The undersigned could not ignore Commission and court precedent even if she were so inclined, which she is not. The multi- employer worksite doctrine applies to this case. Universal argues that, if the multi-employer worksite doctrine is not rejected, then it does not apply in the specific circumstances of this case. This is so, it contends, because the doctrine should not be imposed on the basis of who controls the worksite. Universal is again at odds with the current state of OSHA law.
Control is precisely the factor that determines liability under the doctrine.
An employer is responsible for violations of other employers where it could reasonably be expected to prevent or detect and abate the violations due to its supervisory authority and control over the worksite. Since Universal stipulated that Zahner knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violative conditions, it must be presumed that Universal would reasonably be expected to detect the violations. Hazardous conduct by another employer's employee clearly is not beyond the reasonable control of all but the actual employer. Universal stipulated that it had control over the construction site and had the authority to direct its subcontractors to abate safety hazards and violations. Universal stipulated that it was found liable for the alleged violations, the Secretary's proposed penalty was appropriate.