DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

@ffice of tip Plttornep Qkneral 

6tate of lEexae 

July 21, 1993 

David R. Smith, M.D. 

Commissioner of Health 

Texas Department of Health 

1100 West 49th Street 

Austin, Texas 78756-3 199 

Dear Commissioner Smith: 

Opinion No. DM-239 

Re: Whether students are “employees” for the 

purposes of the Texas Hazard Communication 

Act of the Health and Sat&y Code sections 

502.001 - ,016. which require employers to 

t%mish “employees” with education, training, 

and information regarding hazardous chemicals 

at their work places (RQ-382) 

The Texas Department of Health (“TDH”) requested the attorney general’s opinion 

concerning whether students at colleges and universities are deemed “employees” for the 

purposes of the Texas Haxard Communication Act, Texas Health and Safety Code 

sections 502.001 - .016, which require “employers” to tIunish ~employees” with 

education, training, and information concerning hazardous chemicals at their workplaces. 

We conclude that students are not “employees“ for the purposes of the act. 

The Texas Hazard Communication Act requires that a hazardous chemical 

manufacturer or distributor must properly label such chemicals and firmish the purchaser 

with material safety data sheets which contain information concerning the hazards posed 

by the particular chemical and how to safely handle the chemical. Health & Safety Code 

$3 502.006 - .007. The act states that employers that utilize hazardous chemicals must, 

inter ah: display in their workplaces lists of hazardous chemicals used at the workplace 

and make this information available for review by employees; coordinate an emergency 

response program with the local fire department; conduct an employee education program; 

and provide employees with access to the material safety data sheets concerning the 

hazardous chemicals used at the workplace. Id. $§ 502.005, 502.006(c), 502.008, 

502.010,502.013(b). 

Statutes should be construed pursuant to their common and accepted meaning. 

See Govt Code $3 311.011(a); Gail v. Service Motors, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex. 

1983); Taylor v. Firemen’s &Policemen’s Civil Service Comm’n of Lubbock, 616 S.W.2d 

187, 189 (Tex. 1981); Satterfild v. SatterJeld, 448 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex. 1969). 

Throughout the sixteen sections of the act, the act refers to “employees” and “employers”; 

there is no indication from the plain language of the act that “employees” was meant to 

refer to students. The act defines “employee” as “a person who may be or may have been 

exposed to hazardous chemicals in the person’s workplace under normal operating 

p. 1234 
Mr. David R. Smith, M.D. - Page 2 (DM-239) 

conditions.” Health & Safety Code 3 502.003(9). TDH contends that “employee” is 

intended to mean anyone exposed to haxardous chemicals at their workpiace. However, 

we believe that the ads detinition of “employee” was intended as a gloss on or an addition 

to the commonly accepted definition of the term, rather than an attempt to supplant the 

commonly accepted definition. It is implicit in the legislature’s use of the term “employee” 

that the legislature meant to refer to someone engaged in an employment relationship, for 

example, one who works for wages or a salary, as opposed to a “student” who is one who 

is enrolled for study at an institution of learning for which he does not receive wages or a 

salary. See ~EES~TER’~ NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 408, 1170 (1990) 

(defining “employee” and “student” respectively); BLACK’S LAW DICnONARY 525 (6th 

ed. 1990) (detining “employee”). If the legislature intended the act to apply to “anyone” 

or “any person,” as TDH suggests, the legislature would have said so in the act. 

Moreover, the act distinguishes between “employees” and “students.” Section 

502.004(e)(S) of the act, which excludes certain experimental laboratories from the act’s 

cove-rage, states: 

This chapter does not apply to . . : 

a chemical in a laboratory under the direct supervision or 

guidance of a technically qualified individual if: 

(A) labels on incoming containers of chemicals are not 

removed or defaced; 

(ES) material safety data sheets received are maintained and 

made accessible to employees and stua%rnr$ 

(C) the laboratory complies with Section 502.008 and 

502.009; and 

(D) the laboratory is not used primarily to produce 

hazardous chemicals in bulk for commercial purposes. 

[Emphasis added.] 

The legislature’s use of the terms “employees” and “students” in the same act suggests that 

the legislature did not consider the terms synonymous; ifthe terms were synonymous there 

would be no point to using separate terms. The term “students” is not defined by the act, 

and we assume that the legislature intended this term to be construed according to its 

common and accepted meaning. 

Furthermore, there is no indication in the act’s legislative history that the use of the 

term “employees” was meant to refer to students. See generally House Comm. on Public 

Health and Senate Comm. on Public Health and Hum. Res., Big Analyses, H.B. 1112, 

69th Leg., (1985). The plain language of the act, as well as the lack of a contrary 

indication in the legislative history, compels us to conclude that students are not 

p. 1235 
Mr. David R. Smith, M.D. - Page 3 (DM-239) 

“employees” for the purposes of the act. Therefore the act is not applicable to students in 

their capacity as students, except for the requirements of section 502.004(e)(S)(B) which 

requims that material safety data sheets must be maintained by the laboratory and made 

accasiile to students. 

Our conclusion that the act does not apply to students qua students does not imply 

that a student who is employed by a university or other school, such as in a work-study 

program, is not protected by the act. The act may apply to such an individual at his 

workplace. during periods of employment provided the act’s other requirements are met. 

See Health & Safety Code 4 502.004. However such an individual would be. protected 

pursuant to the act because of his status as an employee, not because of his status as a 

registered student. 

TDH states that in its view the act was intended to apply to students, and TDH 

contends that its interpretation of the act is entitled to deference. Generally, an 

administrative agency’s interpretation of an act that it has been charged with enforcing is 

entitled to great weight. See Gov’t Code 5 3 11.023(6). However, this rule does not apply 

where the administrative interpretation is contrary to the letter of the act, there is no 

support for the administrative interpretation in the legislative history, and the 

administrative interpretation is not reasonable. See Texas Ash of Long Distance Tel. 

Cos. v. Public Util. Comm’n, 798 S.W.2d 875,884 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, writ denied) 

(cokcting cases). 

SUMMARY 

Students are not “employees” for the purposes of the Texas 

Hazard Communication Act, Texas Health and Safety Code sections 

502.001 - .016. Therefore, the act is not applicable to students in 

their capacity as students, except for the requirements of section 

502.004(e)(5)(B) which requires that material safety data sheets must 

be maintained by the Laboratory and made accessible to students. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 1236 
Mr. David R. Smith, M.D. - Page 4 @M-239) 

WILL PRYOR 

Fii Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Deputy Attorney General for Litigation 

RENEA HICKS 

State Solicitor 

MADBLEINB B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

p. 1237