Source: https://www.oshrc.gov/assets/1/18/Davey_Tree%5E12-1324%5E_Decision%5E022616%5EFINAL(signed).html?8353
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 22:00:57
Document Index: 281703300

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910', '§ 1910']

﻿ The Davey Tree Exert Company Docket No. 12-1324
The Davey Tree Expert Company provides tree care services for residential and commercial clients, and utility line clearance and vegetation management for electric utility companies. On December 8, 2011, a Davey Tree crew was engaged in line clearing work at a worksite near Prattville, Alabama. This work involved felling trees, which were left on the ground where they fell. One of the trees struck a Davey Tree employee as it fell, fatally injuring him. After an inspection, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued Davey Tree a citation alleging seven serious violations of the logging standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.266, five of which were later withdrawn by the Secretary. Under the two remaining citation items, the Secretary alleged a violation of § 1910.266(d)(2)(ii) (first-aid kits in logging operations) with a proposed penalty of $2,805, and a violation of § 1910.266(d)(6)(i) (work areas in logging operations) with a proposed penalty of $7,000. Following a hearing, former Administrative Law Judge Ken S. Welsch issued a decision vacating the citation on the ground that the logging standard does not apply to the cited conditions.1
In The Davey Tree Expert Company, OSHRC Docket No. 11-2556, which we also issue today, we held that the scope and application provisions of the logging standard, §§ 1910.266(b)(1)-(2), read together with the definition of “logging operations,” § 1910.266(c),2 unambiguously establish that the phrase “felling and moving trees and logs from the stump to the point of delivery” describes the logging process, which involves both felling trees and moving the felled trees. In other words, both felling and moving must be present for the logging standard’s requirements to apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the logging standard does not apply to the line clearance work performed by Davey Tree at the cited worksite and vacate the citation.
At first blush, Davey Tree’s argument appears to be the logical conclusion based on the plain language of the definition. However, earlier this year Judge Dennis Phillips issued a decision addressing this exact question in great detail and finding that the Secretary’s interpretation holds sway. Judge Phillips’s decision Davey Tree Expert Co., (No. 11-2556, 2013), hereinafter Davey Tree Pennsylvania, is currently an unreviewed judge’s decision that is not binding on the court.3 “[I]t is well-settled that an unreviewed administrative law judge’s decision has no precedential value. See In re Cerro Copper Prods. Co., 752 F.2d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding that “[a]n unreviewed ALJ decision does not bind the OSHRC or the courts as precedent”) (citations omitted).” Elliot Construction Co., 23 BNA OSHC 2110 (No. 07-1578, 2012).
1.The scale and complexity of tree removal are key factors in determining whether the Logging operations standard applies.
a.The scale of logging operations typically includes cutting down a substantial number of trees on a large tract of land
b.In contrast, there are small-scale tree removal activities, such as when an employer is asked to remove one or a few trees from the yard of a private residence, that typically would not be considered logging.
2.Complexity of a tree removal project takes into account concepts such as the amount of time and equipment needed to perform the project. For example:
a.Logging operations typically takes days to months to complete and involve the use of a variety of rough terrain machinery.
b.In comparison, the removal of several trees from a residence may take only a few hours to a few days and generally would not be considered a logging operation.
3.The presence of unusually hazardous conditions also may be relevant in assessing the complexity of a tree removal project. For example, removing a significant number of trees damaged in a major storm (e.g., a tornado, hurricane, flood, or ice storm) may expose employees to additional or unfamiliar hazards (e.g., lodged trees or spring poles) that may more closely represent the type of hazards present in the logging industry and predictably would require more extensive protective measures.
Davey Tree’s General Foreman testified his crews felled approximately 80 trees total, only 20 of which were felled from the stump (Tr. 188, 246-247, 252-253). The Prattville hot-spotting work lasted for approximately two weeks (Exh. C-2, C-3, C-4). In a logging operation, an individual logger may fell 60 to 120 trees a day from the stump (Tr. 317-318, 759).4
B.Number of Trees Removed.
1.The number of trees being removed on a particular project is an example of the concept of project scale and information that the CSHOs shall document in determining whether the Logging operations standard applies.
a.Logging operations typically involve harvesting large numbers of trees for usable wood.
b.In contrast, the removal of one or several trees from a lot typically would not be considered a logging operation.
2.Projects that involve the removal of multiple trees would be expected to present greater complexity, for example, if the trees are very large or tall. Such projects may involve several work areas and work crews, and require the use of particular felling methods to ensure the trees fall in the intended direction, and necessitate the use of heavy machinery.
A reasonable person applying Factor B to the number of trees felled at the Prattville location would not conclude that Davey Tree was engaged in a logging operation on December 8, 2011.5
C.Type of Equipment or Machines Used to Perform Tree Removal Project.
1.Logging operations usually involve the use of heavy machinery to cut, move, and load trees [59 FR 51700, 51714-20]. For example:
a.Logging operations often use mechanical felling machines, such as tree shears or feller-bunchers to cut trees off at the base and bulldozers are often used to clear trees from land in preparation of construction activities. Logging operations also typically involve the use of yarding machines (e.g., skidders, tractors, or forwarders) to carry or drag felled trees to a landing for transport or further processing, and log loaders, log stackers and knucklebooms to lift logs onto trucks or into whole tree chippers. The logging standard contains provisions designed to protect employees from hazards associated with use of this equipment [59 FR 51698]. If a tree removal project involves these various types of rough terrain machines, then it is likely the Logging operations standard applies.
b.By contrast, a simple tree removal using a chain saw to cut down a tree, and a chipper to dispose of the branches and trunk pieces would not likely fall under the Logging operations standard.
2.It is important to note that the use of additional machinery (e.g., crane, aerial lift) to facilitate the tree removal is not itself a conclusive factor in determining if the Logging operations standard applies to the operation. Generally, overhead and gantry cranes, crawlers, locomotive cranes and truck cranes are either not used, or infrequently used in logging operations covered by the Logging operations standard [59 FR 51715].
D.The location of the Tree Removal Project.
E.Size of Land/Lot Where Tree Removal Project is Performed.
1.Item 1 of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(d)(2)(ii), is vacated and no penalty is assessed;
2.Item 2 of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(h)(1)(vi), is withdrawn by the Secretary. Item 2 is vacated and no penalty is assessed;
3.Item 3a of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(h)(1)(ix), is withdrawn by the Secretary. Item 3a is vacated and no penalty is assessed;
4.Item 3b of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(d)(6)(i), is vacated and no penalty is assessed;
5.Item 4a of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(h)(2)(v), is withdrawn by the Secretary. Item 4a is vacated and no penalty is assessed;
6.Item 4b of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(h)(2)(vi), is withdrawn by the Secretary. Item 4b is vacated and no penalty is assessed; and
7.Item 4c of Citation No. 1, alleging a serious violation of § 1910.266(h)(2)(vii) is withdrawn by the Secretary. Item 4c is vacated and no penalty is assessed.
1 In his decision, the judge expressly stated he was applying the reasoning from Administrative Law Judge Dennis L. Phillips’s decision in The Davey Tree Expert Co., No. 11-2556 (OSHRC ALJ Jun. 19, 2013), which involved the same type of work and the same applicability issue.
2 The definition reads as follows:
§ 1910.266(c).
3 The Review Commission directed Davey Tree Pennsylvania for review on July 31, 2013.
4 According to the Contracts Manager for Davey Tree’s eastern utility services, Davey Tree felled at least 350 trees pursuant to the Alabama Power contract from January 1, 2011, to December 8, 2011 (Exh. C-23; Tr. 709, 712).
5 On the second day of the hearing, the Secretary learned for the first time of the existence of billing records relating to the felling of trees pursuant to the contract between Davey Tree and Alabama Power. Davey Tree had not produced these records to the Secretary despite the Secretary’s Request for Production No. 18, which asked for any documents “detailing how many trees were felled pursuant to the contract.” Davey Tree responded to this request that it was “unaware of any responsive documents.” Davey Tree’s counsel asserted she was unaware of the documents until Davey Tree’s Account Manager testified to their existence (Tr. 348, 373-378). Arrangements were made for Davey Tree’s Contracts Manager to testify via telephone regarding the number of trees felled in 2011, as indicated by the billing records. She determined Davey Tree felled at least 350 trees between January 1 and December 8, 2011 (Tr. 709, 712).
The Secretary maintains he has been prejudiced by the late disclosure of the billing records. At the hearing, the Secretary requested the court to strike Davey Tree’s Notice of Contest and grant default judgment, or to draw an adverse inference from the failure to disclose the records. The court denied the request (Tr. 374-375).
Even if the number of trees felled was significantly underestimated based on the billing records, the Secretary still failed to establish Davey Tree was engaged in a logging operation in accordance with the criteria listed in Directive 45. The “number of trees removed” is just one of six factors to be considered, and no one factor is dispositive of the determination whether an operation is a logging operation. The Secretary’s claim he was prejudiced by the late disclosure of the billing records is rejected.
6 Factor F is, counterintuitively, a list of factors that should play no part in the CSHO’s determination of the application of the logging standard:
The following factors should not affect the CSHO’s determination about whether the Logging operations standard applies to a particular tree removal project:
1.Whether the activity is done by a tree care employer or an outside contractor;
2.Whether the activity is a regular part of the employee’s work;
3.Whether the activity is done by an employee, contracted on a temporary employment basis, such as a day laborer;
4.Whether the tree removal project is performed on private or public property;
5.Whether the removed tree(s) has/have commercial value; and
6.Size of trees removed.