently?

13 I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.

14 Q. Well, obviously, there are

15 opportunities for federal OSHA and its state plan

16 counterparts to discuss policy issues,

17 programmatic issues, citation issues, regulatory

18 issues. Are you at all familiar with any of those

19 interactions?

20 A. There are meetings that are held

21 between Region 9 and Cal-OSHA to discuss a variety

22 of issues, any one of which could include the ones

23 that you mentioned.

24 And then there are meetings of all the

25 state plans with federal OSHA on a maybe quarterly
16

 1 HEZA

 2 basis, three times a year, through OSHPD, which is

 3 a statewide -- sorry -- a nationwide organization,

 4 and there is a discussion about federal policy

 5 issues at those meetings as well.

 6 Q. Now, would you for clarity purposes

 7 identify what Region 9 is?

 8 A. Well, that is the federal OSHA region

 9 that -- within which California sits. Region 9 is

10 California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii and Guam.

11 Q. And do you -- How often does California

12 OSHA meet with Region 9?

13 A. Well, recently it's been probably --

14 They've been trying to maintain the quarterly

15 agenda, a quarterly meeting.

16 Q. And what are some of the subject

17 matters, if I may ask, that you meet with Region 9

18 on?

19 A. It's a review of our progress towards

20 our strategic goals. Federal OSHA may, you know,

21 introduce the meeting by talking about things that

22 are going on in Washington or budget issues. But

23 it's primarily a discussion from the Cal-OSHA

24 program. It's a discussion on our progress

25 towards our strategic goals.
17

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. And similarly, this every three or four

 3 times a year that state plans more formally meet

 4 under I think you said OSHPD, what are some of the

 5 issues that you meet on?

 6 A. The agenda items will typically include

 7 budgetary discussions, updates on a new

 8 information system that is in the works, new

 9 regulations that the feds have promulgated or are

10 working on.

11 And then the states, you know, will

12 highlight something innovative going on. A couple

13 of states will report on some innovative programs

14 they have within their own states.

15 Q. When was your last meeting of OSHPD?

16 A. Well, I have not attended a meeting, I

17 think, since the end of '08.

18 Q. Okay. Have you discussed any meetings

19 that have transpired since '08?

20 A. No. The chief has attended, but we

21 haven't spoken about them.

22 Q. Okay. Are you at all familiar with the

23 recent initiatives that federal OSHA has made

24 which kind of would copy California OSHA's IIPP

25 program?
18

 1 HEZA

 2 A. Well, I understand they're holding some

 3 stakeholder meetings to discuss what they refer to

 4 as I2P2.

 5 Q. Right. It's an unfortunate acronym,

 6 but I don't think California has ever done that

 7 before. It sounds too much like R2D2.

 8 So you're familiar that they're having

 9 stakeholder meetings. Have there been any other

10 discussions that you have participated in or that

11 you have heard of between California and federal

12 OSHA with regard to I2P2?

13 A. At a recent meeting, I spoke with one

14 of the federal folks, just in general terms, about

15 I2P2, and she told me that they would be holding

16 some stakeholder meetings, and that was about the

17 extent of it.

18 Q. There was no substantive discussion

19 during the course of that meeting that dealt with

20 what federal OSHA's objective may have been with

21 respect to I2P2, or may be with respect to I2P2?

22 A. It wasn't a meeting. It was a coffee

23 break, exchanging a couple of words.

24 Q. And other than that, you're not

25 familiar with any of the substance behind federal
19

 1 HEZA

 2 OSHA's I2P2 exercise?

 3 A. What do you mean?

 4 Q. Are you -- Other than that brief coffee

 5 meeting, have there been any other opportunities

 6 or inquiries or discussions that you have had, or

 7 that you're familiar with that others may have had

 8 at California OSHA, with respect to federal OSHA's

 9 I2P2 initiative?

10 A. I can't speak to what other people in

11 California OSHA have or have not spoken to or

12 spoken with. I myself have not had any

13 substantial -- substantive discussions, excuse me,

14 substantive discussions with the federal folks

15 about the proposal.

16 Q. And has anyone in California that may

17 have had some more substantive discussions talked

18 to you about those discussions?

19 A. I'm not aware of anyone that has had

20 those discussions. So the answer to your question

21 is no.

22 Q. Okay. You mentioned a moment ago when

23 you were describing your meetings or California's

24 meetings with Region 9, and I think I took this

25 down accurately, that part of those meetings go to
20

 1 HEZA

 2 things going on in Washington.

 3 Have there been any discussions that

 4 you are aware of, either that you have

 5 participated in or that others have participated

 6 in and relayed to you, dealing with crowd

 7 management or crowd control-type issues?

 8 A. I don't --

 9 MR. COHEN: Objection to form.

10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you

11 repeat what -- somebody --

12 MR. COHEN: I just made an objection to

13 the form of the question.

14 Go ahead and answer.

15 BY MR. FELLNER:

16 Q. You can answer it.

17 A. Not to my recollection.

18 Q. And has there been any discussion that

19 you are aware of with Region 9 with respect to the

20 Wal-Mart case of 2008?

21 A. Not that I'm aware of.

22 Q. Same question with respect to the

23 meetings that you have had with the state plans,

24 the OSHPD more formal meetings. Has there been

25 any discussion at those meetings with respect to
21

 1 HEZA

 2 crowd management or crowd control issues?

 3 A. Well, as I said, it's been a while

 4 since I have attended one of those meetings, and

 5 that subject was not a topic of discussion at any

 6 of the meetings that I attended.

 7 Q. And was that the subject of any

 8 meetings that were relayed back to you by any

 9 other attendee of California OSHA?

10 A. Not that I recall.

11 Q. And how many years would you have

12 participated in your various different positions

13 in meetings either with Region 9 or with the state

14 plans under OSHPD?

15 A. With Region 9, I may have participated

16 in meetings going back to 1998. With OSHPD, with

17 a very limited window, maybe 2001 or '02

18 through 2008.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 One of the areas, specific areas, that

21 I wanted to get into now involves the IMIS system,

22 the Integrated Management Information System.

23 Is it correct that both Cal-OSHA and

24 federal OSHA citations are, as it were, cataloged

25 in the IMIS system?
22

 1 HEZA

 2 A. That's the database that we use, and

 3 that's how we -- that's the federal database that

 4 we use to create citations, yeah.

 5 Q. Let me ask you for purposes of

 6 clarification, to create citations or to retain

 7 the information with respect to issued citations?

 8 A. Correct.

 9 Q. And if some of my questions reflect

10 some frustrations of penetrating the IMIS system,

11 I apologize in advance.

12 Is there any interaction between the

13 federal OSHA and California OSHA with respect to

14 this cataloging process or retention process known

15 as IMIS?

16 A. I'm not really sure I understand your

17 question.

18 Q. Well, I mean do you do your own thing

19 with regard to -- does California do its own thing

20 with regard to entering data into IMIS, or is this

21 something that you consult with federal OSHA on?

22 MR. COHEN: Objection to form.

23 BY MR. FELLNER:

24 Q. Go ahead, you can answer the question.

25 A. The California, the COSHOs and the
23

 1 HEZA

 2 clerical enter their own information.

 3 Q. And they don't consult with federal

 4 OSHA with respect to how to go about entering that

 5 information?

 6 A. No.

 7 Q. Do the agencies look at each other for

 8 any kind of guidance or ideas insofar as entering

 9 this information is concerned, to your knowledge?

10 A. You know, I know in the past if we

11 wanted to retrieve information, we could work with

12 Washington to develop special reports, but I don't

13 think that's really available anymore to the state

14 plan.

15 I think the interaction between the

16 state and the feds with regards to IMIS is more

17 often when something is not functioning properly.

18 Q. Can you give me an example to your best

19 recollection of that kind of an interaction when

20 something is not functioning properly?

21 A. Well, you know, I don't know the

22 technical terminology, but the systems, you know,

23 a particular office, their system may go down or

24 crash or whatever you want to call it, and we do

25 fix that. You know, we use our own technical
24

 1 HEZA

 2 staff to fix that, but there may be some

 3 interaction with Washington.

 4 And I really don't know that much about

 5 the state of IMIS today, so it's kind of difficult

 6 for me to answer, I think, your questions from my

 7 personal direct experience.

 8 Q. If I were to search, for example, for

 9 citations that Cal-OSHA may have issued for

10 certain kinds of hazards covered by specific

11 standards, specific California OSHA standards, how

12 would I go about doing that?

13 A. I believe that would require something

14 called a micro-to-host report. It's a report

15 that -- There are several ways. You can get

16 reports out of local databases. You can also get

17 reports out of what has been sent to Washington.

18 And, you know, to a certain extent you

19 can establish your own sort criteria. So if you

20 were looking to see, you know, a list of employers

21 who had been issued A, B, C, D, there is a

22 mechanism to do that.

23 I personally don't do it. We have

24 staff up in headquarters who do that kind of

25 thing.
25

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Of course.

 3 And that question was directed at

 4 citations under specific standards. If I were to

 5 search for citations, California OSHA citations

 6 issued under the IIPP or under special orders, is

 7 that a more difficult process?

 8 A. Well, 3203, which is the Title 8 IIPP

 9 reference, you know, we could pull information

10 out, limited information mind you, but we could

11 pull information out on who had been issued 3203

12 citations. A special order, to be perfectly

13 honest, I have no idea.

14 Q. Let me ask you more granularly if I

15 may. If I wanted to search for citations under

16 the IIPP program -- I know what your answer is

17 going to be for special orders. But under the

18 IIPP program, for any citations that dealt with

19 problems of crowd control or crowd management, is

20 the IMIS system sufficient to capture that level

21 of detail?

22 A. Perhaps in a very, very limited way.

23 If an accident investigation had been conducted,

24 sometimes you can search on keywords. But it's

25 probably a multistep process.
26

 1 HEZA

 2 And again, I am really not the expert.

 3 I'm not the one to answer that question. I'm not

 4 that familiar with when you drill down that far

 5 into IMIS. I'm not familiar with how that would

 6 actually be retrievable. It would not be easy.

 7 Q. If an accident did not occur, would

 8 that make it difficult or impossible to retrieve

 9 that information?

10 A. It would be difficult to retrieve that

11 from IMIS.

12 Q. Are there any other ways of finding

13 that level of detail about California OSHA

14 citations?

15 A. With regards to crowd control?

16 Q. Yeah.

17 A. You know, I really -- I'm not the IMIS

18 expert. I'm not a tech expert. Beyond what I've

19 already provided, I cannot shed any further light

20 on the subject.

21 Q. And I appreciate your allowing me to

22 belabor this issue as much as I have. And

23 frankly, if we had been more successful under

24 IMIS, this deposition could have been avoided.

25 Let's talk a little bit about the
27

 1 HEZA

 2 structure of the California OSHA Act, if I may.

 3 And again, rather basically, the act gives, as I

 4 understand it, the Department of Industrial

 5 Relations the ability to issue regulations

 6 pertaining to workplace safety and health; is that

 7 correct?

 8 A. There is a Cal-OSHA standards board.

 9 Where it fits within the Cal-OSHA Act I couldn't

10 tell you. But there is a standards board that

11 promulgates regulations.

12 Q. Now, with respect to specific

13 regulations that pertain to individual industries,

14 is it correct that the department, through the

15 standards board, has issued those kinds of

16 regulations, specific regulations that pertain to

17 individual industries and general regulations that

18 pertain to all industries? Is that correct?

19 A. There are vertical and horizontal

20 standards.

21 Q. And the horizontal standards or general

22 regulations, are they known as general industry

23 safety orders? Is that right?

24 A. That's where they would reside in Title

25 8, yes.
28

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Okay. Do you know whether these

 3 general industry safety orders are similar to the

 4 kinds of regulations that federal OSHA issues

 5 under Section 5(a)(2) of its statute?

 6 A. I wouldn't have -- You would have to

 7 speak to someone who's with the standards board.

 8 You would have to speak to an attorney. I can't

 9 answer that question. No, I can't answer that

10 question.

11 Q. Okay. Let's turn more specifically to

12 the IIPP program. I assume you're familiar with

13 Section 3203 of the California Code.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And that Section 3203 requires

16 California employers to develop what is referred

17 to as an Injury and Illness Prevention Program; is

18 that right?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Now, is it fair to say that each

21 employer's IIPP program is unique or ought to be

22 unique and tailored to its particular workplace

23 and workplace hazards?

24 A. Yeah. The IIPP should be reflective of

25 the site, or, you know, there might be some like
29

 1 HEZA

 2 kind of corporate overarching policy but very

 3 unique hazards identified, or if there are unique

 4 situations at a site, then the IIPP should reflect

 5 that.

 6 Q. And further, that the IIPP program

 7 should describe ways to both identify and abate

 8 those specific hazards? Do I have that correct?

 9 A. That is one of the elements of the

10 IIPP.

11 Q. And speaking of the elements, I would

12 like you to confirm I think what is on the face of

13 the IIPP program. There are about eight key

14 elements; is that correct?

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. And let me tick them off and see

17 whether or not I've got them right.

18 It is management responsibility;

19 compliance; communication; hazard assessment;

20 accident exposure investigation; hazard

21 correction; training and instruction; and record

22 keeping.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Let's walk through the establishment of

25 an IIPP. What is an employer supposed to do first
30

 1 HEZA

 2 when he's trying to construct his own IIPP?

 3 A. Well, you know, an employer can

 4 probably approach it from various directions, but

 5 there does have to be -- you know, a hazard

 6 analysis has to be conducted.

 7 And then from that, the development of

 8 ways to correct the hazards, to communicate it,

 9 communicate the hazards to employees and train.

10 And then ultimately assigning responsibility for

11 the program.

12 Q. Now, with respect to the hazard

13 analysis, are there a number of different ways

14 that an employer can use to discover particular

15 hazards and then to analyze them?

16 A. I would imagine so.

17 Q. Does anything come to mind?

18 A. An employer can use their injury and

19 illness records. They can bring their insurance

20 carrier in, their loss prevention specialist.

21 They can hire a consultant.

22 Q. So with respect to what the employer

23 has at hand, the first thing that you mentioned

24 was to examine the injury/illness records that an

25 employer has, and that would be one of the good
31

 1 HEZA

 2 places to start. Do I have that correctly?

 3 A. Well, it would certainly show the

 4 employer if there are any trends or anything in

 5 particular that should be looked at more

 6 thoroughly.

 7 Q. Now, what kind of follow-up is required

 8 once the IIPP is established?

 9 A. If new hazards are introduced into the

10 workplace, those have to be included in the

11 program in terms of attempts to correct and

12 training.

13 If employees are assigned to a

14 different or a unique or new job, they have to

15 have training that is consistent with the hazards

16 associated with that new position. That would be

17 required in follow-up.

18 Q. So, for example, if I were involved in

19 retail and I had experiences with respect to an

20 unruly crowd that created some injuries in my

21 workplace, would you think that it would be

22 required under the IIPP program to do a hazard

23 analysis insofar as the impact of an unruly crowd

24 on my workplace is concerned?

25 MR. COHEN: Objection to the form.
32

 1 HEZA

 2 Calls for speculation.

 3 BY MR. FELLNER:

 4 Q. You can answer the question.

 5 A. Yes. Well, I really can't answer the

 6 question. I don't know.

 7 Q. Let's probe that a little -- I'm sorry,

 8 you were continuing?

 9 A. No.

10 Q. Let's probe that a little more if I

11 may. You indicated a moment ago that a good place

12 to start is to check your accidents and illness

13 records, injury record. That remains correct,

14 right?

15 A. That was one of the alternatives that I

16 listed, yeah.

17 Q. And if an employer, a retail employer,

18 were to check his injury records and to find that

19 employees had tripped or fallen or had been pushed

20 or shoved and that this qualified as reportable

21 injuries in the context of crowds entering the

22 particular workplace, would that not be important

23 for the employer to evaluate for purposes of an

24 IIPP program?

25 A. Conceivably.
33

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Conceivably. Why would it conceivably

 3 not be important to evaluate that?

 4 A. Well, you know, it would depend upon I

 5 think the details and the facts. It's difficult

 6 for me to answer, you know, a hypothetical or

 7 speculative question with certainty. That's why I

 8 would say that, you know, the employer has to take

 9 a look at their history; and if they see

10 something, if there is a flag, then that very well

11 could be the basis for further evaluation.

12 Q. All right. Now, Cal-OSHA has model

13 IIPP programs on its website; is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And these models are available for

16 high-hazard and also for nonhigh-hazard employers?

17 A. I think so, although intermittent,

18 perhaps.

19 Q. What do you mean by "intermittent"?

20 A. Seasonal.

21 Q. I see. Could you be a little bit more

22 specific about what you mean by seasonal?

23 A. I would suggest you look on the

24 website. That would probably tell you better than

25 I could.
34

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Well, let me be a little bit more

 3 precise. For example, is this what you had in

 4 mind when the temperatures go way up in

 5 California, that there may be some seasonal IIPP

 6 programs for purposes of heat-related disorders?

 7 Is that what you had in mind?

 8 A. My recollection is that the seasonal or

 9 intermittent program was -- was written or

10 produced by our then Chief Howard, and I seem to

11 think it was for like the agricultural industry,

12 although I really don't remember. It was a long

13 time ago.

14 Q. Okay. Are there models specifically

15 available to address workplace hazards like

16 workplace violence?

17 A. I believe there are such models on the

18 website, yes.

19 Q. What is the purpose of putting these

20 models on the website?

21 A. Employers can use them as boilerplates

22 to develop their own site-specific programs.

23 Q. And are they, as it were,

24 authoritative?

25 A. I don't know what that means.
35

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Do they --

 3 A. I don't know what you mean by that.

 4 Q. Let me rephrase it.

 5 Do they reflect kind of safe harbors

 6 that if an employer follows one of these -- one of

 7 these website programs, that they will not be

 8 subject to IIPP citations?

 9 A. You know, an employer can have a

10 program and can still be issued citations, if that

11 answers your questions.

12 Q. Let me probe that. That wasn't exactly

13 my question, but let me take that one step

14 further.

15 What are the circumstances in which an

16 employer can have a program and still receive

17 citations?

18 A. They don't follow it.

19 Q. I see. Can you give me an example of

20 any particular case that you're familiar with

21 where an employer had a program but didn't follow

22 it?

23 A. No, not off the top of my head.

24 Q. Does Cal-OSHA offer any assistance,

25 direct or indirect assistance, for employers
36

 1 HEZA

 2 looking to develop individualized IIPPs?

 3 A. The consultation program will offer

 4 some assistance if asked.

 5 Q. And I know that you've been involved --

 6 I'm sorry, go ahead.

 7 A. It's ultimately the employer's

 8 responsibility to develop the program.

 9 Q. And you've been extensively involved in

10 the consultation program and are presently

11 involved. Have you ever been asked by an employer

12 with respect to setting up an IIPP program

13 concerning workplace violence-type issues?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Have you ever been asked with respect

16 to any crowd-related issues that might be involved

17 in IIPP?

18 A. No.

19 Q. The model IIPP program for high-hazard

20 employers has an extensive list of training

21 subjects; is that correct?

22 A. I don't recall.

23 Q. Do you have a binder in front of you,

24 Ms. Heza?

25 A. No. Oh -- I don't have a binder in
37

 1 HEZA

 2 front of me, no.

 3 MR. RATHBUN: There's not a binder in

 4 the conference room directed to you with tabs in

 5 it?

 6 THE WITNESS: There is a binder that

 7 says "Daniel Rathbun" on it.

 8 MR. RATHBUN: Okay. That's yours. I'm

 9 sorry that someone didn't give that to you

10 directly.

11 BY MR. FELLNER:

12 Q. If I may ask you, to refresh your

13 recollection, to turn to Tab 5 in that binder,

14 please.

15 MR. COHEN: I assume I have the same

16 binder?

17 MR. FELLNER: Yes, you do, Darren.

18 THE WITNESS: Okay.

19 BY MR. FELLNER:

20 Q. And specifically to page 6 in that --

21 under that tab.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. Let me ask you to look at that. I

24 don't have to introduce a public record,

25 obviously, into -- as an exhibit.
38

 1 HEZA

 2 But this is the workplace injury and

 3 illness prevention model program. And does the

 4 list of training subjects at page 6 refresh your

 5 recollection?

 6 A. That there is a list of training

 7 subjects?

 8 Q. Yes. And that it describes the kind of

 9 possible hazards that we were talking about

10 before.

11 A. It certainly lists particular subjects,

12 yes.

13 Q. And it lists an extensive -- It's a

14 relatively extensive list of training subjects?

15 Are you familiar with this? Have you seen this

16 list before?

17 A. I'm sure I saw it years ago. I haven't

18 really looked at it in a very, very long time.

19 Q. Take a look at page 7, what is referred

20 to as the Hazard Assessment Checklist, and

21 successive pages. Is it fair to describe this

22 Hazard Assessment Checklist as relatively

23 exhaustive and detailed?

24 A. It's lengthy.

25 Q. Do you know whether these two items
39

 1 HEZA

 2 that I've just called to your attention, whether

 3 they are exhaustive of the kinds of possible

 4 hazards that an employer is exposed to?

 5 A. I don't know that I would use the word

 6 "exhaustive." I think a person who can best

 7 answer that question or the folks that can best

 8 answer that question are the ones who wrote this.

 9 It's intended to give the employer, you know,

10 guidance certainly at the time that it was

11 written.

12 Q. And what inference can you draw if

13 there is a particular hazard that's not on this

14 list?

15 A. I mean, usually we have disclaimers

16 that these lists are not meant to be all-inclusive

17 and that there could be other hazards that -- you

18 know, in addition to what's on this list. These

19 documents are intended as guidance. They're not,

20 you know, intended to be the final say in what the

21 employer has to develop.

22 Q. Are they updated with any degree of

23 frequency?

24 A. I don't think this one has been in a

25 while.
40

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Do you know of your own knowledge as to

 3 whether there is anything in these documents that

 4 I've pointed you to that deals with crowd

 5 management or crowd control?

 6 A. I don't recall if there is or there

 7 isn't something that deals with crowd management

 8 or crowd control.

 9 Q. Or that deals with hazards being struck

10 or pushed or shoved or tripped or injured by a

11 crowd? Same answer?

12 A. Yes. Specific to crowds, I don't

13 know that -- I don't recall if there is something

14 in here that's specific to crowds.

15 Q. Now, in designing its IIPP, does an

16 employer only need to identify and abate specific

17 hazards identified in specific California

18 regulations?

19 A. Well, that would certainly be the place

20 to start. But if there is a hazard that is unique

21 to a facility that is not covered under a

22 regulation, then the employer should also try to

23 address that as well.

24 Q. And how about hazards whose sources are

25 general industry safety orders, might they also be
41

 1 HEZA

 2 a place to start with?

 3 A. Yes.

 4 Q. And employers may very well have to go

 5 beyond those orders themselves if, as you've

 6 indicated, there are unique hazards that an

 7 employer and only that employer would know in his

 8 workplace?

 9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Now, Section 3203 says that employers

11 must conduct hazard inspections and provide hazard

12 training whenever new substances, processes,

13 procedures or equipment are introduced in the

14 workplace that represent a new occupational safety

15 and health hazard or whenever the employer is made

16 aware of a new or previously unrecognized hazard.

17 You're familiar with that obligation?

18 A. Uh-huh. Yes.

19 Q. So is it fair to say that that language

20 would require employers to look beyond the hazard

21 specifically identified in specific regulations or

22 safety orders?

23 A. Well, if it's reasonable for -- If it's

24 reasonable for the employer, you know, to

25 acknowledge that there could be something beyond
42

 1 HEZA

 2 Title 8, which, of course, is just a minimum that

 3 employers have to comply with, then yeah, a

 4 reasonable employer should probably look into

 5 whatever the issue may be.

 6 Q. In your extensive experience that

 7 you've had with so many different hats on, have

 8 you seen employer IIPP programs that in fact have

 9 looked beyond specific regulations and special

10 orders and have anticipated hazards that weren't

11 covered in either?

12 A. You know, I don't have a clear

13 recollection of looking at a specific program, so

14 I guess I can't really answer that question in the

15 affirmative.

16 Q. Is there anything that would assist you

17 in answering that question?

18 A. I don't know. Maybe you could restate

19 it.

20 Q. Well, we've established the

21 proposition, Ms. Heza, and you've testified that

22 upon occasion employers may have to look beyond

23 both the special orders that have been issued as

24 well as the specific regulatory requirements of

25 Cal-OSHA.
43

 1 HEZA

 2 And my question is: Do you have any

 3 examples that come to mind where employers have

 4 established IIPPs that deal with hazards beyond

 5 either special orders and/or specific regulations?

 6 A. A specific employer does not come to

 7 mind.

 8 Q. How about a specific example without a

 9 specific employer?

10 A. I'm sorry, but the light bulb is not

11 going off.

12 Q. Let me ask you this: In your 23 years

13 of experience in various different jobs, have you

14 ever seen an IIPP program that dealt with crowd

15 management or crowd control issues?

16 A. Not that I recall.

17 Q. Have you ever discussed crowd

18 management, crowd control issues as being part of

19 an IIPP program with anyone who may have seen such

20 a program?

21 A. I don't have any specific recollection

22 of that.

23 Q. We talked before about one of the ways

24 that an employer can trigger the IIPP process, and

25 that was by initially taking a look at his injury
44

 1 HEZA

 2 reports. Is it fair to say that those injury

 3 reports may very well identify unsafe workplace

 4 conditions that are associated with those

 5 industries -- with those injuries? I didn't mean

 6 industries.

 7 A. Yes.

 8 Q. And through identifying those unsafe

 9 workplace conditions, that such injuries -- injury

10 reports would develop a recognition on the part of

11 the employer that he ought to be doing something

12 with respect to those workplace hazards?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Now, are you at all familiar with the

15 general duty clause under the federal program?

16 A. Not -- You know, just from a very

17 layman's perspective.

18 Q. Well, let me ask you from your layman's

19 perspective whether or not the kind of recognition

20 that the analysis of such injuries would trigger,

21 whether that's a recognition that is similar to a

22 recognized hazard under the general duty clause.

23 A. You know, I can't speak to the general

24 duty clause. It's outside of my, you know,

25 experience, my scope of expertise. So I really
45

 1 HEZA

 2 can't speak to the general duty clause.

 3 Q. Have you ever heard Section 3203

 4 compared to the general duty clause?

 5 A. More in the negative. But

 6 historically, it would not necessarily be general

 7 duty clause equivalent. I haven't really heard

 8 any comparison recently that I can recall.

 9 Q. And when you've heard it in the

10 negative, in those discussions what distinguishes

11 3203 from the general duty clause?

12 A. When 3203 was first promulgated from a

13 policy standpoint, it was not -- it was not to be

14 used as like a 5(a)(1) equivalent. And over time

15 that has changed.

16 But if you're going to ask more

17 questions about that, you really need to speak to

18 the policy folks who were making those decisions

19 at the time.

20 Q. Understood. But are you aware of it

21 changing over time? You had indicated that over

22 time that particular policy has changed.

23 A. Not -- You know, not in writing. The

24 P&T hasn't changed at all. But 3203 has been

25 applied, I think, certainly in workplace violence.
46

 1 HEZA

 2 Before we had our heat illness standard, it was

 3 applied for that. So it was --

 4 Q. What was the second example? I'm sorry

 5 to interrupt you. Workplace violence was the

 6 first example. Heat only; is that what you said?

 7 A. No. Before we had our heat illness

 8 prevention standard --

 9 Q. Ah, heat illness.

10 A. -- I believe we used 3203 to issue

11 citations for employers to address those hazards.

12 Q. So there has been some history but not

13 across the board in California for the use of 3203

14 where specific regulations are not issued and

15 where certain broad-based hazards are recognized?

16 A. Could you say that again, ask me that

17 again?

18 Q. Sure. There has been precedent for

19 3203 to be used and to be cited for certain

20 hazards that are not covered by specific

21 regulations; is that correct?

22 A. Well, as I said, I believe that we've

23 used it in the past for workplace violence. And I

24 believe in maybe 2005 we may have issued some with

25 respect to heat illness. But I can't say that
47

 1 HEZA

 2 with 100 percent certainty. I really don't

 3 remember exactly what we issued back then.

 4 Q. And do you know of any instance in

 5 which 3203 has been used in the context of

 6 crowd-related issues?

 7 A. No, I do not know of any instances.

 8 Q. And specifically crowd-related issues

 9 in the context of the retail industry?

10 A. Same answer.

11 Q. And are you aware of any employer that

12 has recognized in his or her IIPP program any

13 crowd-related issues and has taken any hazard

14 assessment and training and abatement measures in

15 response to that?

16 A. Not specifically.

17 Q. And more granularly with respect to the

18 hazards of being struck, pushed, shoved, tripped

19 or injured by a crowd, same questions. Have you

20 seen any citations for IIPP or special orders in

21 the context of those particular workplace

22 conditions?

23 A. Not that I recall.

24 Q. And have you seen any IIPP programs or

25 initiatives undertaken by employers responding to
48

 1 HEZA

 2 those kinds of workplace conditions?

 3 A. Not that I am aware of. I have not

 4 seen such IIPPs.

 5 Q. Have such IIPPs been drawn to your

 6 attention by anyone else?

 7 A. No.

 8 Q. So as far as you're concerned, the

 9 words "crowd management" or "crowd control" have

10 never been discussed as a hazard in your presence

11 in 23 years with California OSHA; is that correct?

12 MR. COHEN: Objection to form.

13 MR. FELLNER: I have no idea why.

14 BY MR. FELLNER:

15 Q. But go ahead and answer the question.

16 MR. COHEN: It's vague and compound.

17 MR. FELLNER: That's fine.

18 BY MR. FELLNER:

19 Q. Answer the question, please.

20 A. Not that I am aware of.

21 Q. Isn't that something that you would be

22 aware of had it occurred?

23 A. I don't recall. You know, like you

24 said, I've been there for 23 years. You have lots

25 of informal conversations. But I do not recall,
49

 1 HEZA

 2 you know, having discussions about specific

 3 employers and specific programs dealing with

 4 crowds.

 5 Q. Dealing with crowd management or crowd

 6 control?

 7 A. Correct.

 8 Q. A couple more technical questions with

 9 regard to IIPP if I may. Are IIPP citations

10 freestanding, or do they typically rely upon

11 general industry safety order provisions or other

12 regulations?

13 A. I'm afraid I don't understand your

14 question.

15 Q. Well, is an IIPP -- Can 3203 be cited

16 by itself, or is it in tandem with a specific

17 regulation that is being violated?

18 A. It can be cited by itself.

19 Q. And what are the circumstances for

20 which it would be cited by itself?

21 A. The employer failed to meet one of the

22 elements.

23 Q. Of the IIPP itself?

24 A. Or to implement one of the elements.

25 Q. Okay. You've never seen it -- and I
50

 1 HEZA

 2 know I'm asking the same question in a slightly

 3 different way.

 4 You've never seen it cited by itself or

 5 discussed it being cited by itself with respect to

 6 workplace security issues, have you?

 7 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand your

 8 question.

 9 Q. All right. The question -- We've

10 tacked at in a somewhat different fashion before,

11 but I'm asking you whether or not you have seen

12 the IIPP provision 3203 cited by itself with

13 respect to the absence of a program dealing with

14 workplace crowd management issues.

15 A. Well, you said workplace violence

16 before.

17 Q. I said workplace security. But I --

18 A. You -- we --

19 Q. Go ahead.

20 A. I seem to recall that we have issued,

21 you know, workplace violence citations, I believe

22 under 3203. You know, it's a fairly long time

23 ago, and I don't, you know, recall -- Actually, I

24 take it back. I do recall one case.

25 There was an incident that occurred and
51

 1 HEZA

 2 we issued I'm pretty sure it was a 3203 citing,

 3 you know, failing to control potential Type 2

 4 workplace violence.

 5 Q. Can you remind me what Type 2 is?

 6 A. Type 2 is where a -- whether it be a

 7 customer, a client or some other person, you know,

 8 comes into a workplace or is at a workplace and

 9 commits a violent act against an employee of that

10 workplace.

11 Q. And this was cited under 3203?

12 A. I think.

13 Q. And in the area of workplace

14 violence -- Let's stay with that area for a

15 moment. This is an area in which Cal-OSHA has, as

16 it were, recognized that there are hazards related

17 to various different types of workplace violence;

18 is that accurate?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And that employers are expected to

21 incorporate workplace violence measures in their

22 IIPPs?

23 A. If appropriate.

24 Q. And that indeed you've got a model

25 workplace violence IIPP on your web page, don't
52

 1 HEZA

 2 you?

 3 A. I think so.

 4 Q. And as you've alluded to, there are

 5 three types, basic types of workplace violence, is

 6 that right, that's referred to on your web page?

 7 A. Correct.

 8 Q. Those three types are fatal assaults

 9 upon employees at late night retail

10 establishments. That's Type 1. Is that accurate?

11 A. That's what the web site says. That's

12 what the program says.

13 Q. And Type 2 would be assaults by the

14 recipients of a company's products or services

15 upon the company's employees; is that right?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And then Type 3 is assaults upon

18 employees by others with employment-related ties

19 to the workplace?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Are you at all familiar with any of the

22 federal initiatives on workplace violence?

23 A. No, I'm not.

24 Q. What is -- And I'm asking for your

25 expertise, your 23 years expertise in the safety
53

 1 HEZA

 2 and health field. Could you tell me whether, in

 3 your view, an unruly crowd might be considered to

 4 be a type of workplace violence?

 5 A. Can I tell you in my experience why an

 6 unruly crowd might be involved in workplace

 7 violence?

 8 Q. Uh-huh.

 9 A. Is that your question?

10 Q. That's the question. In other words,

11 given what you know about workplace violence

12 issues that have been included in 3203, and any

13 discussions that you may have had with respect to

14 what makes workplace violence cognizable under

15 California OSHA, do you think that a stampeding or

16 an unruly crowd attempting to enter a store might

17 be encompassed in workplace violence theories?

18 A. Well, without having a great deal of

19 facts at my disposal, I would have to say that is

20 possible.

21 Q. And I'm asking you to engage,

22 obviously, in hypotheticals. What would make that

23 possible, in your view?

24 A. I don't really want to answer

25 hypothetical questions.
54

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Let me give you some more specific

 3 facts and see whether or not I can get you to

 4 engage in responding to this more factually-based

 5 hypothetical question.

 6 Let's assume, Ms. Heza, that customers

 7 entering a store would push, shove, trample

 8 specific employees as they try to obtain goods and

 9 services in that store. Is that the kind of

10 conduct, in your view, that would be encompassed

11 by workplace --

12 MR. CREGER: There's a problem here,

13 I'm afraid. There is a statute, 5304.5, which

14 precludes employees of the Division from providing

15 expert testimony. And these hypotheticals really

16 are an attempt to elicit what I view as opinion

17 testimony from this individual.

18 BY MR. FELLNER:

19 Q. Well, let's go back and talk about the

20 workplace violence IIPP that you do recall,

21 Ms. Heza. Do you recall the specifics of that

22 IIPP?

23 A. Of the IIPP? No, I don't recall the

24 specifics of the IIPP.

25 Q. Do you recall the specifics of the
55

 1 HEZA

 2 particular hazardous workplace violence areas that

 3 were dealt with in that IIPP?

 4 A. I recall the specifics about the

 5 incident.

 6 Q. Can you describe that for me, please?

 7 A. An employee of a -- I think it was a

 8 mental health institution was attacked by a

 9 patient.

10 Q. And this attack by the patient, was

11 this a kind of intentional action by the patient?

12 A. Well, I think the employee was killed

13 and -- the employee died rather, more

14 appropriately. And I don't recall what legal

15 aspect there was to it. But we did issue I'm

16 pretty sure it was a 3203 with regards to that.

17 Q. And do you believe that that particular

18 workplace violence citation that was issued

19 depended upon intentionality on the part of the

20 patient?

21 A. I can't answer that.

22 Q. All right. And with respect to the

23 conduct of the employer in that particular case,

24 what was California OSHA's view as to what the

25 employer did wrong in that case?
56

 1 HEZA

 2 A. I believe it was specific to alarm

 3 systems.

 4 Q. And could you be a little bit more

 5 specific than that, if you recall?

 6 A. That the worker was in the room alone

 7 with the patient and did not have a mechanism to

 8 raise alarms when the patient became violent.

 9 Q. So let me take that one step further.

10 As I understand that particular case, it was the

11 interaction between a patient and worker and the

12 absence of a specific control to prevent the

13 violent conduct which led to that particular

14 citation, right?

15 A. What I recall is what I've shared with

16 you.

17 Q. Okay. Let me go back to another area,

18 and perhaps you might give me a little bit more

19 background on this. We've talked about IIPP.

20 With respect to special orders, I assume you're

21 familiar with Section 332 of the California Code

22 that gives the Director of Industrial Relations

23 the ability to issue special orders; is that

24 right?

25 A. Yes.
57

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. And as I understand it, a special order

 3 is warranted whether it's an unsafe condition or a

 4 device or a place of employment that poses a

 5 threat to the health or safety of an employee that

 6 cannot be made safe under existing standards or

 7 orders of the Standards Board, right?

 8 A. That, I believe, is what the labor code

 9 says.

10 Q. Now, what's the relationship between

11 special orders and the general industry safety

12 orders we spoke about earlier?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. Is it fair to say that special orders

15 are issued in the absence of specific regulatory

16 requirements that are covered under general

17 industry safety orders? Is that accurate?

18 A. Well, I think that's what the labor

19 code says, which cannot be made safe under

20 existing standards or orders.

21 Q. Okay. Now, are you familiar with

22 Cal-OSHA's policy and procedural manual provisions

23 pertaining to special orders?

24 A. Somewhat.

25 Q. My recollection is that Cal-OSHA's
58

 1 HEZA

 2 policy is to consider the issuance of a special

 3 order to correct an unsafe condition which can't

 4 be made safe under an existing Title 8 safety

 5 order. I think that's straight out of the

 6 provision.

 7 Am I refreshing your recollection

 8 adequately?

 9 A. Uh-huh.

10 Q. To your knowledge, what are the

11 pertinent considerations that Cal-OSHA would use

12 in considering the issuance of a special order?

13 A. You know, I have not been -- I don't

14 recall that I've been directly involved in the,

15 you know, development of a special order. I don't

16 have much, if any, experience in special orders.

17 Q. Given even your limited experience, is

18 it safe to say that special orders only pertain to

19 individual employers?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Might an individual employer be

22 required to address a hazard identified in a

23 special order through an IIPP?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. If an individual employer recognized a
59

 1 HEZA

 2 previously unrecognized hazard through an IIPP,

 3 how would this relate to the issuance of a special

 4 order?

 5 A. You know, I would have to defer to our

 6 legal staff for that. I can't answer those

 7 questions.

 8 Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of

 9 Section 332 compared to OSHA's general duty

10 clause -- federal OSHA's general duty clause?

11 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

12 Q. Have you ever heard of Section 332, the

13 special order section, compared to federal OSHA's

14 general duty clause?

15 A. I'm trying to think. I don't recall

16 that I heard that in an official capacity, that

17 comparison.

18 Q. How about in an unofficial capacity?

19 A. Probably. Probably.

20 Q. Do you recall any specific context in

21 which that comparison has been made unofficially?

22 A. No, no. No, no. Again, this is just

23 kind of general conversations.

24 Q. Do you recall who those conversations

25 may have been with?
60

 1 HEZA

 2 A. They may have -- I'm sure they were

 3 Cal-OSHA staff, but I couldn't tell you who they

 4 were.

 5 Q. Is it possible that any of those

 6 conversations may have been with Len Welsh?

 7 A. They may have been.

 8 Q. In your experience, has Cal-OSHA ever

 9 issued a special order pertaining to crowd control

10 or crowd management?

11 A. Not that I'm aware of.

12 Q. And how about in the retail industry,

13 have you -- retail crowd control or crowd

14 management, has that ever been issued?

15 A. Not that I'm aware of.

16 Q. Is it safe to say that Cal-OSHA has the

17 authority to issue a special order if it thought

18 an employer faced hazards relating to crowd

19 control or crowd management?

20 A. Well, after, you know, consulting with

21 our legal staff before I would make a decision

22 like that. But conceivably we would pursue that

23 line if we thought that was appropriate.

24 Q. I seem to recall a case not involving

25 an unruly crowd but, pardon my comparison, an
61

 1 HEZA

 2 unruly killer whale in San Diego in which

 3 California OSHA either considered issuing a

 4 special order citation then retracted it or did

 5 something similar to that.

 6 Are you familiar at all with that

 7 particular investigation?

 8 A. Not in any detail. I know which one

 9 you're talking about, yes.

10 Q. Do you recall what the upshot of that

11 particular investigation was?

12 A. I never reviewed the case file. I

13 think the chief dealt with that one directly.

14 Q. And do you recall what the ultimate

15 outcome was?

16 A. I believe the -- I don't know what was

17 issued. I honestly do not remember what was

18 issued. And the investigative summary was

19 modified.

20 Q. But California OSHA certainly

21 investigated that particular matter; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And is it also correct to say that

25 there are no specific California regulations
62

 1 HEZA

 2 dealing with killer whales?

 3 A. Not to my knowledge.

 4 Q. Is there a penalty associated with the

 5 issuance of a special order?

 6 A. I don't think so.

 7 Q. The employer has to just post a notice

 8 of abatement and perform the abatement; isn't that

 9 right?

10 A. I would have to review the P&T. I

11 don't have a lot of experience with special

12 orders.

13 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any --

14 Regardless of whether you've had experience in

15 issuing special orders, have you had any

16 conversations with respect to the legal

17 underpinnings of special orders?

18 A. No, not that I recall.

19 Q. In your view, would you -- In light of

20 the fact there is no specific regulation that a

21 special order is attached to, in your view would

22 it be unfair to levy a penalty under such

23 circumstances?

24 A. Look, you're asking me questions that

25 are beyond my experience, beyond my knowledge. I
63

 1 HEZA

 2 think these are legal issues, and I can't answer

 3 those questions.

 4 Q. Do you have any personal experience or

 5 knowledge of retail crowd management issues?

 6 A. Do I have any personal experience?

 7 Q. Uh-huh.

 8 A. No. No.

 9 Q. Are you -- Have you ever discussed with

10 anyone retail crowd management issues?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Have you ever been to a Black Friday

13 sale?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Have any of your relatives or

16 acquaintances?

17 A. How on earth would I know that?

18 Q. Well, that they have talked to you

19 about?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Have you ever read any specific

22 incidents involving crowd management -- read about

23 any specific instances involving crowd management

24 issues in retail stores?

25 A. Just whatever videos were on the news
64

 1 HEZA

 2 clips.

 3 Q. And do you recall any of those specific

 4 videos on the news clips? Have you ever seen any?

 5 Do you recall any of them specifically?

 6 A. I recall seeing one. I couldn't tell

 7 you when it was. I couldn't tell you where it

 8 was. I couldn't tell you who the retailer was.

 9 But it was a video of customers rushing into a

10 store when the doors were unlocked.

11 Q. And did you say that was relatively

12 recently or in the dim past?

13 A. A couple of years ago probably.

14 Q. What reaction did you have to that

15 specific video when you saw it as a safety and

16 health professional?

17 MR. COHEN: Objection. This is outside

18 the scope.

19 MR. CREGER: I don't know what

20 relevance this could possibly be.

21 MR. FELLNER: I'm going to ask her to

22 respond to the question, whether she had any

23 specific safety and health concerns when she saw

24 the video.

25 MR. CREGER: That's a different
65

 1 HEZA

 2 question.

 3 BY MR. FELLNER:

 4 Q. Answer that question.

 5 A. Whether or not I --

 6 MR. COHEN: Object to being outside the

 7 scope of the subpoena.

 8 BY MR. FELLNER:

 9 Q. Whether she had any specific safety and

10 health concerns, please, with respect to that

11 video when you saw it.

12 A. I thought it was lucky that nobody got

13 hurt.

14 Q. Did you have any concerns with respect

15 to employee safety when you saw it?

16 A. That was just a general -- you know, a

17 general reaction.

18 Q. Did you bring any concern to your

19 colleagues at Cal-OSHA that would suggest that

20 this ought to be investigated?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Are you aware of any California OSHA

23 office that has investigated a retail store for

24 any conduct like you viewed on this video?

25 A. Not that I'm aware of.
66

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. Let me ask you to turn to Tab 9 in the

 3 binder that you've got. Let me ask you to take a

 4 look at that news report concerning a specific

 5 free concert at a Wal-Mart in Bakersfield.

 6 A. Uh-huh.

 7 Q. Is this by any -- Well, take a look at

 8 it.

 9 A. Okay.

10 Q. Does this at all refresh your

11 recollection as to whether this was the incident

12 you may have seen on the video?

13 A. I don't think so.

14 Q. Okay. Are you independently familiar

15 with this particular incident? Do you recall it

16 occurring?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Are you aware of whether Cal-OSHA

19 investigated this particular incident?

20 A. I -- I don't know.

21 Q. Are you aware of any citations that

22 Cal-OSHA may have issued with respect to this

23 particular incident?

24 A. Not that I can recall.

25 Q. Now, this incident occurred in 2007,
67

 1 HEZA

 2 did it not, when you were deputy enforcement head?

 3 A. Uh-huh. Yes.

 4 Q. Would this have been the kind of

 5 incident or investigation that would have come to

 6 your attention?

 7 A. If someone had been injured or filed a

 8 complaint, perhaps.

 9 Q. Given the uniqueness of the incident,

10 it would not necessarily have come to your

11 attention?

12 A. Correct.

13 MR. CREGER: Let me interject here.

14 Can we take a break?

15 MR. FELLNER: Sure. As a matter of

16 fact, yeah, why don't we take a break.

17 (A recess was then taken.)

18 BY MR. FELLNER:

19 Q. The last topic that I want to deal with

20 you involves employee exposure. As I understand

21 the theory under California OSHA's policy and

22 procedures manual, when it comes to exposure,

23 employee exposure to workplace hazards, you have

24 what's referred to as the zone of danger theory.

25 Are you familiar with that, Ms. Heza?
68

 1 HEZA

 2 A. I've heard the term.

 3 Q. And does the size of that -- the

 4 geographic size of that zone of danger, does it

 5 depend upon the nature of the hazard?

 6 A. Probably.

 7 Q. Now, there's various different ways of

 8 establishing employee exposure, are there not,

 9 either directly through what the compliance

10 officer sees or through appropriate interview

11 statements; is that right?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. With respect to the kinds of hazards

14 that we've been talking about today involving

15 crowd management and crowd control, do you see

16 issues involving difficulties of establishing

17 employee exposure in that kind of a context?

18 A. In what kind of a context?

19 Q. In the context of the hazard that we've

20 been describing or the facts that we've been

21 talking about, namely what you saw in the video of

22 a crowd entering into a workplace. Would you

23 think there may be some difficulties with respect

24 to establishing the zone of danger for employees?

25 A. Well, the zone of danger is not a
69

 1 HEZA

 2 finite term. You know, an investigation would

 3 follow certain procedural steps. You know, I

 4 really can't speculate on some -- you know, on

 5 some kind of general hypothetical proposition.

 6 Q. But if you saw a crowd generally

 7 entering a store without knowing where employees

 8 are or would be, as you put it, it would be

 9 speculative to come up with a zone of danger for

10 employees, wouldn't it?

11 A. It's so fact-specific. I mean, you

12 know, I can't answer that question.

13 Q. Right. To put it a little bit more

14 specifically, any customer that is injured in the

15 context of crowds entering a store, Cal-OSHA would

16 have no jurisdiction over that; is that correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Are you familiar at all with any

19 substitutes for establishing the kinds of

20 fact-specific zone of danger employee exposure

21 that we talked about?

22 Are there any surrogates that can be

23 used, or is it a requirement under California OSHA

24 that specific employees be exposed to a zone of

25 danger in order to make out a case?
70

 1 HEZA

 2 A. I didn't understand that question at

 3 all.

 4 Q. Let me just ask you the second half of

 5 the question. Is it a requirement under

 6 California OSHA's policy that to establish a zone

 7 of danger, there has to be evidence in the file

 8 that employees specifically are exposed to that

 9 zone of danger?

10 A. There would have to be evidence in the

11 file that demonstrates employees were exposed to a

12 hazard.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. Or hazardous conditions.

15 Q. You described before that one of your

16 responsibilities was to establish goals and

17 objectives. I think my recollection is accurate

18 in this respect. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, that was in connection with which

21 position that you held?

22 A. Several.

23 Q. Could you remind me, please?

24 A. My current position, as deputy chief,

25 and regional manager of consultation.
71

 1 HEZA

 2 Q. And? You said "several."

 3 A. Yes. I said my current position,

 4 deputy chief, and regional manager.

 5 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

 6 And could you describe for me whether

 7 or not those goals and objectives included

 8 substantive areas in which California OSHA ought

 9 to be more active in an enforcement capacity?

10 A. We traditionally have targeted

11 high-hazard employment such as construction. Also

12 as part of our goals and objectives, trying to

13 reach underserved workforce such as those that

14 don't necessarily speak English in a variety of

15 industries.

16 Q. And in any of those several capacities

17 where you were considering goals and objectives,

18 were issues involving crowd management ever

19 discussed?

20 A. I don't believe so.

21 Q. Was the retail industry ever discussed?

22 A. I don't recall having done so.

23 Q. In the context of your present

24 consultation position as well as any other

25 consultation work that you've done in 23 years,
72

 1 HEZA

 2 have you ever consulted on crowd management or

 3 crowd control issues?

 4 A. I don't believe so.

 5 Q. Are you aware of any employer, retail

 6 or otherwise, that has asked for California's

 7 expertise with respect to such issues?

 8 A. Not that I recall.

 9 Q. Let me return for a moment to workplace

10 violence if I may, Ms. Heza. Given your

11 experience, do you believe -- and given your

12 earlier response to the one video that you recall

13 that your view was, if I recall your testimony

14 correctly, that it was lucky that no one was hurt

15 in that video, do you believe that there is an

16 aspect of workplace violence to what you saw in

17 that video?

18 A. Well, there may have been based upon

19 the definition of Type 2, but it would be very,

20 again, you know, fact-specific, unique to that

21 situation.

22 Q. But --

23 A. That might very well be something that

24 we would look at.

25 Q. Under the workplace violence rubric?
73

 1 HEZA

 2 A. Yeah. We might do an evaluation to see

 3 if it's an appropriate fit.

 4 MR. FELLNER: I have no further

 5 questions.

 6 MR. COHEN: I have no questions for

 7 you, Ms. Heza. I don't want to take any more of

 8 your time.

 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you so much.

10 MR. CREGER: Thank you. I guess we can

11 go.

12 MR. FELLNER: Absolutely.

13 And thank you very much. I hope you

14 feel better from your cold.

15 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at

16 3:22 p.m.)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
74

 1 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

 2

 3 STATE OF )

 4 ) ss.:

 5 COUNTY OF )

 6

 7 I, VICKY HEZA, hereby

 8 certify that I have read the transcript of my

 9 testimony taken under oath in my deposition;

10 that the transcript is a true, complete and

11 correct record of my testimony, and that the

12 answers on the record as given by me are true

13 and correct.

14

15 ______________________________

16 VICKY HEZA

17

18 Signed and subscribed to before

 me, this day of ,

19 20__.

20

21 ____________________________________

22 Notary Public, State of ____________

23

24

25
75

 1 C E R T I F I C A T E

 2

 3 I, the undersigned Registered

 4 Professional Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby

 5 certify that VICKY HEZA, after having been first

 6 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did

 7 testify as set forth in the foregoing pages, that

 8 the testimony was reported by me in stenotype and

 9 transcribed under my personal direction and

10 supervision, and is a true and correct transcript.

11 I further certify that I am not of

12 counsel, not related to counsel or the parties

13 hereto, and not in any way interested in the

14 outcome of this matter.

15 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO under my hand

16 and seal this 4th day of June, 2010.

17

18 My commission expires October 14, 2010.

19

20

21

22 ______________________________

23 JOHN L. HARMONSON, RPR

24 Notary Public in and for

25 the District of Columbia
76

 1 ***ERRATA***

 2 ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC

 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor

 3 New York, New York 10022

 212-750-6434

 4

 5 NAME OF CASE: SECRETARY OF LABOR vs. WAL-MART

 DATE OF DEPOSITION: JUNE 1, 2010

 6 NAME OF WITNESS: VICKY HEZA

 7 PAGE LINE FROM TO REASON

 8 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

 9 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

10 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

11 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

12 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

13 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

14 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

15 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

16 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

17 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

18 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

19 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

20 ____|___|_________|_________|_________________

21 ___________________________

22 Subscribed and sworn before me

23 this_____day of __________, 20__.

24 ____________________ ______________________

25 (Notary Public) My Commission Expires:
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

0

02 (1)

 21:17

08 (2)

 17:17,19

09-1013 (1)

 4:8

1

1 (2)

 4:9;52:10

1:35 (1)

 4:9

100 (1)

 47:2

18 (1)

 14:19

1998 (1)

 21:16

1999 (1)

 10:20

2

2 (5)

 51:3,5,6;52:13;

 72:19

2001 (1)

 21:17

2005 (1)

 46:24

2007 (1)

 66:25

2008 (3)

 5:22;20:20;21:18

2009 (1)

 11:4

2010 (1)

 4:9

23 (6)

 9:24;43:12;48:11,

 24;52:25;71:25

3

3 (1)

 52:17

3:22 (1)

 73:16

3203 (20)

 25:8,11;28:13,15;

 41:10;45:3,11,12,24;

 46:10,13,19;47:5;

 49:15;50:12,22;51:2,

 11;53:12;55:16

332 (3)

 56:21;59:9,12

5

5 (1)

 37:13

5304.5 (1)

 54:13

5a1 (1)

 45:14

5a2 (1)

 28:5

6

6 (2)

 37:20;38:4

7

7 (1)

 38:19

8

8 (4)

 25:8;27:25;42:2;

 58:4

80s (1)

 8:21

86 (1)

 10:11

9

9 (10)

 15:21;16:7,9,12,

 17;19:24;20:19;

 21:13,15;66:2

90s (1)

 8:24

91 (3)

 10:11,13,14

93 (1)

 10:15

94 (1)

 10:14

95 (1)

 8:24

99 (1)

 11:4

A

abate (2)

 29:7;40:16

abatement (3)

 47:14;62:8,8

ability (4)

 6:21,24;27:5;

 56:23

absence (3)

 50:13;56:12;57:15

Absolutely (1)

 73:12

accident (3)

 25:23;26:7;29:20

accidents (1)

 32:12

accurate (4)

 51:18;52:10;

 57:17;70:17

accurately (1)

 19:25

achieving (1)

 11:16

acknowledge (1)

 41:25

acquaintances (1)

 63:16

acronym (1)

 18:5

across (1)

 46:13

Act (11)

 13:22;14:3,7,14,

 18,20;15:3;27:2,3,9;

 51:9

action (1)

 55:11

active (1)

 71:9

activities (3)

 10:25;11:7,10

actually (3)

 9:11;26:6;50:23

addition (1)

 39:18

address (4)

 34:15;40:23;

 46:11;58:22

adequately (1)

 58:8

administered (1)

 14:14

administering (3)

 12:16,17,20

admission (1)

 7:10

admit (1)

 14:11

advance (1)

 22:11

advisory (1)

 12:12

affect (2)

 6:20,24

affirmative (1)

 42:15

afraid (2)

 49:13;54:13

again (10)

 5:11,18;7:8;11:8;

 26:2;27:3;46:16,17;

 59:22;72:20

against (1)

 51:9

agencies (1)

 23:7

agenda (2)

 16:15;17:6

ago (7)

 9:11;19:22;32:11;

 34:13;38:17;50:23;

 64:13

agricultural (1)

 34:11

Ah (1)

 46:9

ahead (5)

 20:14;22:24;36:6;

 48:15;50:19

alarm (1)

 56:2

alarms (1)

 56:8

all-inclusive (1)

 39:16

allow (1)

 14:12

allowing (1)

 26:21

alluded (1)

 52:4

alone (1)

 56:6

alternatives (1)

 32:15

although (2)

 33:17;34:12

always (1)

 14:22

analysis (4)

 30:6,13;31:23;

 44:20

analyze (1)

 30:15

and/or (1)

 43:5

Angeles (1)

 5:4

anomaly (1)

 14:22

anticipated (1)

 42:10

anymore (1)

 23:13

apologize (2)

 5:12;22:11

appearing (1)

 4:12

applied (2)

 45:25;46:3

applies (1)

 12:4

appreciate (1)

 26:21

approach (1)

 30:4

appropriate (4)

 51:23;60:23;

 68:10;73:3

appropriately (1)

 55:14

approval (3)

 14:21,24;15:3

approved (1)

 14:18

area (5)

 13:22;51:13,14,15;

 56:17

areas (4)

 21:20,20;55:2;

 71:8

Arizona (1)

 16:10

aspect (2)

 55:15;72:16

assaults (3)

 52:8,13,17

assessment (4)

 29:19;38:20,22;

 47:14

assigned (1)

 31:13

assigning (1)

 30:10

assignment (1)

 10:17

assist (1)

 42:16

assistance (3)

 35:24,25;36:4

associated (3)

 31:16;44:4;62:4

assume (7)

 5:25;12:4;13:24;

 28:12;37:15;54:6;

 56:20

attached (1)

 62:21

attack (1)

 55:10

attacked (1)

 55:8

attempt (3)

 13:4,7;54:16

attempting (1)

 53:16

attempts (1)

 31:11

attended (5)

 9:6;17:16,20;21:4,

 6

attendee (1)

 21:9

attending (1)

 9:9

attention (4)

 39:2;48:6;67:6,11

attorney (2)

 5:4;28:8

audio (1)

 6:14

authoritative (1)

 34:24

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (1) 02 - authoritative
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

authority (1)

 60:17

available (3)

 23:13;33:15;34:15

avoided (1)

 26:24

aware (17)

 19:19;20:4,19,21;

 41:16;45:20;47:11;

 48:3,20,22;60:11,15;

 65:22,25;66:18,21;

 72:5

B

bachelor's (2)

 8:17,20

back (7)

 10:7;21:8,16;47:3;

 50:24;54:19;56:17

background (3)

 8:14,16;56:19

Bakersfield (1)

 66:5

Baruch (3)

 4:19;5:18;7:7

based (1)

 72:18

basic (1)

 52:5

basically (1)

 27:3

basis (2)

 16:2;33:11

became (1)

 56:8

behalf (3)

 4:12,20;5:19

behind (1)

 18:25

belabor (1)

 26:22

belaboring (1)

 6:3

best (3)

 23:18;39:6,7

better (4)

 7:2;12:19;33:24;

 73:14

Beyond (9)

 26:18;41:5,20,25;

 42:9,22;43:4;62:25,

 25

binder (7)

 36:23,25;37:3,6,

 13,16;66:3

biology (1)

 8:17

bit (8)

 9:21;13:11;26:25;

 33:21;34:2;56:4,18;

 69:13

Black (1)

 63:12

Blitz (1)

 5:22

board (6)

 27:8,10,15;28:7;

 46:13;57:7

boilerplates (1)

 34:21

both (4)

 5:12;21:23;29:7;

 42:23

break (4)

 6:16;18:23;67:14,

 16

brief (2)

 6:18;19:4

briefly (1)

 8:13

bring (2)

 30:19;65:18

broad-based (1)

 46:15

budget (1)

 16:22

budgetary (1)

 17:7

bulb (1)

 43:10

C

California (42)

 8:7;9:23;11:20;

 14:14,18,23;15:4,10;

 16:9,10,11;17:24;

 18:6,11;19:8,11,16;

 21:9;22:13,19,25;

 24:11;25:5;26:13;

 27:2;28:13,16;34:5;

 40:17;46:13;48:11;

 53:15;55:24;56:21;

 61:3,20,25;65:22;

 67:21;69:23;70:6;

 71:8

California's (4)

 13:22;14:2;19:23;

 72:6

call (1)

 23:24

called (2)

 24:14;39:2

Calls (1)

 32:2

Cal-OSHA (24)

 5:4,7;9:5;10:4,6;

 11:25;15:21;16:23;

 21:23;24:9;27:8,9;

 33:12;35:24;42:25;

 51:15;58:11;60:3,8,

 16;65:19;66:18,22;

 69:15

Cal-OSHA's (3)

 12:10;57:22,25

can (38)

 5:16,17;6:12,17;

 9:8;20:16;22:24;

 23:18;24:15,16,19;

 25:24;30:3,14,18,19,

 21;32:4;34:21;35:9,

 10,16,19;39:6,7,12;

 43:24;45:8;49:15,18;

 51:5;53:5;54:3;55:6;

 66:24;67:14;69:22;

 73:10

capacities (1)

 71:16

capacity (3)

 59:16,18;71:9

capture (1)

 25:20

career (2)

 5:15;9:5

carrier (1)

 30:20

case (9)

 20:20;35:20;

 50:24;55:23,25;

 56:10;60:24;61:12;

 69:25

cataloged (1)

 21:24

cataloging (1)

 22:14

certain (5)

 24:10,18;46:15,19;

 69:3

certainly (6)

 31:3;38:11;39:10;

 40:19;45:25;61:20

certainty (2)

 33:7;47:2

Certified (2)

 9:16,19

changed (3)

 45:15,22,24

changing (1)

 45:21

check (2)

 32:12,18

Checklist (2)

 38:20,22

chief (11)

 7:22;8:4;10:5;

 11:4;12:3;14:25;

 17:20;34:10;61:13;

 70:24;71:4

CIH (1)

 9:19

circumstances (3)

 35:15;49:19;62:23

citation (5)

 5:21;15:17;55:18;

 56:14;61:4

citations (20)

 21:24;22:4,6,7;

 24:9;25:4,5,5,12,15,

 18;26:14;35:8,10,17;

 46:11;47:20;49:9;

 50:21;66:21

cited (8)

 46:19;49:15,18,20;

 50:4,5,12;51:11

citing (1)

 51:2

clarification (1)

 22:6

clarify (1)

 6:12

clarity (1)

 16:6

classes (2)

 9:6,7

clause (11)

 5:20;44:15,22,24;

 45:2,4,7,11;59:10,10,

 14

clear (1)

 42:12

clerical (1)

 23:2

client (1)

 51:7

clips (2)

 64:2,4

Code (4)

 28:13;56:21;57:8,

 19

coffee (2)

 18:22;19:4

cognizable (1)

 53:14

COHEN (13)

 4:23,23;7:7;20:9,

 12;22:22;31:25;

 37:15;48:12,16;

 64:17;65:6;73:6

cold (1)

 73:14

colleagues (1)

 65:19

Columbia (1)

 4:12

Commission (1)

 4:8

commits (1)

 51:9

communicate (2)

 30:8,9

communication (1)

 29:19

company's (2)

 52:14,15

compared (3)

 45:4;59:9,13

comparison (4)

 45:8;59:17,21;

 60:25

complainant (1)

 4:25

complaint (1)

 67:8

compliance (4)

 13:13,18;29:19;

 68:9

comply (2)

 13:8;42:3

compound (1)

 48:16

comprehensive (1)

 11:22

Conceivably (4)

 32:25;33:2,2;

 60:22

concern (1)

 65:18

concerned (3)

 23:9;31:24;48:8

concerning (3)

 7:21;36:13;66:4

concerns (3)

 64:23;65:10,14

concert (1)

 66:5

concluded (1)

 73:15

condition (2)

 57:3;58:3

conditions (5)

 44:4,9;47:22;48:2;

 70:14

conduct (5)

 41:11;54:10;

 55:23;56:13;65:24

conducted (3)

 11:6;25:23;30:6

conducting (2)

 10:11,25

conference (1)

 37:4

conferenced (1)

 4:4

confirm (1)

 29:12

connection (1)

 70:20

consider (1)

 58:2

considerably (1)

 13:23

considerations (1)

 58:11

considered (2)

 53:3;61:3

considering (2)

 58:12;71:17

consistency (1)

 11:14

consistent (1)

 31:15

construct (1)

 30:2

construction (1)

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (2) authority - construction
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

 71:11

consult (2)

 22:21;23:3

consultant (3)

 10:3,10;30:21

consultation (14)

 10:5,6,21,25;

 11:12,13,21,25;12:5;

 36:3,10;70:25;71:24,

 25

consulted (1)

 72:2

consulting (1)

 60:20

content (1)

 10:8

context (10)

 32:21;47:5,9,21;

 59:20;68:17,18,19;

 69:15;71:23

continuing (1)

 32:8

control (16)

 21:2;25:19;26:15;

 40:5,8;43:15,18;

 48:9;49:6;51:3;

 56:12;60:9,13,19;

 68:15;72:3

control-type (1)

 20:7

conversant (4)

 12:21;13:25;14:7,

 10

conversations (5)

 48:25;59:23,24;

 60:6;62:16

copy (1)

 17:24

corporate (1)

 29:2

correction (1)

 29:21

correctly (2)

 31:2;72:14

COSHOs (1)

 22:25

cough (3)

 6:22,23;7:3

counsel (3)

 4:17;7:25;8:2

counterparts (1)

 15:16

couple (4)

 17:12;18:23;49:8;

 64:13

course (4)

 13:24;18:19;25:2;

 42:2

COURT (3)

 4:3,11,13

covered (5)

 24:10;40:21;

 42:11;46:20;57:16

crash (1)

 23:24

create (2)

 22:4,6

created (1)

 31:20

CREGER (9)

 5:3,3;7:24;8:2;

 54:12;64:19,25;

 67:13;73:10

criteria (1)

 24:19

crowd (46)

 5:21;20:6,7;21:2,

 2;25:19,19;26:15;

 31:20,23;40:4,5,7,8,

 11;43:14,15,17,18;

 47:19;48:9,9;49:5,5;

 50:14;53:3,6,16;

 60:9,10,13,13,18,19,

 25;63:5,10,22,23;

 68:15,15,22;69:6;

 71:18;72:2,3

crowd-related (4)

 36:16;47:6,8,13

crowds (5)

 32:21;40:12,14;

 49:4;69:15

Crutcher (3)

 4:15,20;5:19

current (2)

 70:24;71:3

customer (2)

 51:7;69:14

customers (2)

 54:6;64:9

D

Dan (1)

 4:22

danger (9)

 67:24;68:4,24,25;

 69:9,20,25;70:7,9

Daniel (1)

 37:7

Darren (2)

 4:23;37:17

data (1)

 22:20

database (2)

 22:2,3

databases (1)

 24:16

date (1)

 4:9

Day (1)

 5:22

DC (2)

 4:16,22

deal (3)

 43:4;53:18;67:19

dealing (5)

 20:6;49:3,5;50:13;

 62:2

deals (4)

 5:20;40:4,7,9

dealt (5)

 18:19;25:18;

 43:14;55:3;61:13

decision (1)

 60:21

decisions (1)

 45:18

defer (1)

 59:5

definition (1)

 72:19

degree (1)

 39:22

degrees (1)

 9:13

delay (1)

 5:12

demonstrates (1)

 70:11

Department (4)

 4:25;14:15;27:4,

 14

depend (2)

 33:4;68:5

depended (1)

 55:19

deposition (14)

 4:4;5:14;6:8,21;

 7:6,9,10,15,17,21;

 8:8,11;26:24;73:15

depositions (1)

 6:2

deputy (6)

 10:5;11:3;12:3;

 67:2;70:24;71:4

describe (5)

 8:15;29:7;38:21;

 55:6;71:6

described (1)

 70:15

describes (1)

 38:8

describing (2)

 19:23;68:20

design (2)

 13:25;14:6

designing (1)

 40:15

detail (3)

 25:21;26:13;61:8

detailed (1)

 38:23

details (1)

 33:5

develop (7)

 23:12;28:16;

 34:22;36:2,8;39:21;

 44:10

developing (1)

 12:10

development (2)

 30:7;58:15

device (1)

 57:4

died (1)

 55:13

Diego (3)

 10:3,13;61:2

different (10)

 21:12;30:13;

 31:14;42:7;43:13;

 50:3,10;51:17;64:25;

 68:7

differently (1)

 15:12

difficult (5)

 24:5;25:7;26:8,10;

 33:5

difficulties (3)

 5:13;68:16,23

dim (1)

 64:12

direct (2)

 24:7;35:25

directed (2)

 25:3;37:4

directions (1)

 30:4

directly (5)

 14:12;37:10;

 58:14;61:13;68:9

Director (1)

 56:22

disclaimers (1)

 39:15

discover (1)

 30:14

discuss (3)

 15:16,21;18:3

discussed (7)

 17:18;43:17;

 48:10;50:5;63:9;

 71:19,21

discussion (7)

 16:4,23,24;18:18;

 20:18,25;21:5

discussions (12)

 17:7;18:10;19:6,

 13,14,17,18,20;20:3;

 45:10;49:2;53:13

disorders (1)

 34:6

dispatch (1)

 5:17

disposal (1)

 53:19

distinguishes (1)

 45:10

District (5)

 4:12;10:3,13,15;

 11:6

Division (2)

 5:5;54:14

Docket (1)

 4:8

documents (2)

 39:19;40:3

done (5)

 5:16,17;18:6;

 71:22,25

doors (1)

 64:10

down (3)

 19:25;23:23;26:4

draw (1)

 39:12

drawn (1)

 48:5

drill (2)

 6:7;26:4

duly (2)

 5:9;7:12

Dunn (3)

 4:15,20;5:19

during (1)

 18:19

duties (1)

 10:16

duty (11)

 5:20;44:15,22,24;

 45:2,4,7,11;59:9,10,

 14

E

earlier (2)

 57:12;72:12

earth (1)

 63:17

easy (1)

 26:6

education (2)

 8:14;11:8

educational (1)

 8:15

effective (1)

 15:5

eight (1)

 29:13

either (6)

 20:4;21:13;42:11;

 43:5;61:3;68:9

elements (5)

 29:9,11,14;49:22,

 24

elicit (1)

 54:16

Ellen (1)

 4:12

else (1)

 48:6

employee (11)

 51:9;55:7,12,13;

 57:5;65:15;67:20,23;

 68:8,17;69:20

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (3) consult - employee
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

employees (14)

 30:9;31:13;32:19;

 52:9,15,18;54:8,14;

 68:24;69:7,10,24;

 70:8,11

employer (40)

 29:25;30:3,14,18,

 22,25;31:4;32:17,17,

 23;33:8;35:6,9,16,

 21;36:11;39:4,9,21;

 40:16,22;41:7,7,15,

 24;42:4,8;43:6,9,24;

 44:11;47:11;49:21;

 55:23,25;58:21,25;

 60:18;62:7;72:5

employers (20)

 12:23;13:4,6;

 24:20;28:16;33:16;

 34:21;35:25;36:20;

 41:4,10,20;42:3,22;

 43:3;46:11;47:25;

 49:3;51:20;58:19

employer's (3)

 10:12;28:21;36:7

employment (4)

 8:14;9:22;57:4;

 71:11

employment-related (1)

 52:18

encompassed (2)

 53:17;54:10

end (1)

 17:17

enforcement (12)

 10:4,5,16;11:4,7,

 21;12:2,3,5,7;67:2;

 71:9

engage (2)

 53:21;54:4

English (1)

 71:14

ensure (1)

 11:13

entailed (1)

 10:22

enter (2)

 23:2;53:16

entering (8)

 22:20;23:4,8;

 32:21;54:7;68:22;

 69:7,15

equipment (1)

 41:13

equivalent (2)

 45:7,14

establish (3)

 24:19;70:6,16

established (3)

 31:8;42:20;43:4

establishing (6)

 10:22;11:8;68:8,

 16,24;69:19

establishment (1)

 29:24

establishments (1)

 52:10

evaluate (2)

 32:23;33:3

evaluation (2)

 33:11;73:2

even (1)

 58:17

everyone (1)

 5:12

evidence (2)

 70:7,10

exactly (2)

 35:12;47:3

EXAMINATION (1)

 5:23

examine (1)

 30:24

examined (1)

 5:9

example (8)

 23:18;24:8;31:18;

 34:3;35:19;43:8;

 46:4,6

examples (1)

 43:3

exchanging (1)

 18:23

exclusively (1)

 6:14

excuse (1)

 19:13

exercise (1)

 19:2

exhaustive (3)

 38:23;39:3,6

exhibit (1)

 37:25

existing (3)

 57:6,20;58:4

expected (1)

 51:20

experience (14)

 24:7;42:6;43:13;

 44:25;53:5;58:16,17;

 60:8;62:11,14,25;

 63:4,6;72:11

experiences (1)

 31:19

expert (4)

 26:2,18,18;54:15

expertise (4)

 44:25;52:25,25;

 72:7

exposed (4)

 39:4;69:24;70:8,

 11

exposure (7)

 29:20;67:20,22,23;

 68:8,17;69:20

extensive (4)

 36:20;38:13,14;

 42:6

extensively (1)

 36:9

extent (3)

 7:18;18:17;24:18

F

face (1)

 29:12

faced (1)

 60:18

facility (1)

 40:21

fact (3)

 42:8;62:20;67:16

facts (4)

 33:5;53:19;54:3;

 68:20

fact-specific (3)

 69:11,20;72:20

factually-based (1)

 54:4

failed (1)

 49:21

failing (1)

 51:3

fair (6)

 11:19;28:20;

 38:21;41:19;44:2;

 57:14

fairly (1)

 50:22

fallen (1)

 32:19

familiar (27)

 12:25;13:3,6,23,

 25;14:4,9;15:8,18;

 17:22;18:8,25;19:7;

 26:4,5;28:12;35:20;

 38:15;41:17;44:14;

 52:21;56:21;57:21;

 61:6;66:14;67:25;

 69:18

far (2)

 26:4;48:8

fashion (1)

 50:10

fatal (1)

 52:8

federal (29)

 11:14;13:24;14:6,

 19;15:3,5,10,15,25;

 16:4,8,20;17:23;

 18:11,14,20,25;19:8,

 14;21:24;22:3,13,21;

 23:3;28:4;44:15;

 52:22;59:10,13

feds (2)

 17:9;23:16

feel (2)

 7:2;73:14

FELLNER (27)

 4:19,19;5:11,18,

 24;7:12,13,25;8:3;

 20:15;22:23;32:3;

 37:11,17,19;48:13,

 14,17,18;54:18;

 64:21;65:3,8;67:15,

 18;73:4,12

field (1)

 53:2

file (3)

 61:12;70:7,11

filed (1)

 67:7

final (3)

 14:21,24;39:20

finally (1)

 14:23

find (1)

 32:18

finding (1)

 26:12

fine (1)

 48:17

finite (1)

 69:2

first (7)

 5:9,15;6:3;29:25;

 30:23;45:12;46:6

fit (1)

 73:3

fits (1)

 27:9

fix (2)

 23:25;24:2

flag (1)

 33:10

folks (4)

 18:14;19:14;39:7;

 45:18

follow (3)

 35:18,21;69:3

follows (2)

 5:10;35:6

follow-up (2)

 31:7,17

form (5)

 20:9,13;22:22;

 31:25;48:12

formal (3)

 8:15,25;20:24

formally (1)

 17:3

format (1)

 5:14

four (1)

 17:2

frames (1)

 10:8

frankly (1)

 26:23

free (1)

 66:5

freestanding (1)

 49:10

frequency (1)

 39:23

Friday (1)

 63:12

front (2)

 36:23;37:2

frustrations (1)

 22:10

functioning (2)

 23:17,20

further (7)

 7:8;26:19;29:6;

 33:11;35:14;56:9;

 73:4

G

gain (1)

 15:2

general (24)

 5:20;18:14;27:17,

 21,22;28:3;40:25;

 44:15,22,23;45:2,4,6,

 11;49:11;57:11,16;

 59:9,10,14,23;65:16,

 17;69:5

generally (3)

 13:4,7;69:6

geographic (1)

 68:4

gerund (1)

 12:19

Gibson (3)

 4:15,20;5:19

given (6)

 6:7;53:11;58:17;

 67:9;72:10,11

gives (2)

 27:3;56:22

goals (10)

 10:22;11:8,9,16;

 16:20,25;70:16;71:7,

 12,17

good (2)

 30:25;32:11

goods (1)

 54:8

granularly (2)

 25:14;47:17

Grauer (1)

 4:13

great (1)

 53:18

Guam (1)

 16:10

guess (2)

 42:14;73:10

guidance (3)

 23:8;39:10,19

H

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (4) employees - guidance
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

half (1)

 70:4

hand (1)

 30:23

harbors (1)

 35:5

Harmonson (1)

 4:10

hats (1)

 42:7

Hawaii (1)

 16:10

hazard (22)

 29:19,20;30:5,12;

 31:22;38:20,22;

 39:13;40:20;41:11,

 11,15,16,20;44:22;

 47:13;48:10;58:22;

 59:2;68:5,19;70:12

hazardous (2)

 55:2;70:14

hazards (28)

 24:10;28:23;29:3,

 8;30:8,9,15;31:9,15;

 34:15;38:9;39:4,17;

 40:9,17,24;41:6;

 42:10;43:4;44:12;

 46:11,15,20;47:18;

 51:16;60:18;67:23;

 68:13

head (4)

 7:19;9:8;35:23;

 67:2

headquarters (1)

 24:24

Health (13)

 4:7;5:5;9:4;14:3,7;

 27:6;41:15;53:2;

 55:8;57:5;64:16,23;

 65:10

heard (8)

 18:11;45:3,7,9;

 59:8,12,16;68:2

hearing (1)

 7:11

heat (5)

 46:2,6,7,9,25

heat-related (1)

 34:6

held (4)

 9:25;10:2;15:20;

 70:21

Heza (81)

 4:5;5:1,6,25;6:1;

 7:1,14;8:1;9:1;10:1;

 11:1,18;12:1;13:1;

 14:1;15:1;16:1;17:1;

 18:1;19:1;20:1;21:1;

 22:1;23:1;24:1;25:1;

 26:1;27:1;28:1;29:1;

 30:1;31:1;32:1;33:1;

 34:1;35:1;36:1,24;

 37:1;38:1;39:1;40:1;

 41:1;42:1,21;43:1;

 44:1;45:1;46:1;47:1;

 48:1;49:1;50:1;51:1;

 52:1;53:1;54:1,6,21;

 55:1;56:1;57:1;58:1;

 59:1;60:1;61:1;62:1;

 63:1;64:1;65:1;66:1;

 67:1,25;68:1;69:1;

 70:1;71:1;72:1,10;

 73:1,7

high-hazard (3)

 33:16;36:19;71:11

highlight (1)

 17:12

hire (1)

 30:21

historically (1)

 45:6

history (3)

 9:22;33:9;46:12

holding (2)

 18:2,15

honest (2)

 7:16;25:13

honestly (1)

 61:17

hope (3)

 5:17;7:2;73:13

horizontal (2)

 27:19,21

Howard (1)

 34:10

hurt (2)

 65:13;72:14

hygiene (3)

 9:12;10:2,10

Hygienist (1)

 9:19

hypothetical (4)

 33:6;53:25;54:5;

 69:5

hypotheticals (2)

 53:22;54:15

I

I2P2 (7)

 18:4,12,15,21,21;

 19:2,9

idea (3)

 14:24;25:13;48:13

ideas (1)

 23:8

identified (4)

 29:3;40:17;41:21;

 58:22

identify (5)

 4:18;16:7;29:7;

 40:16;44:3

identifying (1)

 44:8

IIPP (52)

 12:16,17,20,21,23,

 25;13:8;17:24;25:6,

 8,16,18;28:12,21,24;

 29:4,6,10,13,25;

 30:2;31:8,22;32:24;

 33:13;34:5;35:8;

 36:12,17,19;40:15;

 42:8;43:14,19,24;

 47:12,20,24;49:9,9,

 15,23;50:12;51:25;

 54:20,22,23,24;55:3;

 56:19;58:23;59:2

IIPPs (5)

 36:2;43:4;48:4,5;

 51:22

Illness (8)

 28:17;30:19;

 32:12;38:3;46:2,7,9,

 25

imagine (1)

 30:16

IMIS (12)

 21:21,25;22:10,15,

 20;23:16;24:5;

 25:20;26:5,11,17,24

impact (1)

 31:23

implement (2)

 12:23;49:24

implementing (1)

 10:24

important (2)

 32:22;33:3

impossible (1)

 26:8

impressive (1)

 11:17

Inc (1)

 4:6

incident (9)

 50:25;55:5;66:11,

 15,19,23,25;67:5,9

incidents (1)

 63:22

include (2)

 15:22;17:6

included (4)

 10:16;31:10;

 53:12;71:7

incorporate (1)

 51:21

indeed (1)

 51:24

independently (1)

 66:14

indicated (3)

 32:11;41:6;45:21

indirect (1)

 35:25

individual (6)

 27:13,17;54:17;

 58:19,21,25

individualized (1)

 36:2

individuals (1)

 13:17

industrial (7)

 9:12,19;10:2,10;

 14:15;27:4;56:22

industries (6)

 27:13,17,18;44:5,

 6;71:15

industry (10)

 27:22;28:3;34:11;

 40:25;47:9;49:11;

 57:11,17;60:12;

 71:21

inference (1)

 39:12

informal (1)

 48:25

information (12)

 11:10;17:8;21:22;

 22:7;23:2,5,9,11;

 25:9,10,11;26:9

initially (1)

 43:25

initiative (1)

 19:9

initiatives (4)

 12:13;17:23;

 47:25;52:22

injured (4)

 40:10;47:19;67:7;

 69:14

injuries (5)

 31:20;32:21;44:5,

 9,20

Injury (8)

 28:17;30:18;

 32:13,18;38:2;43:25;

 44:2,9

injury/illness (1)

 30:24

innovative (2)

 17:12,13

inquiries (1)

 19:6

insofar (3)

 12:6;23:8;31:23

inspections (1)

 41:11

instance (1)

 47:4

instances (2)

 47:7;63:23

institution (1)

 55:8

instruction (1)

 29:21

insurance (1)

 30:19

Integrated (1)

 21:22

intended (3)

 39:9,19,20

intentional (1)

 55:11

intentionality (1)

 55:19

interaction (5)

 22:12;23:15,19;

 24:3;56:11

interactions (2)

 15:9,19

interim (1)

 15:3

interject (1)

 67:13

intermittent (3)

 33:17,19;34:9

interrupt (1)

 46:5

interview (1)

 68:10

into (12)

 8:13;9:21;13:21;

 21:21;22:20;26:5;

 31:9;37:25;42:4;

 51:8;64:9;68:22

introduce (2)

 16:21;37:24

introduced (2)

 31:9;41:13

investigated (4)

 61:21;65:20,23;

 66:19

investigation (6)

 25:23;29:20;61:7,

 11;67:5;69:2

investigative (1)

 61:18

involved (8)

 12:15;31:18;36:5,

 9,11,16;53:6;58:14

involves (2)

 21:21;67:20

involving (7)

 5:21;60:24;63:22,

 23;68:14,16;71:18

Island (1)

 5:22

issuance (4)

 58:2,12;59:3;62:5

issue (7)

 26:22;27:5;42:5;

 46:10;55:15;56:23;

 60:17

issued (22)

 13:17,20;22:7;

 24:9,21;25:6,11;

 27:15;35:10;42:23;

 46:14,24;47:3;50:20;

 51:2;55:18;57:15;

 60:9,14;61:17,18;

 66:22

issues (36)

 9:4;10:18;11:21;

 12:2,5,5,7;15:16,17,

 17,18,22;16:5,22;

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (5) half - issues
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

 17:5;20:7;21:2;28:4;

 36:13,16;43:15,18;

 47:6,8,13;50:6,14;

 53:12;63:2,5,10,24;

 68:16;71:18;72:3,7

issuing (3)

 13:12;61:3;62:15

items (2)

 17:6;38:25

J

job (1)

 31:14

jobs (1)

 43:13

John (1)

 4:10

joined (1)

 4:22

June (1)

 4:9

jurisdiction (1)

 69:16

K

keeping (2)

 10:24;29:22

key (1)

 29:13

keywords (1)

 25:24

killed (1)

 55:12

killer (2)

 61:2;62:2

kind (19)

 9:7;11:9;17:24;

 23:8,19;24:5,24;

 29:2;31:7;35:5;38:8;

 44:19;54:9;55:11;

 59:23;67:4;68:17,18;

 69:5

kinds (8)

 12:22;24:10;

 27:15;28:4;39:3;

 48:2;68:13;69:19

knowing (1)

 69:7

knowledge (7)

 11:20;23:9;40:2;

 58:10;62:3,25;63:5

knowledgeable (2)

 11:24;12:6

known (2)

 22:14;27:22

L

Labor (5)

 4:5,25;5:2;57:8,18

language (1)

 41:19

large (1)

 7:18

last (2)

 17:15;67:19

late (1)

 52:9

layman's (2)

 44:17,18

leading (1)

 14:12

least (1)

 15:5

led (1)

 56:13

legal (6)

 5:4;55:14;59:6;

 60:21;62:16;63:2

Len (2)

 8:4;60:6

lengthy (1)

 38:24

less (1)

 13:23

level (2)

 25:20;26:13

levy (1)

 62:22

light (3)

 26:19;43:10;62:19

limited (4)

 21:17;25:10,22;

 58:17

line (1)

 60:23

list (9)

 11:17;24:20;

 36:20;38:4,6,14,16;

 39:14,18

listed (1)

 32:16

lists (3)

 38:11,13;39:16

little (11)

 6:13;9:21;13:11;

 26:25;32:7,10;33:21;

 34:2;56:4,18;69:13

local (1)

 24:16

Long (6)

 5:22;9:11,22;

 34:12;38:18;50:22

look (13)

 23:7;33:9,23;

 37:23;38:19;41:20;

 42:4,22;43:25;62:24;

 66:4,7;72:24

looked (3)

 31:5;38:18;42:9

looking (3)

 24:20;36:2;42:13

Los (1)

 5:4

loss (1)

 30:20

lot (1)

 62:11

lots (1)

 48:24

lucky (2)

 65:12;72:14

M

maintain (2)

 15:2;16:14

makes (1)

 53:14

making (1)

 45:18

management (22)

 20:7;21:2,22;

 25:19;29:18;40:5,7;

 43:15,18;48:9;49:5;

 50:14;60:10,14,19;

 63:5,10,22,23;68:15;

 71:18;72:2

manager (8)

 10:3,4,6,13,21;

 11:12;70:25;71:4

managers (4)

 11:5,6,15;13:19

manual (2)

 57:22;67:22

many (2)

 21:11;42:7

master's (2)

 8:18,23

materials (1)

 8:10

matter (6)

 4:5,21;5:20;6:19;

 61:21;67:15

matters (1)

 16:17

may (34)

 6:13;8:14;16:17,

 20;18:20,21;19:7,16;

 21:15;23:23;24:2,9;

 25:15;27:2;32:11;

 34:5;37:12;41:4;

 42:5,22;43:19;44:3;

 46:24;49:9;53:13;

 59:25;60:2,6,7;

 66:12,22;68:23;

 72:10,18

maybe (6)

 8:24;15:12,25;

 21:17;42:18;46:24

mean (9)

 12:18;19:3;22:18;

 33:19,22;35:3;39:15;

 44:5;69:11

means (1)

 34:25

meant (1)

 39:16

measures (2)

 47:14;51:21

mechanism (2)

 24:22;56:7

medications (1)

 6:20

medicine (3)

 6:22,23;7:3

meet (7)

 13:4,7;16:12,17;

 17:3,5;49:21

meeting (8)

 16:15,21;17:15,16;

 18:13,19,22;19:5

meetings (18)

 15:20,24;16:5;

 17:18;18:3,9,16;

 19:23,24,25;20:23,

 24,25;21:4,6,8,13,16

memory (1)

 6:20

mental (1)

 55:8

mentioned (4)

 9:14;15:23;19:22;

 30:23

micro-to-host (1)

 24:14

might (11)

 6:20;28:25;36:16;

 40:25;53:3,6,16;

 56:18;58:21;72:23;

 73:2

mind (6)

 25:10;30:17;34:4,

 7;43:3,7

minimum (1)

 42:2

minute (1)

 10:14

missing (1)

 10:19

model (4)

 33:12;36:19;38:3;

 51:24

models (4)

 33:15;34:14,17,20

modified (1)

 61:19

moment (4)

 19:22;32:11;

 51:15;72:9

monitored (1)

 13:18

monitoring (1)

 13:13

more (26)

 13:11;14:12;17:3;

 19:17;20:24;23:16;

 25:7,14;26:23;28:11;

 31:5;32:10;33:21;

 34:2;45:5,16;47:17;

 49:8;54:2,4;55:13;

 56:4,18;69:13;71:9;

 73:7

most (1)

 11:11

much (7)

 7:17;18:7;24:4;

 26:22;58:16;73:9,13

multistep (1)

 25:25

must (2)

 15:4;41:11

myself (1)

 19:12

N

name (1)

 4:10

namely (1)

 68:21

nationwide (1)

 16:3

nature (1)

 68:5

necessarily (3)

 45:6;67:10;71:14

need (3)

 6:16;40:16;45:17

negative (2)

 45:5,10

Nevada (1)

 16:10

New (11)

 4:13,13,24;17:7,8;

 31:9,14,16;41:12,14,

 16

news (3)

 63:25;64:4;66:4

next (1)

 11:3

night (1)

 52:9

ninety (1)

 10:19

nobody (1)

 65:12

nonhigh-hazard (1)

 33:16

notary (1)

 4:11

note (1)

 7:8

noted (1)

 7:12

notice (1)

 62:7

number (1)

 30:13

O

oath (2)

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (6) issuing - oath
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

 5:10;6:5

Object (1)

 65:6

objection (7)

 7:9;20:9,12;22:22;

 31:25;48:12;64:17

objective (1)

 18:20

objectives (4)

 70:17;71:7,12,17

obligation (1)

 41:17

obtain (1)

 54:8

obviously (4)

 6:17;15:14;37:25;

 53:22

occasion (1)

 42:22

Occupational (5)

 4:7;5:5;14:2,6;

 41:14

occur (1)

 26:7

occurred (3)

 48:22;50:25;66:25

occurring (1)

 66:16

off (5)

 7:18;9:8;29:16;

 35:23;43:11

offer (2)

 35:24;36:3

Office (5)

 4:24;10:15,16;

 23:23;65:23

officer (1)

 68:10

offices (3)

 4:15;10:23;13:19

official (1)

 59:16

often (2)

 16:11;23:17

Once (3)

 5:11;6:9;31:8

one (24)

 5:15;15:22;18:13;

 21:4,20;26:3;29:9;

 30:25;32:15;35:6,6,

 13;39:24;43:23;

 49:21,24;50:24;56:9;

 61:8,13;64:6;70:15;

 72:12,14

ones (2)

 15:22;39:8

only (5)

 5:16;40:16;41:7;

 46:6;58:18

on-site (1)

 10:11

operation (3)

 13:21;14:2,6

operative (1)

 15:4

opinion (1)

 54:16

opportunities (2)

 15:15;19:5

opportunity (1)

 7:20

order (17)

 15:2;25:12;49:11;

 57:2;58:3,5,12,15,

 23;59:4,13;60:9,17;

 61:4;62:5,21;69:25

orders (29)

 13:11,13,18,20;

 25:6,17;27:23;28:3;

 40:25;41:5,22;42:10,

 23;43:5;47:20;56:20,

 23;57:7,11,12,14,17,

 20,23;58:16,18;

 62:12,15,17

organization (1)

 16:3

OSHA (37)

 8:7;9:23;13:22;

 14:14,18,19;15:3,4,

 10,10,15,25;16:8,12,

 20;17:23;18:12;19:8,

 11;21:9,24;22:13,13,

 21;23:4;24:11;25:5;

 26:13;27:2;28:4;

 48:11;53:15;61:3,20;

 65:22;69:23;71:8

OSHA's (10)

 17:24;18:20;19:2,

 8;55:24;59:9,10,13;

 67:21;70:6

OSHPD (6)

 16:2;17:4,15;

 20:24;21:14,16

OSHRC (1)

 4:8

others (3)

 19:7;20:5;52:18

otherwise (1)

 72:6

ought (4)

 28:21;44:11;

 65:20;71:8

out (6)

 24:16,17;25:10,11;

 58:5;69:25

outcome (1)

 61:15

outreach (2)

 11:2,7

outside (4)

 8:7;44:24;64:17;

 65:6

over (4)

 45:14,21,21;69:16

overarching (1)

 29:2

overseeing (1)

 11:13

own (9)

 17:14;22:18,19;

 23:2,25;24:19;30:2;

 34:22;40:2

P

P&T (2)

 45:24;62:10

page (5)

 37:20;38:4,19;

 51:25;52:6

pages (1)

 38:21

pardon (1)

 60:25

part (5)

 19:25;43:18;

 44:10;55:19;71:12

participated (5)

 18:10;20:5,5;

 21:12,15

particular (21)

 23:23;28:22;

 30:14;31:5;32:22;

 35:20;38:11;39:13;

 45:22;47:21;55:2,17,

 23;56:10,13;61:7,11,

 21;66:15,19,23

past (3)

 23:10;46:23;64:12

patient (7)

 55:9,10,11,20;

 56:7,8,11

penalty (2)

 62:4,22

pending (1)

 4:6

penetrating (1)

 22:10

people (1)

 19:10

percent (1)

 47:2

perfectly (1)

 25:12

perform (1)

 62:8

performance (1)

 11:9

Perhaps (4)

 25:22;33:18;

 56:18;67:8

period (1)

 12:3

person (2)

 39:6;51:7

personal (3)

 24:7;63:4,6

personally (2)

 13:14;24:23

personnel (3)

 11:10;15:10,11

personnel-related (1)

 10:18

perspective (2)

 44:17,19

pertain (4)

 27:13,16,18;58:18

pertaining (3)

 27:6;57:23;60:9

pertinent (1)

 58:11

phrase (1)

 15:5

place (4)

 32:11;40:19;41:2;

 57:4

places (1)

 31:2

plan (3)

 14:19;15:15;23:14

plans (4)

 15:25;17:3;20:23;

 21:14

played (1)

 12:9

please (11)

 4:17;6:12,17;8:16,

 20;10:9;37:14;

 48:19;55:6;65:10;

 70:23

pm (2)

 4:9;73:16

point (2)

 6:3,16

pointed (1)

 40:4

policy (12)

 9:10;15:9,16;16:4;

 29:2;45:13,18,22;

 57:22;58:2;67:21;

 70:6

poses (1)

 57:4

position (7)

 10:22;11:3;31:16;

 70:21,24;71:3,24

positions (3)

 9:25;10:8;21:12

possible (6)

 7:10;38:9;39:3;

 53:20,23;60:5

possibly (1)

 64:20

post (1)

 62:7

potential (1)

 51:3

precedent (1)

 46:18

precise (1)

 34:3

precludes (1)

 54:14

preliminary (1)

 6:19

preparation (1)

 8:11

prepare (3)

 7:5,14,17

presence (1)

 48:10

present (1)

 71:23

presently (1)

 36:10

pretty (2)

 51:2;55:16

prevent (2)

 5:13;56:12

Prevention (4)

 28:17;30:20;38:3;

 46:8

previously (2)

 41:16;59:2

primarily (1)

 16:23

probably (9)

 16:13;25:25;30:4;

 33:24;42:4;59:19,19;

 64:13;68:6

probe (3)

 32:7,10;35:12

problem (1)

 54:12

problems (1)

 25:19

procedural (2)

 57:22;69:3

procedure (1)

 9:10

procedures (3)

 6:2;41:13;67:22

proceedings (1)

 4:14

process (6)

 6:2;22:14,14;25:7,

 25;43:24

processes (1)

 41:12

produced (1)

 34:10

product (1)

 10:17

products (1)

 52:14

Professional (2)

 9:17;64:16

program (41)

 10:6;11:11,13,25;

 12:16,17,20,21;

 13:24;15:6;16:24;

 17:25;25:16,18;

 28:12,17,21;29:6,13;

 30:11;31:11,22;

 32:24;34:9;35:10,16,

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (7) Object - program
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

 21;36:3,8,10,12,19;

 38:3;42:13;43:14,19,

 20;44:15;47:12;

 50:13;52:12

programmatic (2)

 15:9,17

programs (9)

 12:22;17:13;

 33:13;34:6,22;35:7;

 42:8;47:24;49:3

progress (2)

 16:19,24

promulgated (2)

 17:9;45:12

promulgates (1)

 27:11

properly (2)

 23:17,20

proposal (1)

 19:15

proposition (2)

 42:21;69:5

provide (1)

 41:11

provided (1)

 26:19

providing (1)

 54:14

provision (2)

 50:12;58:6

provisions (2)

 49:11;57:22

public (2)

 4:11;37:24

pull (2)

 25:9,11

purpose (1)

 34:19

purposes (4)

 16:6;22:5;32:23;

 34:6

pursue (1)

 60:22

push (1)

 54:7

pushed (3)

 32:19;40:10;47:18

put (2)

 69:8,13

putting (1)

 34:19

Q

qualified (1)

 32:20

quarterly (3)

 15:25;16:14,15

quite (1)

 15:13

R

R2D2 (1)

 18:7

raise (1)

 56:8

Rathbun (4)

 4:22;37:3,7,8

rather (2)

 27:3;55:13

reach (1)

 71:13

reaction (2)

 64:14;65:17

read (2)

 63:21,22

really (16)

 22:16;23:13;24:4;

 26:2,17;32:5;34:12;

 38:18;42:14;44:25;

 45:7,17;47:2;53:24;

 54:15;69:4

reasonable (3)

 41:23,24;42:4

reasonably (2)

 11:24;12:6

recall (39)

 6:24;9:8;21:10;

 36:22;40:6,13;43:16;

 45:8;47:23;48:23,25;

 50:20,23,24;54:20,

 21,23,25;55:4,14;

 56:5,15;58:14;59:15,

 20,24;60:24;61:10,

 14;62:18;64:3,5,6;

 66:15,24;71:22;72:8,

 12,13

receive (2)

 8:19;35:16

received (1)

 8:25

recent (2)

 17:23;18:13

recently (4)

 11:11;16:13;45:8;

 64:12

recess (2)

 6:18;67:17

recipients (1)

 52:14

recognition (3)

 44:10,19,21

recognized (5)

 44:22;46:15;

 47:12;51:16;58:25

recollection (11)

 20:17;23:19;34:8;

 37:13;38:5;42:13;

 43:21;57:25;58:7;

 66:11;70:17

record (6)

 4:4;7:8,11;29:21;

 32:13;37:24

records (4)

 30:19,24;32:13,18

refer (1)

 18:3

reference (1)

 25:9

referred (4)

 28:16;38:19;52:6;

 67:24

reflect (3)

 22:9;29:4;35:5

reflective (1)

 28:24

refresh (3)

 37:12;38:4;66:10

refreshing (1)

 58:7

regard (4)

 18:12;22:19,20;

 49:9

Regardless (1)

 62:14

regards (3)

 23:16;26:15;55:16

Region (10)

 15:21;16:7,8,9,12,

 17;19:24;20:19;

 21:13,15

regional (5)

 10:4,20;11:5;

 70:25;71:4

regulation (4)

 12:24;40:22;

 49:17;62:20

regulations (19)

 11:20;12:10;17:9;

 27:5,11,13,16,16,17,

 22;28:4;40:18;

 41:21;42:9;43:5;

 46:14,21;49:12;

 61:25

regulatory (4)

 12:13;15:17;

 42:24;57:15

relate (1)

 59:3

Related (2)

 9:4;51:16

relating (1)

 60:18

Relations (3)

 14:15;27:5;56:22

relationship (1)

 57:10

relatively (3)

 38:14,22;64:11

relatives (1)

 63:15

relayed (2)

 20:6;21:8

relevance (1)

 64:20

rely (1)

 49:10

remains (1)

 32:13

remember (4)

 9:11;34:12;47:3;

 61:17

remind (3)

 6:10;51:5;70:23

repeat (2)

 20:11;59:11

rephrase (1)

 35:4

report (4)

 17:13;24:14,14;

 66:4

reportable (1)

 32:20

REPORTER (2)

 4:3,11

Reporting (2)

 4:13,14

reports (6)

 23:12;24:16,17;

 44:2,3,10

represent (2)

 4:18;41:14

representing (1)

 4:25

request (1)

 10:12

require (2)

 24:13;41:20

required (4)

 31:7,17,22;58:22

requirement (2)

 69:23;70:5

requirements (6)

 11:14;13:2,5,7;

 42:24;57:16

requires (1)

 28:15

reside (1)

 27:24

respect (39)

 8:7;12:2,9,12,22;

 13:10,17;14:5;18:21,

 21;19:8;20:19,22,25;

 22:7,13;23:4;27:12;

 30:12,22;31:19;

 36:12,15;44:12;

 46:25;47:17;50:5,13;

 53:13;55:22;56:20;

 62:16;65:10,14;

 66:22;68:13,23;

 70:18;72:7

respond (1)

 64:22

respondent (1)

 4:21

responding (2)

 47:25;54:4

response (3)

 12:23;47:15;72:12

responsibilities (1)

 70:16

responsibility (8)

 10:9;12:16;13:12,

 15,16;29:18;30:10;

 36:8

restate (1)

 42:18

retail (12)

 31:19;32:17;47:9;

 52:9;60:12,13;63:5,

 10,24;65:23;71:21;

 72:5

retailer (1)

 64:8

retain (1)

 22:6

retention (1)

 22:14

retracted (1)

 61:4

retrievable (1)

 26:6

retrieve (3)

 23:11;26:8,10

return (1)

 72:9

Review (5)

 4:7;8:10;10:17;

 16:19;62:10

reviewed (1)

 61:12

reviewing (1)

 12:21

Right (19)

 8:4;9:7;14:16;

 18:5;27:23;28:18;

 29:17;32:14;33:12;

 50:9;52:6,15;55:22;

 56:14,24;57:7;62:9;

 68:11;69:13

risk (1)

 6:3

role (2)

 12:9,12

room (2)

 37:4;56:6

rubric (1)

 72:25

rushing (1)

 64:9

S

safe (6)

 35:5;57:6,19;58:4,

 18;60:16

Safety (22)

 4:7;5:5;9:4,16;

 14:2,7;27:6,23;28:3;

 40:25;41:14,22;

 49:11;52:25;57:5,11,

 17;58:4;64:15,23;

 65:9,15

sale (1)

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (8) programmatic - sale
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

 63:13

Same (7)

 13:10;20:22;

 37:15;40:11;47:10,

 19;50:2

San (3)

 10:3,13;61:2

saw (8)

 38:17;64:15,23;

 65:11,15;68:21;69:6;

 72:16

scope (3)

 44:25;64:18;65:7

search (4)

 24:8;25:5,15,24

Seasonal (4)

 33:20,22;34:5,8

second (2)

 46:4;70:4

Secretary (2)

 4:5;5:2

Secretary's (1)

 7:9

Section (10)

 14:19;28:5,13,15;

 41:10;45:3;56:21;

 59:9,12,13

security (2)

 50:6,17

seeing (1)

 64:6

seem (3)

 34:10;50:20;60:24

sees (1)

 68:10

senior (1)

 11:15

sent (1)

 24:17

service (3)

 10:21,25;11:12

services (2)

 52:14;54:9

setting (1)

 36:12

several (4)

 24:15;70:22;71:2,

 16

shared (1)

 56:15

shed (1)

 26:19

shoppers (1)

 5:21

shove (1)

 54:7

shoved (3)

 32:20;40:10;47:18

show (1)

 31:3

similar (3)

 28:3;44:21;61:5

similarly (1)

 17:2

site (3)

 28:25;29:4;52:11

site-specific (1)

 34:22

sits (1)

 16:9

situation (1)

 72:21

situations (1)

 29:4

size (2)

 68:3,4

slightly (1)

 50:2

Solicitor (1)

 4:24

somebody (1)

 20:11

someone (3)

 28:7;37:9;67:7

sometimes (1)

 25:24

somewhat (2)

 50:10;57:24

sorry (11)

 16:3;20:10;32:7;

 36:6;37:9;43:10;

 46:4;50:7;59:11;

 71:5,5

sort (1)

 24:19

sounds (1)

 18:7

sources (1)

 40:24

speak (9)

 7:20;8:6;19:10;

 28:7,8;44:23;45:2,

 17;71:14

speaking (1)

 29:11

special (34)

 13:10,13,18,20;

 23:12;25:6,12,17;

 42:9,23;43:5;47:20;

 56:20,23;57:2,11,14,

 23;58:2,12,15,16,18,

 23;59:3,13;60:9,17;

 61:4;62:5,11,15,17,

 21

specialist (1)

 30:20

specific (44)

 13:11;21:20;

 24:10,11;25:4;27:12,

 16;29:8;33:22;40:12,

 14,16,17;41:21;42:9,

 13,24;43:5,6,8,9,21;

 46:14,20;49:2,3,16;

 54:2,8;56:2,5,12;

 57:15;59:20;61:25;

 62:20;63:21,23;64:3,

 15,23;65:9;66:4;

 69:24

specifically (9)

 28:11;34:14;

 37:20;41:21;47:8,16;

 64:5;69:14;70:8

specifics (4)

 54:21,24,25;55:4

speculate (1)

 69:4

speculation (1)

 32:2

speculative (2)

 33:7;69:9

spoke (4)

 7:22,24;18:13;

 57:12

spoken (3)

 17:21;19:11,12

staff (6)

 11:15;24:2,24;

 59:6;60:3,21

stakeholder (3)

 18:3,9,16

stampeding (1)

 53:15

standard (2)

 46:2,8

standards (12)

 24:11,11;25:4;

 27:8,10,15,20,21;

 28:7;57:6,7,20

standpoint (1)

 45:13

start (4)

 31:2;32:12;40:20;

 41:2

state (11)

 4:18;14:19;15:12,

 15,25;17:3;20:23;

 21:13;23:13,16;24:5

statements (1)

 68:11

States (4)

 4:7;17:11,13,14

statewide (1)

 16:3

statute (2)

 28:5;54:13

stay (1)

 51:14

step (2)

 35:13;56:9

steps (1)

 69:3

still (2)

 35:10,16

store (7)

 53:16;54:7,9;

 64:10;65:23;69:7,15

Stores (2)

 4:6;63:24

straight (1)

 58:5

strategic (4)

 10:22;11:8;16:20,

 25

Stream (1)

 5:22

struck (2)

 40:9;47:18

structure (1)

 27:2

subject (5)

 16:16;21:5,7;

 26:20;35:8

subjects (5)

 36:21;38:4,7,11,14

subpoena (1)

 65:7

substance (1)

 18:25

substances (1)

 41:12

substantial (1)

 19:13

substantive (5)

 18:18;19:13,14,17;

 71:8

substitutes (1)

 69:19

successful (1)

 26:23

successive (1)

 38:21

sufficient (1)

 25:20

suggest (2)

 33:23;65:19

summary (1)

 61:18

supervise (1)

 13:19

supervisory (2)

 13:15,16

supposed (1)

 29:25

sure (8)

 15:13;22:16;

 38:17;46:18;51:2;

 55:16;60:2;67:15

surrogates (1)

 69:22

surveys (1)

 10:12

suspect (1)

 5:16

sworn (2)

 5:9;6:4

system (7)

 17:8;21:21,22,25;

 22:10;23:23;25:20

systems (2)

 23:22;56:3

T

Tab (3)

 37:13,21;66:2

tabs (1)

 37:4

tacked (1)

 50:10

tailored (1)

 28:22

talk (2)

 26:25;54:19

talked (5)

 19:17;43:23;

 56:19;63:18;69:21

talking (5)

 16:21;38:9;61:9;

 68:14,21

tandem (1)

 49:16

targeted (1)

 71:10

tech (1)

 26:18

technical (4)

 5:13;23:22,25;

 49:8

techniques (1)

 9:12

temperatures (1)

 34:4

ten (1)

 12:4

term (2)

 68:2;69:2

terminology (1)

 23:22

terms (3)

 11:24;18:14;31:11

testified (1)

 42:21

testify (1)

 5:10

testimony (3)

 54:15,17;72:13

theories (1)

 53:17

theory (2)

 67:21,24

therefore (1)

 6:5

thorough (1)

 11:21

thoroughly (1)

 31:6

thought (3)

 60:17,23;65:12

threat (1)

 57:5

three (4)

 16:2;17:2;52:5,8

tick (1)

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (9) Same - tick
SECRETARY OF LABOR VS.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

VICKY HEZA

June 1, 2010

 29:16

ties (1)

 52:18

times (2)

 16:2;17:3

Title (4)

 25:8;27:24;42:2;

 58:4

today (3)

 6:21;24:5;68:14

Today's (1)

 4:8

told (1)

 18:15

took (1)

 19:24

top (3)

 7:18;9:8;35:23

topic (2)

 21:5;67:19

totally (1)

 13:25

towards (3)

 11:16;16:19,25

toxicology (1)

 8:18

track (1)

 10:24

tracking (1)

 11:9

traditionally (1)

 71:10

train (1)

 30:9

training (12)

 9:2,6;11:2;29:21;

 31:12,15;36:20;38:4,

 6,14;41:12;47:14

trample (1)

 54:7

transpired (1)

 17:19

trends (1)

 31:4

trickier (1)

 6:13

trigger (2)

 43:24;44:20

tripped (3)

 32:19;40:10;47:18

try (2)

 40:22;54:8

trying (4)

 16:14;30:2;59:15;

 71:12

turn (3)

 28:11;37:13;66:2

two (2)

 9:14;38:25

Type (8)

 51:3,5,6;52:10,13,

 17;53:4;72:19

types (4)

 51:17;52:5,5,8

typically (2)

 17:6;49:10

U

ultimate (1)

 61:14

ultimately (2)

 30:10;36:7

unclear (1)

 6:11

under (30)

 5:10;6:5;14:19;

 15:3;17:4;21:14;

 25:4,6,6,15,17;

 26:23;28:5;31:22;

 37:21;40:21;44:15,

 22;50:22;51:11;

 53:14;57:6,16,19;

 58:4;62:22;67:21;

 69:23;70:5;72:25

underpinnings (1)

 62:17

underserved (1)

 71:13

Understood (1)

 45:20

undertaken (1)

 47:25

unfair (1)

 62:22

unfortunate (1)

 18:5

unique (8)

 28:21,22;29:3,3;

 31:14;40:20;41:6;

 72:20

uniqueness (1)

 67:9

unit (1)

 5:4

United (1)

 4:6

unlocked (1)

 64:10

unofficial (1)

 59:18

unofficially (1)

 59:21

unrecognized (2)

 41:16;59:2

unruly (8)

 5:21;31:20,23;

 53:3,6,16;60:25;61:2

unsafe (4)

 44:3,8;57:3;58:3

up (4)

 24:24;34:4;36:12;

 69:9

updated (1)

 39:22

updates (1)

 17:7

upon (9)

 33:4;42:22;49:10;

 52:9,15,17;55:19;

 68:5;72:18

upshot (1)

 61:10

use (11)

 11:23;12:20;22:2,

 4;23:25;30:14,18;

 34:21;39:5;46:13;

 58:11

used (6)

 45:14;46:10,19,23;

 47:5;69:23

usually (1)

 39:15

V

vague (1)

 48:16

Valley (1)

 5:22

variety (2)

 15:21;71:14

various (8)

 10:7,23;11:15;

 21:12;30:4;43:13;

 51:17;68:7

vertical (1)

 27:19

Vicky (2)

 4:5;5:6

video (12)

 4:4;5:14;64:9,15,

 24;65:11,24;66:12;

 68:21;72:12,15,17

videos (2)

 63:25;64:4

view (9)

 6:24;53:3,23;

 54:10,16;55:24;

 62:19,21;72:13

viewed (1)

 65:24

violated (1)

 49:17

violence (24)

 34:16;45:25;46:5,

 23;50:15,21;51:4,14,

 17,21,25;52:5,22;

 53:4,7,11,14,17;

 54:20;55:2,18;72:10,

 16,25

violence-type (1)

 36:13

violent (3)

 51:9;56:8,13

voice (1)

 5:15

W

Wait (1)

 10:14

walk (1)

 29:24

Wal-Mart (5)

 4:6,21;5:19;20:20;

 66:5

warranted (1)

 57:3

Washington (7)

 4:15,22;16:22;

 20:2;23:12;24:3,17

way (3)

 25:22;34:4;50:3

ways (7)

 24:15;26:12;29:7;

 30:8,13;43:23;68:7

web (3)

 51:25;52:6,11

website (5)

 33:13,24;34:18,20;

 35:7

Welsh (2)

 8:4;60:6

weren't (1)

 42:10

whale (1)

 61:2

whales (1)

 62:2

what's (3)

 39:18;57:10;67:24

whenever (2)

 41:12,15

Whereupon (1)

 73:15

whirl (1)

 6:15

who's (1)

 28:7

whose (2)

 13:19;40:24

William (1)

 5:3

window (1)

 21:17

within (3)

 16:9;17:14;27:9

without (3)

 43:8;53:18;69:7

WITNESS (5)

 5:6;20:10;37:6,18;

 73:9

word (1)

 39:5

words (3)

 18:23;48:9;53:10

work (4)

 10:17,17;23:11;

 71:25

worked (1)

 9:22

worker (2)

 56:6,11

workforce (1)

 71:13

working (5)

 10:23;11:5,14,16;

 17:10

workplace (51)

 27:6;28:22,23;

 31:10,21,24;32:22;

 34:15,16;36:13;38:2;

 41:8,14;44:3,9,12;

 45:25;46:5,23;47:21;

 48:2;50:6,14,15,17,

 21;51:4,8,8,10,13,17,

 21,25;52:5,19,22;

 53:4,6,11,14,17;

 54:11,20;55:2,18;

 67:23;68:22;72:9,16,

 25

works (1)

 17:8

writing (1)

 45:23

written (2)

 34:9;39:11

wrong (1)

 55:25

wrote (1)

 39:8

Y

year (2)

 16:2;17:3

years (11)

 9:24;10:20;12:4;

 21:11;38:17;43:12;

 48:11,24;52:25;

 64:13;71:25

York (3)

 4:13,13,24

Z

zone (9)

 67:24;68:4,24,25;

 69:9,20,24;70:6,9

Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (10) ties - zone
washoshrccommission 

Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer. Attachments may not display correctly.

Attached please find Exhibit E to the Opening Brief for Respondent in the above‐captioned matter.

Daniel P. Rathbun 

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306 

Tel +1 202.887.3714 • Fax +1 202.530.9584 

DRathbun@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the 

sender of the error and then immediately delete this message. 

From: Rathbun, Daniel Patrick [DRathbun@gibsondunn.com] Sent: Mon 6/20/2011 4:24 PM

To: washoshrccommission

Cc: Darling, Jr.., Ray H.; gottlieb.ronald@dol.gov; phillips.heather@dol.gov; james.charles@dol.gov; Willis Goldsmith 

(wgoldsmith@jonesday.com); Jacqueline Holmes (jholmes@JonesDay.com); Fellner,Baruch A.; Schwartz, Jason 

C.; Martin, Scott P.; Rathbun, Daniel Patrick

Subject: OSHRC Docket No. 09-1013: Exhibit E to Filing by RespondentWal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Attachments: 09-1013 Respondent's Exhibit E to Respondent's Opening Brief.pdf(1MB)

Page 1 of 1

https://mail.oshrc.gov/exchange/washoshrccommission/Inbox/OSHRC%20Docket%20No.... 6/20/2011