Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/362/840/632843/
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 14:43:38
Document Index: 447860381

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 660', '§ 1926', '§ 660', '§ 1903', '§ 1926']

Frank Lill & Son, Inc., Petitioner, v. Secretary of Labor, Respondent, 362 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2004) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 2004 › Frank Lill & Son, Inc., Petitioner, v. Secretary of Labor, Respondent
Frank Lill & Son, Inc., Petitioner, v. Secretary of Labor, Respondent, 362 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 362 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
The Secretary of Labor (Labor), through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), cited Frank Lill & Son, Inc. (Lill) for willful violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b) (1) which requires an employer to provide fall protection where employees work on a surface with an unprotected edge more than 6 feet above the level below. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) affirmed the citation as serious (rather than willful) and his decision became the final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC, Commission). Lill petitioned for review of the final order. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
On March 8, 2002 OSHA issued a citation to Lill for willful violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b) (1), which provides: "Each employee on a walking/working surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems." Specifically, the citation alleged that Lill employees "were not adequately protected from falls of approximately 85 feet while working on HRSG #2." JA 327. OSHA proposed a penalty of $49,500. Lill contested the citation and on April 14, 2002 the Secretary issued a complaint alleging that Lill had violated section 1926.501(b) (1) as described in the citation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ issued a decision, docketed January 9, 2003, which affirmed OSHA's citation but amended it from "willful" to "serious" and imposed a $5,000 fine.
First, Lill challenges the ALJ's finding of a violation on four grounds: (1) it is contrary to the evidence because the wire rope stretched along the platform perimeter qualifies as a "guardrail system" within the meaning of section 1926.501(b) (1); (2) the interpretation of the statutory term "guardrail system" adopted by the Secretary is unreasonable; (3) the ALJ erred in finding that anyone other than Gross and Savoy was exposed to fall hazard and (4) the ALJ erred in finding Lill had constructive and actual notice of the violative conditions.
We conclude that the last three challenges have not been preserved for review because they were not raised in the petition for discretionary review (PDR) before the Commission. The Occupational Safety and Health Act expressly states: "No objection that has not been urged before the Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances." 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). Because of this statutory prohibition, " [i]n cases where the Commission declines to review the ALJ decision, we and our sister circuits have uniformly held that courts of appeals lack jurisdiction over objections not raised in the PDR." A.J. McNulty & Co., Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 283 F.3d 328, 332 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Durez Div. of Occidental Chem. Corp. v. OSHA, 906 F.2d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 1990); P. Gioioso & Sons v. OSHRC, 115 F.3d 100, 107 (1st Cir. 1997)). In its PDR Lill raised the following objection to the finding of violation:
JA 426. This language put the Commission on notice of only the first of Lill's challenges here-that the wire rope constitutes a "guardrail system" in compliance with the OSHA standard. The PDR makes no reference to the other three objections Lill now asserts. Because the Commission had no opportunity to consider these objections, we are without jurisdiction to do so. Cf. Durez, 906 F.2d at 5 (where PDR simply stated "the Standard exceed [s] the statutory authority granted," with no discussion, citation to authority or basis for challenge, "petitioner's abbreviated mention of its challenge to the validity of the Standard is `wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirement of § 660(a) that an objection be "urged before the Commission"'") (quoting Power Plant Div., Brown & Root, Inc. v. OSHRC, 659 F.2d 1291, 1293 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 660(a))); see also P. Gioioso, 115 F.3d at 107 (" [A]n aggrieved party desiring to preserve an issue for judicial review must raise it before the ALJ, articulate it clearly in its PDR, and offer a modicum of developed argumentation in support of it.") (citing Durez, 906 F.2d at 5). We now address the one challenge properly before the court.
Lill contends the ALJ ignored the presence of the perimeter wire rope which, Lill insists, qualifies as a guardrail system under section 1926.501(b) (1). Although the ALJ did not specifically mention the wire rope in his decision, he expressly supported his finding of violation by citing a portion of the hearing transcript in which Rook testified that he "evaluated" the wire cable "according to [the] OSHA guardrail standards and [that] that was inadequate" because " [a]n adequate guardrail system has a top rail at 42 inches [and] a midrail at 21 inches." Tr. 23. Rook based his determination on 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b) (2), which sets out specific requirements for a guard rail system:
Because the wire rope on which Lill relies does not meet the requirements of section 1926.502(b) (2),1 we uphold the ALJ's finding that Lill violated section 1926.501(b) (1) as "`supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole,'" S.A. Storer & Sons Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 360 F.3d 1363, 1367-68 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting A.J. McNulty & Co., 283 F.3d at 331 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 660(a))).
Second, Lill asserts the ALJ erred in rejecting its defense of "unpreventable employee misconduct." To establish this defense, "an employer must demonstrate that it (1) established a work rule to prevent the reckless behavior and/or unsafe condition from occurring, (2) adequately communicated the rule to its employees, (3) took steps to discover incidents of noncompliance, and (4) effectively enforced the rule whenever employees transgressed it." P. Gioioso & Sons, 115 F.3d at 109 (citing New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, 88 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir. 1996); Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. OSHRC, 599 F.2d 453, 458-59 (1st Cir. 1979); Jensen Constr. Co., 7 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1477, 1479 (1979)). Although Lill had in place a rule requiring all employees to be tied off when on catwalks, the ALJ expressly found "this rule was not adequately communicated or enforced as there was abundant evidence that employees, including the site manager, did not tie-off while on the catwalks," Lill field superintendent Steve Billington "appeared confused about the rule, as he testified that employees were in fact permitted to traverse the catwalks without tying off" and "on-site signs directing employees to wear safety harnesses did not also indicate when the employees were required to tie-off." ALJ Op. 4.2 The ALJ further noted that "while the company showed that it disciplined employees for fall-related safety violations, it presented no proof that it endeavored to enforce its tie-off rule to employees who were not right at the edge." Id. (citing Southwestern Bell Tele. Co., 19 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1097 (No. 98-1758 2000); Tr. 140-45, 233, 278-79). Given the evidence the ALJ cited-in particular Rook's testimony that Savoy, Gross, Tanguay and Grant (the latter two, as already noted, being foremen) told him during the initial inspection that the rule was violated frequently-the ALJ reasonably determined that Lill did not make out its defense.
29 C.F.R. § 1903.8. Although Rook did not seek out an authorized Lill representative to accompany him during his inspection of the HRSGs, Lill is in no position to complain of the lapse. Lill management was aware of Rook's presence and made no effort to participate in his inspection. Lill's safety manager, Timothy Cone, testified he was notified the morning of the inspection by site manager Cole and site safety representative Briscoe that an OSHA inspector was on site. Further, Rook testified that, when he encountered site foreman Brown on his initial climb up HRSG No. 2, he "invited Mr. Brown to come up and address the issue" of the violation he had observed from the ground but that Brown declined. Tr. 18. In any event, Lill has not shown any prejudice it suffered as a result of not being represented during the inspection, a requirement imposed by "every circuit that has considered the issue." Pullman Power Prods., Inc. v. Marshall, 655 F.2d 41, 44 (4th Cir. 1981) (citing Marshall v. C. F. & I. Steel Corp., 576 F.2d 809, 813-14 (10th Cir. 1978); Marshall v. Western Waterproofing Co., Inc., 560 F.2d 947, 952 (8th Cir. 1977); Hoffman Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 546 F.2d 281, 282-83 (9th Cir. 1976); Hartwell Excavating Co. v. Dunlop, 537 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir. 1976); Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. OSHRC, 535 F.2d 371, 377 (7th Cir. 1976); Accu-Namics, Inc. v. OSHRC, 515 F.2d 828, 833 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 903, 96 S. Ct. 1492, 47 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1976)).
Section 1926.501(b) (1) expressly incorporates by reference the specific criteria contained in section 1926.502(b) (2): "This section sets forth requirements for employers to provide fall protection systems. All fall protection required by this section shall conform to the criteria set forth in § 1926.502 of this subpart."
" [A] willful violation is `an act done voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the Act's requirements.'"A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 295 F.3d 1341, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 268 F.3d 1123, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Conie Constr., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 382, 384 (D.C. Cir. 1995))).