Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/590/273/224543/
Timestamp: 2019-06-24 11:23:43
Document Index: 792097222

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654']

7 O.s.h. Cas.(bna) 1004, 1979 O.s.h.d. (cch) P 23,262bratton Corporation, Petitioner, v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and Raymarshall, Secretary of Labor, Respondents, 590 F.2d 273 (8th Cir. 1979) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1979 › 7 O.s.h. Cas.(bna) 1004, 1979 O.s.h.d. (cch) P 23,262bratton Corporation, Petitioner, v. Occupationa...
7 O.s.h. Cas.(bna) 1004, 1979 O.s.h.d. (cch) P 23,262bratton Corporation, Petitioner, v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and Raymarshall, Secretary of Labor, Respondents, 590 F.2d 273 (8th Cir. 1979)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 590 F.2d 273 (8th Cir. 1979)
Submitted Jan. 8, 1979. Decided Jan. 16, 1979
Bratton Corporation (Bratton) brings this petition for review of a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) assessing a penalty against Bratton for exposing its employees to the hazards of a stairway without handrails and of unfilled metal pan-type stairway landings in violation of safety regulations issued under section 5(a) (2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2) (1976). Bratton, a subcontractor at a multiemployer construction site, asserts that it cannot be held liable for the violations because it neither created nor had authority to abate the hazardous conditions. The Commission rejected that defense in the absence of any showing by Bratton that it took any realistic measures, as an alternative to literal compliance with the safety standards, to protect its employees from the known hazards. On review of the record, we affirm the Commission's decision.
The area director of the Department of Labor cited Bratton for two "nonserious" violations of section 5(a) (2) of OSHA:1 the stairway without handrails as violating 29 C.F.R. 1926.500(e) (1), and the unfilled metal pan-type landings as violating 29 C.F.R. 1926.501(f).2 The area director proposed a penalty of $45. Bratton contested the citations and penalty, and the issues were referred to Administrative Law Judge Alan M. Wienman for hearing.
Bratton did not avail itself of the opportunity to present additional evidence. Bratton now contends that Anning-Johnson Co. v. OS&HRC, 516 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1975), precludes any finding of liability for either alleged violation under 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2), because Bratton did not create either hazard and "had no authority to abate (these) hazards caused by the acts or omissions of other contractors."3
The duty of an employer to protect its employees from hazards created by others did not originate with Anning-Johnson and Grossman Steel. Prior Commission decisions interpreting 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2) held an employer liable whenever its employees were exposed to any violation of safety regulations, regardless of who caused the violation. See, e. g., Robert E. Lee Plumbers, Inc., 17 OSAHRC 639, 3 BNA OSHC 1150, CCH ESHG P 19,594 (1975); R.H. Bishop Co., 8 OSAHRC 930 (1974).
Under the record in this case, we cannot say that the Commission's construction of 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2), as applied to a subcontractor on a multiemployer worksite, is unreasonable or inconsistent with the purposes of OSHA. We therefore apply that construction of the Act in this case.7 See Marshall v. Knutson Construction Co., 566 F.2d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 1977).
29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2) provides:
29 C.F.R. 1926.500(e) (1) provides:
Bratton also asserts that the administrative law judge's finding that Bratton caused the handrail violation is without evidentiary support. This factual issue is not before us because the Commission assumed that Bratton carried its burden of showing lack of control to erect temporary handrails. The facts on which the Commission found liability are not disputed. Thus, the sole issue here is the correctness of the Commission's interpretation of 29 U.S.C. § 654(a) (2)
An employer has a duty to comply with the safety standards promulgated by the Secretary under the Act arising from § 654(a) (2). In the typical case occurring under § 654(a) (2), the employer has either created or controlled the safety standard violation. The Commission has described the Secretary's burden of proof in this situation as follows:
In the typical case arising under section 5(a) (2) of the Act (a case involving an employer at a common construction site is atypical) the Secretary carries his burden of proving a violation by establishing (1) that a specific standard applies to the facts, (2) that there was a failure to comply with the specific standard, and (3) that employees of the cited employer had access to the hazard.
The multi-employer construction work-site situation presents an additional consideration regarding employee safety. In this situation, a hazard created and controlled by one employer can affect the safety of employees of other employers on the site. In light of this facet, the Commission has stated that in this situation an employer will have a duty under § 654(a) (2) regarding safety standard violations which it did not create or fully control. Anning-Johnson Co., supra at 24,784; Grossman Steel & Aluminum Corp., CCH OSHD par. 20,691, at 24,791 (1976).