OSHA's Complaint Response Policies: OSHA Credits Its Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but the System Still Warrants Improvement
Published: 2004-06-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Each year, OSHA receives thousands of complaints from employees alleging hazardous conditions at their worksites. How OSHA responds to these complaints--either by inspecting the worksite or through some other means--has important implications for both the agency's resources and worker safety and health. Responding to invalid or erroneous complaints would deplete inspection resources that could be used to inspect or investigate other worksites. Not responding to complaints that warrant action runs counter to the agency's mission to protect worker safety and health. Considering OSHA's limited resources, and the importance of worker safety, GAO was asked: (1) What is OSHA's current policy for responding to complaints in a way that conserves its resources, (2) how consistently is OSHA responding to complaints, and (3) to what extent have complaints led OSHA to identify serious hazards?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In general, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) responds to complaints according to the seriousness of the alleged hazard, a practice that agency officials say conserves inspection resources. OSHA officials usually conduct on-site inspections for alleged hazards that could result in death or serious injury. For less serious hazards, OSHA officials generally investigate by phoning employers and faxing them a description of the alleged hazard. Employers are directed to provide the agency with proof of the complaint's resolution. OSHA officials said the availability of both options allows them to manage resources more effectively when responding to complaints. However, many agency officials we interviewed said some complainants provide erroneous information about the alleged hazard, which can affect the agency's determination of the hazard's severity. For example, some complainants lack the expertise to know what is truly hazardous and, as a result, file complaints that overstate the nature of the hazard. Others, particularly disgruntled ex-employees, may have ulterior motives when filing complaints and misrepresent the nature of the hazard. In the 42 area offices where we conducted interviews (there are 80 area offices), OSHA officials described practices for responding to complaints that varied considerably. For example, the degree to which supervisors participated in decisions about which complaints would result in inspections and which would not varied across offices. While OSHA requires annual audits that would identify the extent to which its area offices are correctly employing the complaint policies, some regions are not conducting these audits, and agency officials have told us that OSHA does not have a mechanism in place to address agencywide problems. To some extent complaints direct inspection resources where there are serious hazards. At half the worksites OSHA inspected in response to complaints, compliance officers found serious violations--those that posed a substantial probability of injury or death, according to OSHA's own data for fiscal years 2000-2001.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 1975, high levels of Kepone, a pesticide linked to liver damage, sterility,  neurological disorders, and cancer, were found in the bloodstreams of  approximately 70 workers at a company in Virginia. This was followed by  another discovery: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA), part of the Department of Labor (Labor), had received a  complaint from a former employee of the company but had assigned it a  low-priority status and had not responded with an inspection. The highly  public controversy that followed led OSHA to focus on being more  responsive to all types of complaints. In the wake of this case, the agency  has changed and modified its complaint policy more than once. OSHA’s  first policy change, in 1975—to conduct an on-site inspection for virtually  any complaint about unsafe conditions, even anonymous ones—resulted  in a large and overwhelming backlog of complaints awaiting inspection. In  1996, OSHA instituted a new effort to balance resources with the need to  respond to complaints by responding to less serious complaints through  means other than on-site inspections. In view of this reform, and given  OSHA’s current ratio of one compliance officer for roughly every 6,000  worksites, you asked us to answer the following questions: (1) What is  OSHA’s current policy for responding to complaints in a way that  conserves its resources? (2) How consistently is OSHA responding to  complaints? and (3) To what extent have complaints led OSHA to identify  serious hazards?
To answer these questions, we visited the three OSHA area offices that  handled the largest number of complaints in their respective regions in  fiscal years 2000 through 2002: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas;  and Denver, Colorado. In each of these offices, we examined a randomly  selected sample of case files (34 in Pittsburgh, 30 in Austin, and 38 in  Denver) and interviewed the area director and available compliance  officers. In addition, we randomly selected and interviewed by telephone  52 OSHA officials: 20 of the agency’s 80 area directors and 32 of its   1,200 compliance officers, (12 assistant area directors who are supervisory  compliance officers and 20 nonsupervisory compliance officers). These  officials represented 42 of OSHA’s 80 area offices. We also spoke to OSHA  officials in the agency’s 10 regional offices, as well as health and safety  officials in 13 states that run their own programs. Finally, we examined  data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 related to complaints in OSHA’s  Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and looked at data on  injuries and illnesses collected and published by the Bureau of Labor  Statistics (BLS) for calendar year 2001 as they related to complaints. We  interviewed both OSHA and BLS officials to establish the reliability of the  data. In addition, for the IMIS data we obtained and reviewed  documentation of internal controls and manually tested the data. We also  interviewed 15 randomly selected employers who had been the subject of  an OSHA complaint and 6 employees who had filed complaints. For a  more detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We  conducted our work between September 2003 and January 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: OSHA was established after the passage of the Occupational Safety and  Health Act in 1970. In the broadest sense, OSHA was mandated to ensure  safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women. The  act authorizes OSHA to conduct “reasonable” inspections of any  workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an  employer. The act also requires that OSHA conduct investigations in  response to written and signed complaints of employees alleging that a  violation of health or safety standards exists that threatens physical harm,  or that an imminent danger exists at their worksites, unless OSHA  determines that there are no reasonable grounds for the allegations.  OSHA inspections fall into two broad categories: those that are  “programmed” and those that are “unprogrammed.” Programmed  inspections are those the agency plans to conduct because it has targeted  certain worksites due to their potential hazards. Unprogrammed  inspections are not planned; instead, they are prompted by things such as  accidents or complaints.
How OSHA responds to complaints has changed over time. In the wake of  the Kepone case, OSHA started to inspect virtually any complaint, which  led to a backlog of complaint-driven inspections, according to interviewed  officials. In its early response to the backlog, OSHA adopted a complaint  process whereby each complaint was categorized based on whether or not  it was written and signed by complainants. “Formal” complaints met both  conditions, while “nonformal” complaints were oral or unsigned. OSHA  further categorized complaints by the seriousness of the hazard alleged.  Formal complaints were inspected regardless of whether the hazard  alleged was serious, although offices were given longer time frames for  responding to those that were other than serious. The agency generally  handled nonformal complaints by sending the employer a letter. Agency  officials said that as a result of these distinctions, the agency was able to  reduce some of its backlog.
A new effort to reform the complaint procedures was made through the  Complaint Process Improvement Project, which was part of the  Department of Labor’s overall reinvention effort from 1994 to1996. In  January 1994, two area offices were selected as pilot sites to develop and  test new procedures for handling complaints. Their work focused on an  effort to (1) reduce the time needed for handling complaints, (2) speed the  abatement of hazards, (3) allow OSHA to focus its inspections resources  on workplaces where they were needed most, and (4) ensure consistency.  The new procedures placed a greater emphasis on the seriousness of the  alleged hazard as a factor for determining how the office would respond to  a complaint. In addition, they introduced the use of telephones and fax  machines as the means to notify employers of an alleged hazard instead of  regular mail and provided specific procedures for following up with  employers to make sure hazards were abated. These new policies were  adopted and outlined in an OSHA directive dated June 1996.
Policies regarding complaints are established by the Office of  Enforcement Directorate in Washington, D.C.. Regional administrators in  each of OSHA’s 10 regional offices oversee the enforcement of these  policies within their own regions (see fig. 1). Each region is composed of  area offices—there are 80 in total—each under an area director. The area  directors oversee compliance officers—there can be as many as 16 in an  office—some of whom play a supervisory role. Compliance officers play a  key role in carrying out the directive. At almost all area offices,  compliance officers take turns answering the phones, and taking and  processing complaints, a collateral responsibility in addition to their duties  in the field.
section_title: Seriousness of Alleged Hazards Drives Complaint Response, although Erroneous Information Can Affect These Determinations
paragraphs: OSHA primarily responds to complaints based on the seriousness of the  alleged hazard using a priority system that the agency credits with having  improved its efficiency. However, its determinations can be affected by  inadequate or inaccurate information. OSHA officials usually conduct an  on-site inspection if an allegation is of a serious nature. Agency policy also  requires on-site inspections in cases where a written and signed complaint  from a current employee or their authorized representative provides  reasonable grounds to believe that the employer is violating a safety or  health standard. In general, OSHA officials conduct an inquiry by phone  and fax—referred to as a phone/fax investigation—for complaints of a less  serious nature. Many OSHA officials, especially compliance officers, told  us this priority-driven system has been more effective in conserving their  time and resources. Nevertheless, many of the compliance officers also  said that some inspections may occur that are not necessarily warranted  because complainants have inadequately or inaccurately characterized the  nature of the hazard. On the other hand, almost everyone with whom we  spoke said the agency prefers to err on the side of caution so as not to  overlook a potential hazard. Many of the OSHA officials we interviewed, as  well as officials from states that run their own safety and health programs,  suggested approaches to improve the validity of the information  accompanying the complaints.
subsections: section_title: OSHA Prioritizes Its Response to Complaints according to the Level of Hazard
paragraphs: According to policy, OSHA initially evaluates all incoming complaints  (whether received by fax, e-mail, phone, letter, or in person) to decide  whether to conduct an on-site inspection or a phone/fax investigation (see  fig. 2). OSHA conducts on-site inspections for alleged serious violations or  hazards and makes phone/fax inquiries for allegations of a less serious  nature. OSHA considers serious violations or hazards to be those that  allege conditions that could result in death or serious physical harm.  Specifically, OSHA initiates on-site inspections when the alleged  conditions could result in permanent disabilities or illnesses that are  chronic or irreversible, such as amputations, blindness, or third-degree  burns. As seen in figure 2, though, OSHA will also go on-site when a  current employee or his representative provides a written and signed  complaint that provides reasonable grounds for believing that a violation  of a specific safety and health standard exists. While immediate risks to  any employee’s health or safety are the primary factors driving OSHA’s  complaint inspections, additional criteria can also prompt an on-site  inspection. For example, if an employer fails to provide an adequate  response to a phone/fax investigation, OSHA’s policy is to follow up with  an on-site inspection.
Area office supervisors or compliance officers may call the complainant, if  needed, to help understand the nature of the hazard. OSHA officials told  us they might ask complainants to estimate the extent of exposure to the  hazard and report how long the hazard has existed. If an area office  supervisor decides that an on-site inspection will be conducted, OSHA’s  policy is to limit the inspection to the specific complaint. A violation or  another hazard that is in clear sight may be considered, but compliance  officers cannot expand the scope of their inspection to look for other  violations—a specification that underscores the importance of the  complaint’s accuracy.
Phone/fax investigations, meanwhile, afford an opportunity to resolve a  complaint without requiring a compliance officer to visit the worksite.  Instead, the compliance officer contacts the employer by telephone and  notifies him or her of the complaint and each allegation. The employer is  also advised that he or she must investigate each allegation to determine  whether the complaint is valid. The employer can resolve the complaint,  without penalty, by providing OSHA with documentation such as invoices,  sampling results, photos, or videotape to show that the hazard has been  abated. Upon receiving documentation from the employer, the area office  supervisor is required to review it and determine whether the response  from the employer is adequate.
For both on-site inspections and phone/fax investigations, OSHA’s policy  is to keep the complainants informed of events by notifying them by letter  that an on-site inspection has been scheduled, the outcome of either the  inspection or the phone/fax investigation, and the employer’s response. In  the case of a phone/fax investigation, the complainant has the right to  dispute the employer’s response and request an on-site inspection if the  hazard still exists. OSHA can also determine that the employer’s response  is inadequate and follow with an on-site inspection.
section_title: Officials Credited the Option of Phone/Fax Investigations with Improving Efficiency
paragraphs: Of the 15 officials who told us they worked for OSHA prior to 1996, and  whom we asked about past practices, nearly half said the agency’s current  complaint policy has allowed them to better conserve their resources. For  example, one 26-year veteran said phone/fax investigations have relieved  his compliance officers of traveling to every complaint site for inspections  that once averaged as many as 400 per year. Because the employer  investigates the allegation first, the phone/fax inquiry is an efficient use of  time, according to this supervisor. Of the 20 compliance officers that we  asked about this topic, 18 said phone/fax investigations took less time to  conduct than on-site inspections. Nearly one-half of these compliance  officers told us the phone/fax investigation procedures reduced travel time  or eliminated time spent writing inspection reports. The agency handled  about two-thirds of all complaints it received in fiscal years 2000 through  2002 through phone/fax investigations.
Several OSHA officials we interviewed said OSHA’s phone/fax  investigation procedures ease the burden on employers because the  employers have an opportunity to resolve the problem. As a result, these  officials told us that their interaction with employers has improved. While  few of the employers we interviewed had the complaints against them  resolved through phone/fax investigations, the three that did expressed  satisfaction with the way the allegation was handled. These employers  reported that responding to phone/fax investigations required 3 hours,   5 hours, and 2 to 3 days respectively. Only the employer reporting the  greatest amount of time believed that the time he invested was  inappropriate given the nature of the alleged hazard.
A 1995 internal OSHA report, which reviewed the new complaint  procedures implemented in two area offices as part of a pilot project, also  credited phone/fax investigations with improving efficiency, specifically  by reducing the time it took to notify employers of alleged hazards and to  correct them, as well as with reducing the offices’ complaint backlog. The  report found that using phone/fax investigations reduced notification time  by at least a week, reduced the average number of days to correct hazards  by almost a month in the two offices, and eliminated one office’s backlog  and reduced the other’s backlog by almost half during its involvement in  the pilot project. The report attributed these gains to compliance officers  being able to phone and fax employers to inform them of the allegations  instead of relying on mail, promptly contacting employers to clarify  allegations and to offer feasible methods for correcting hazardous  conditions, and more employees choosing to have their complaints  resolved with phone/fax investigations.
section_title: Erroneous Information Can Affect OSHA Hazard Assessments
paragraphs: More than half of the 20 nonsupervisory compliance officers we  interviewed told us that complainants’ limited knowledge of workplace  hazards and their reasons for filing complaints can affect the quality of the  information they provide, which, in turn, can affect OSHA’s determination  of the hazard’s severity. They said complainants generally have a limited  knowledge of OSHA’s health and safety standards or may not completely  understand what constitutes a violation; consequently, they file complaints  without knowing whether a violation exists. As a result, the level of hazard  can be overstated. For example, one nonsupervisory compliance officer  said he received a complaint that alleged a construction company was  violating the standards for protecting workers from a potential fall, but  found upon arriving at the site that the scaffolding in question was well  within OSHA’s safety standard. Over half of the nonsupervisory  compliance officers (13 of 20) said that there were “some or great”  differences between what complainants allege and what is ultimately  found during inspections or investigations, because complainants may not  completely understand what constitutes an OSHA violation or they have a  limited knowledge of OSHA’s standards.
Complainants’ limited knowledge of OSHA’s health and safety standards  can also result in compliance officers not knowing which potential  hazards to look for when conducting on-site inspections. For example, one  compliance officer noted that employees might complain about an  insufficient number of toilets but not about machinery on the premises  that could potentially cause serious injury. In addition, another  compliance officer noted that many times complainants’ descriptions of  hazards are too vague, a circumstance that prevents her from locating the  equipment that was alleged in the complaint, such as a drill press, and  OSHA’s rules preclude her from expanding the scope of the inspection in  order to locate the hazard.
The quality of the information complainants provide to OSHA can also be  influenced by their motives for filing a complaint. For example, half (27 of  52) of the area office directors and compliance officers we interviewed  said they have received complaints from employees who filed them as  retribution because they were recently terminated from their jobs or were  angry with their employers. Although this practice was described as  infrequent, OSHA officials said that in some instances complainants  intentionally exaggerated the seriousness of the hazard or reported they  were current employees when in fact they had been fired from their jobs.  One official asserted that disgruntled ex-employees have taken advantage  of OSHA’s complaint process to harass employers by having OSHA  conduct an on-site inspection. Several of the employers we interviewed   (4 of the 15) also claimed that disgruntled employees have used the  complaint process to harass them. They expressed the view that OSHA  should improve its procedures for evaluating the validity of complaints.
Some of the compliance officers we interviewed said it is not unusual to  experience an increase in the number of complaints during contract  negotiations. One official told us that in a region where he once worked,  union workers filed multiple complaints in order to gain leverage over the  employer. A union official acknowledged that this occurred but noted that  it was infrequent. Other OSHA officials told us that competitors of  companies sometimes file complaints when they lose a competitive bid for  a work contract. One official said that while company representatives do  file complaints against each other to disrupt the other company’s work  schedule, such tactics are not typical in his region.
Despite these problems, several of the OSHA officials we interviewed said  OSHA’s obligation is to evaluate whether there are reasonable grounds to  believe that a violation or hazard exists, rather than trying to determine a  complainant’s motives for filing the complaint. In fact, 34 of the 52 officials  we interviewed told us that almost all of the complaints they see warrant  an inspection or an investigation, and as a result, many of the area offices  inspect or investigate most of the complaints that are filed. One official  said he would prefer to conduct an inspection or do a phone/fax  investigation for an alleged hazard, rather than not address the complaint  and have it result in a fatality.
section_title: State and Federal OSHA Officials Suggested a Number of Ways to Elicit Better Information from Complainants
paragraphs: When asked during interviews about ways OSHA could improve its  process for handling complaints, officials from OSHA and from states that  run their own health and safety programs suggested approaches the  agency could take to improve the information they receive from  complainants. Although some offices were actively engaging in these  practices, others reported that they were being used only to some or little  extent.
Their recommendations were of three types; the first was in regard to  strategies for improving the validity of complaints that OSHA considers.  Many OSHA area directors and compliance officers said the agency could  warn complainants more explicitly of penalties for providing false  information, which could be as much as $10,000 or imprisonment for as  long as 6 months, or both. This warning is printed as part of the  instructions on the complaint form available on OSHA’s Web site.  However, OSHA’s complaint policies and procedures directive states that  area offices will not mail the form to complainants; consequently,  complainants primarily receive the penalty warning only if they access the  Web-based form. In contrast, an official from one of the state programs  reported that his state’s program requires complainants to sign a form with  penalty information printed in bold above the signature line. According to  the state official, this policy has reduced by half the number of invalid  complaints.
Several OSHA supervisors and directors expressed reservations about  having compliance officers make verbal warnings to complainants about  providing false information while taking their complaints, saying it could  prevent some complainants who are already fearful from reporting  hazards. Of the 52 OSHA officials we interviewed, 23 said the extent to  which they remind complainants of the penalty for providing false  information is “little or none at all.” Furthermore, several officials said  complainants report hazards based on a perceived violation; therefore,  they doubted a hazard that turned out to be invalid would result in a  penalty.
To further improve the validity of complaints, one official pointed to his  state’s practice of generally conducting on-site inspections only for a  current employee or an employee’s representative. According to the state  health and safety official, this policy improves the validity of information  because current employees can more accurately describe the hazard than  an ex-employee who has been removed from the environment for some  time and whose relationship with the employer may be strained. Another  state’s health and safety official said her state has a policy that allows its  managers to decline any complaint they determine is intended to willfully  harass an employer, which also helps improve the reliability of complaints.  According to this official, however, managers seldom find that a complaint  was filed to willfully harass an employer. The state also has a policy that  allows managers to dismiss any complaint they determine is without any  reasonable basis.
A second approach suggested by many OSHA officials was to improve  complainants’ ability to describe hazards accurately. Of the 52 officials  that we interviewed, 14 said OSHA could, for example, conduct more  outreach to educate both employees and employers about OSHA’s health  and safety standards. Although OSHA area offices already participate in  outreach activities, such as conducting speeches at conferences or making  presentations at worksites, several of the officials we interviewed said the  agency could do more. For example, one compliance officer suggested  developing public service announcements to describe potential hazards,  such as trenches without escape ladders, and to provide local OSHA  contact information for reporting such hazards. One official expressed the  opinion that if OSHA were to conduct more outreach to employees, the  quality of complaints would likely improve. Another compliance officer  suggested that OSHA engage in more preconstruction meetings with  employers to discuss OSHA’s regulations and requirements and share  ideas for providing safer working environments. One interviewee said if  employers were more knowledgeable about hazards, there would be less  need for workers to file complaints.
Finally, OSHA officials said the agency could take steps to improve the  ability of employers and employees to resolve complaints among  themselves before going to OSHA. Many of the officials that we  interviewed said their offices could encourage employers to form safety  committees or other internal mechanisms to address safety concerns. Ten  of the 52 officials we interviewed told us the extent to which their offices  promote or encourage safety committees was “little to none at all.” Only  some of these officials said that this lack of promotion stemmed from the  requirements of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which some  believe may prohibit or hinder the establishment of safety committees.
section_title: Although Consistent Handling of Complaints Is a Key OSHA Principle, Practices in Some Area Offices Varied
paragraphs: OSHA’s policy for responding to complaints requires compliance officers  to address complaints in a systematic and timely manner; however, we  found practices used by area offices to respond to complaints varied  considerably. While some of these practices involved departures from  OSHA policy, others were practices that varied to such a degree that they  could result in inconsistent treatment of complainants and employers. In  particular, we found several instances where area offices departed from  the directive by persuading complainants to choose either an on-site  inspection or a phone/fax investigation, and by having nonsupervisory  compliance officers evaluate complaints. We also found several instances  where practices were inconsistent. Among the 42 offices we contacted, we  found that some conducted follow-up inspections on a sample of closed  investigation cases to verify employer compliance, and others did not.  Since issuing its new directive for handling complaints in 1996, however,  OSHA has issued no guidance to reinforce, clarify, or update those  procedures. In addition, while OSHA requires its regional administrators to  annually audit their area office operations, some administrators do not,  and further, for those who do, OSHA does not have a mechanism in place  to review the results and address problems on an agencywide level.
subsections: section_title: Some Practices and Procedures Departed from Agency Policies
paragraphs: In our interviews with 52 randomly selected supervisory and  nonsupervisory officials in 42 of the 80 area offices, we found practices  that appeared to depart from OSHA’s official policies. In particular, agency  policy calls for supervisors to evaluate each complaint. However, 22 of the  52 officials to whom we talked said nonsupervisory compliance officers in  their offices are sometimes the decision makers for whether complaints  are inspected or pursued through phone/fax investigations. In some of  these offices, compliance officers make the decision if the complaint is  less than serious. In addition, some officials told us that if the case was  earmarked for an inspection or was challenging, the supervisor would then  review it. While OSHA’s directive addresses supervisory review within the  context of inspections, an OSHA national director informed us that it is  agency policy to have supervisors review each and every complaint. In  addition, agency policy prescribes that compliance officers explain to  complainants the relative advantages of both phone/fax investigations and  inspections, if appropriate. However, 16 of the 52 officials to whom we  spoke said they encourage complainants, in certain circumstances, to seek  either an inspection or an investigation. For example, one official said that  his office “sells” phone/fax investigations because they are faster to  conduct and lead to quicker abatement than on-site inspections. However,  an OSHA national director stressed to us that duty officers should not  attempt to persuade complainants. Another practice that appeared  inconsistent with policy was the treatment of written, signed complaints.  Current employees and their representatives have the right to request an  inspection by writing and signing a complaint, but before an inspection  may take place, OSHA must determine that there are reasonable grounds  for believing there is a violation of a safety or health standard or real  danger exists. Area office supervisors are to exercise professional  judgment in making this determination. Of the 52 officials with whom we  spoke 33 said their offices exercise professional judgment by evaluating  written and signed complaints. However, most of the remainder were  about equally split in reporting that they evaluate these complaints  “sometimes” (7 of 52) or forgo evaluation altogether and automatically  conduct on-site inspections (8 of 52).
Finally, while we found that complaint policy was generally followed at  the three OSHA offices where we reviewed case files, we did find that one  office had not been sending a letter to complainants to notify them of a  scheduled inspection. According to the OSHA directive, complainants  should be notified of inspections.
section_title: Some Practices Varied Significantly among Area Offices
paragraphs: During telephone interviews, officials described practices that, while they  did not depart from agency policy, varied significantly from office to  office. For example, offices differed in whether they treated e-mails as  phone calls or as written and signed complaints. Of the 52 officials with  whom we spoke, 12 said they treated complaints received via e-mail as  written and signed complaints, while 34 said they treated them as phone  complaints. While agency policy is silent on how to classify e-mail  complaints, this inconsistency is important because written and signed  complaints are more likely to result in on-site inspections. Offices also  differed in whether or not they performed random follow-up inspections  for phone/fax investigations. While 10 of the 52 officials said they did not  know if their offices conducted follow-up inspections, most of the  remainder were about equally split in reporting that either they did (18 of  52) or did not (20 of 52) do them. Although the directive does not require  follow-up inspections, the OSHA letters sent to employers says they may  be randomly selected for such inspections. This inconsistency in practice  across offices is significant insofar as follow-up inspections can be seen  either as an added burden to employers or as an important safeguard for  ensuring abatement. We also found variation in how offices determined  whether a complainant was a current employee. The employment status of  a complainant is important, as it is often a factor in evaluating the  complaint. Of the 52 OSHA officials with whom we spoke, 30 said their  offices determine whether a complainant is a current employee simply by  asking the complainant; 11 said they asked probing questions of the  complainant, and 5 said they asked the complainant for some type of  documentation, such as a pay stub. While the directive does not specify  how compliance officers are to verify employment status, the methods  used to obtain this information can affect its accuracy.
Finally, we found that some area offices differ significantly in how they  respond to complaints for which OSHA has no standard, specifically those  involving substance abuse in the workplace. For example, during a site  visit to one area office, an official explained that his office would not do a  phone/fax investigation in response to complaints alleging drug use at a  workplace, but would refer them to the police instead. However, another  area office conducted a phone/fax investigation for a complaint about  workers drinking alcoholic beverages while operating forklifts and  mechanical equipment. An official in a third area office told us that his  office has sometimes referred complaints about drug use at a workplace to  the local police and at other times has responded to similar complaints  with a phone/fax investigation. An OSHA national director told us that  area offices are obligated to do phone/fax investigations for alleged drug  use in the workplace.
section_title: Some Regional Administrators Meet OSHA’s Requirement to Annually Audit Area Office Operations, but OSHA Does Not Utilize Results
paragraphs: OSHA policy requires that regional administrators annually audit their area  offices and that audit results be passed on to the Assistant Secretary.  However, this is not current practice. Regional administrators are required  to focus the audits on programs, policies, and practices that have been  identified as vulnerabilities, including the agency’s complaint-processing  procedures. However, according to OSHA’s regional administrators, only   5 of the agency’s 10 regions conduct these audits annually, while 3 conduct  the audits, but only for a proportion of their area offices each year, and   2 do not conduct the annual audits at all. In addition, according to one  national director, all of the regional administrators are to submit the  results of their audits to a Program Analyst in the Atlanta area office for  review. The results of this review are to be reported to the Deputy  Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, as well as to the responsible  directorate, and they are responsible for addressing issues of  noncompliance and determining what, if any, policy changes are needed.  However, the Program Analyst in Atlanta said he does not receive all of   the audits from each region as required, and an official from one of  OSHA’s directorates told us his office does not receive such reports.
The findings from the seven audits we reviewed underscore their value for  monitoring consistency. These audits showed that most of the audited  offices were (1) not correctly following procedures for meeting the time  frames for initiating on-site inspections, (2) closing phone/fax  investigation cases without obtaining adequate evidence that hazards had  been corrected, and (3) not including all required documentation from the  case files.
section_title: Complaints Have, to Some Extent, Drawn OSHA to Serious Hazards at Worksites
paragraphs: To some extent, complaints have drawn OSHA compliance officers to sites  with serious hazards. According to OSHA’s data for fiscal years 2000 and  2001, compliance officers found serious violations at half the worksites  inspected in response to complaints, a figure comparable to inspections  conducted at worksites targeted for their high injury and illness rates.  However, in one of our earlier reports, we expressed concern that for  targeted inspections a 50 percent success rate may raise questions about  whether inspection resources are being directed at sites with no serious  hazards. Complaint-driven inspections shared other similarities with  planned inspections; specifically, compliance officers cited similar  standards during both types of inspections. On the other hand, complaint  inspections often required more time to complete. Finally, we found a  correlation between hazardous industries and complaints inspections.  Specifically, those industries that, according to BLS data, had more  injuries and illnesses also generally had a larger number of complaint  inspections according to OSHA data.
subsections: section_title: From Fiscal Year 2000 to 2001, Half the Worksites Inspected for Complaints Had Serious Violations
paragraphs: OSHA compliance officers found serious violations in half of the worksites  they inspected when responding to complaints alleging serious hazards  according to OSHA’s data for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 combined. These  are hazards that pose a substantial probability of injury or death. During  some planned inspections—those conducted at worksites targeted for  their high injury and illness rates—OSHA compliance officers found  serious violations, such as those involving respiratory protection and  control of hazardous energy, in a similar percentage of worksites.  Specifically, as shown in table 1, OSHA compliance officers found serious  violations in 50 percent of the 17,478 worksites they inspected during  complaint-driven inspections. Likewise, they found serious violations in   46 percent of the 41,932 worksites they targeted during planned  inspections. In a previous report we noted that this percentage might  indicate that inspection resources are being directed to worksites without  serious hazards. According to OSHA, many complaints come from the  construction industry, where the work is often dangerous and of a short  duration.  As a result, even if an inspection begins immediately, “citable”  circumstances may no longer exist, a fact that according to the agency,  might explain why the number of serious violations that result from  complaints is not higher.
We found that, in contrast to planned inspections, complaint-driven  inspections require, on average, more hours per case to complete.   Table 2 shows that OSHA compliance officers have required about   65 percent more time for complaint-driven inspections in comparison to  planned inspections—29.7 hours on average compared with 18.1 hours— suggesting that while outcomes are similar, complaint-driven inspections  are more labor intensive than planned inspections. Compared with  planned inspections, complaint-driven inspections have a higher rate of  health inspections, which, according to an OSHA national director, place  extra time demands on compliance officers to obtain samples, test them,  and document the results. In comparison with inspections, phone/fax  investigations require, on average, far less time than either complaint- driven or planned inspections.
In terms of the types of hazards they uncover, complaint-driven  inspections shared some similarities with planned inspections that target  the most hazardous sites. Of the 10 standards OSHA compliance officers  cited most frequently for violations during complaint-driven inspections,   7 were also among the 10 most frequently cited during planned  inspections. Table 3 shows the rank ordering of hazards cited most  frequently during planned inspections and complaint-driven inspections.  However, table 3 also shows that there were some differences in the  frequency with which compliance officers cited particular hazards during  planned inspections, compared with complaint-driven inspections. For  example, the standard most frequently cited during planned inspections,  general requirements for scaffolds, is the 18th most frequently cited  standard during complaint-driven inspections. Likewise, the standard cited  with the second highest frequency in planned inspections, “fall  protection,” is not within the 10 standards most frequently cited for  complaint-driven inspections. Such examples indicate that some  differences exist in the type of hazards compliance officers found at  worksites about which workers have complained and at those OSHA  targeted for inspection.
section_title: Hazardous Industries Had a Preponderance of Complaints in Calendar Year 2001
paragraphs: Our analysis found a correlation between injuries and illnesses reported in  industries and the rate at which complaints were inspected. As shown in  figure 3, industries associated with higher rates of injuries and illnesses  also tended to have a higher rate of complaint inspections than did  industries with lower injury and illness rates, according to OSHA’s data.
For example, one industry, transportation equipment, had 12.6 injuries and  illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 2001 and had a relatively high rate of  complaint inspections, .016 per 100 full-time workers. Conversely, the  motion picture industry, which had only 2.5 injuries and illnesses per   100 full-time workers in 2001, had a relatively low incidence rate for  complaint inspections, .0015 complaint inspections per 100 full-time  workers.
For a handful of industries the pattern of high injury and illness rates  associated with high complaint inspection rates did not apply. For these  industries, the number of complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers  was either far higher or far lower than might have been expected given the  number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers. For example,  the air transport industry had the highest injury and illness rate for   2001, but its complaint inspection rate was lower than those for all but   1 of the 10 industries with the highest injury and illness rates. In another  example, while the general building contractors industry had the highest  complaint inspection rate of any industry, over a third of all industries had  higher injury and illness rates. Table 4 shows industries that were highest  or lowest in terms of injuries and illness and their corresponding rates of  complaint inspections.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: Since 1975, OSHA has had to balance two competing demands: the need to  use its inspection resources efficiently and the need to respond to  complaints about alleged hazards that could seriously threaten workers’  safety and health. In light of this ongoing challenge, OSHA has adopted  complaint procedures that, according to agency officials, have helped  OSHA conserve its resources and promptly inspect complaints about  serious hazards. Nonetheless, in deciding which complaints to inspect,  OSHA officials must depend on information provided by complainants  whose motives and knowledge of hazards vary. Many OSHA officials do  not see the quality of this information as a serious problem. However,  considering that serious violations were found in only half of the  workplaces OSHA officials inspected when responding to complaints, it  seems likely that the agency, employers, and workers could all be better  served if OSHA improved the quality of information it receives from  complainants.
When OSHA conducts inspections of complaints based on incomplete or  erroneous information, it potentially depletes inspection resources that  could have been used to inspect or investigate other worksites. In  addition, employers may be forced to expend resources proving that their  worksites are safe when no hazard exists. OSHA should certainly not  discourage workers from making complaints or pursuing a request for an  OSHA inspection. Indeed, the correlation we found between those  industries designated as hazardous and those that generate complaints  inspections suggests that using complaints to locate hazardous worksites  is a reasonable strategy for the agency to pursue. However, to the extent  that OSHA officials could glean more accurate information from  complainants, such as by deterring disgruntled employees from  misrepresenting hazards or their employment status, the agency could  benefit in several ways. With better information, OSHA could better  conserve its inspection resources, minimize the burden on employers, and  further enhance the agency’s credibility in the eyes of employers. In  addition, if the strategies described by OSHA officials as effective means  to improve the quality of complaints are not being fully utilized, OSHA may  miss opportunities to maximize the efficiency its complaint process might  afford.
Some variation in how OSHA officials respond to complaints is inevitable,  particularly considering that there are 80 area offices with as many as   16 compliance officers in each office. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies  that we found have ramifications when considering the size of the agency  and the judgment that comes into play when handling complaints.  Moreover, OSHA has much to gain by upholding a reputation for fairness  among employers. When employers buy into OSHA’s standards and  comply voluntarily, the agency can better use its 1,200 compliance officers  to ensure worker safety at the more than 7 million worksites nationwide.  However, OSHA’s credibility could be damaged by procedural  inconsistencies if, for example, they resulted in different treatment and  disposition of similar complaints. While OSHA requires regional audits for  monitoring consistency, the failure to maximize the value of this  information limits the agency’s ability to ensure one of the underlying  principles of its complaint policy.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making recommendations that the Secretary of Labor direct the  Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to instruct area  offices to pursue practices to improve the quality of information they  receive from complainants, such as  reminding complainants of the penalties for providing false  information,    conducting outreach to employees regarding hazards, and   encouraging employers to have safety committees that could initially  address complaints.
We are also recommending that the Secretary direct the Assistant  Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps to ensure that  area offices are consistently implementing the agency’s policies and  procedures for handling complaints. As a first step, the agency should  update and revise the 1996 directive.
In revising the directive, the agency should update and clarify    how complainants are advised of the process,   how written and signed complaints are evaluated,   how to verify the employment status of complainants,   how to treat e-mail complaints, and   how to address complaints involving hazards for which the agency has  no specific standard.
In addition, we are recommending that the Secretary direct the Assistant  Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to    develop a system for ensuring the regions complete audits and   develop a system for using the audit results to improve consistency of  the complaint process.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We received comments on a draft of this report from Labor. These  comments are reproduced in appendix II. Labor also provided technical  clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate.
Although Labor recognized in its comments that most complaints are  anonymous and unsigned—a fact that makes it difficult to find employees  to obtain their views about the complaint process—the agency  recommended that we acknowledge in the report the limited number of  employees we interviewed. At the beginning of the report and again at the  end, we acknowledged that we interviewed 6 employees. Further, Labor  questioned whether the number of employees we interviewed was an  adequate number on which to base the conclusions reached in this report.   Our conclusions about OSHA’s complaint process were not based solely  on employee interviews but were based on a variety of data, including  interviews with 52 OSHA officials. In determining which OSHA officials to  interview, we deliberately included area directors, assistant area directors,  and compliance officers, which resulted in us obtaining information from  officials at various levels in 42 of OSHA’s 80 area offices.
Labor also noted that our findings from OSHA’s database which showed  that only half of complaint inspections result in citations for serious  violations do not recognize that many complaints come from the  construction industry, where the work is often dangerous and of a short  duration so that even if an inspection begins immediately, “citable”  circumstances may no longer exist. We added language to the body of the  report to reflect this information.
In responding to our first recommendation about improving the quality of  information received through complaints, Labor stated that OSHA has  taken many steps, both in its online and office-based complaint-taking  procedures, to provide guidance to employees to ensure that all  complaints are valid and accurate. We maintain, however, that OSHA can  do more to improve the validity and accuracy of the complaints it receives.
Labor did not comment on our recommendations that OSHA develop a  system for ensuring that the regions complete audits of the complaint  process and for using the results of these audits to improve the  consistency of the process.
We will make copies of this report available upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or any of your staff has any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Revae Moran, Assistant Director, at   (202) 512-3863.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our criteria for selecting our site visits were geographical diversity and  volume of complaints. We received data from the Occupational Safety and  Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the number of complaints each  of its area offices processed in 2000, 2001 and 2002. On the basis of these  data, we selected the three sites with the largest number of complaints  processed in their respective regions and which roughly approximated the  east, south and western regions. Those sites were Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas; and Denver, Colorado. In each of these  offices, we examined a statistical sample of case files. We used a standard  set of questions, pretested on case files in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  office, to conduct the case file reviews. In addition, we interviewed  compliance officers—both supervisory and nonsupervisory. We randomly  selected 38 cases in Denver, 30 cases in Austin, and 34 cases in Pittsburgh  from the available list of complaint files processed by these offices in   2000, 2001, and 2002. Austin and Pittsburgh had disposed of their case files  for phone/fax investigations for 2000, according to area directors there,  who said this was allowed by agency rules for how long files must be kept.  As a result, our random selections for Austin and Pittsburgh were selected  from lists that did not include phone/fax investigations for 2000.
In addition to our site visits, using standard sets of questions, we  interviewed by telephone randomly selected area directors, assistant area  directors, and compliance officers in 42 area offices. We obtained from  OSHA a list of area directors, assistant area directors (who are supervisory  compliance officers), compliance officers, and regional administrators. We  randomly selected 20 of the agency’s 80 area directors and 32 of its   1,200 compliance officers (12 assistant area directors and 20  nonsupervisory compliance officers). We also interviewed officials in all  10 regional offices. Additionally, we conducted telephone interviews with  health and safety officials from 13 states that operate health and safety  programs apart from OSHA. We selected these 13 states, in part, based on  discussions with OSHA.
In addition to OSHA officials, we also interviewed employers whose  worksites were the subject of a complaint and employees who had filed  complaints. OSHA provided us with a database of all employers who in  2000, 2001, or 2002 had worksites that were the subject of complaints and  employees who had filed complaints in the same year. From the database  we randomly selected 90 employers and 90 employees. We took steps to  make sure that employers’ and employees’ contact information was kept  separate from their identity and any information collected from them  during their interviews. We also obtained a guarantee of confidentiality  from the report’s requester. Of the 90 employers randomly selected, we  succeeded in interviewing 15. Of the 90 employees, we succeeded in  interviewing 6. Some of the employee complaints randomly selected had  been filed anonymously, so contact information was not available. In most  cases, those selected could not be reached.
Finally, we examined data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 related to  complaints in OSHA’s Integrated Management Information System (IMIS)  and looked at data on injuries and illnesses collected and published by the  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for calendar year 2001 as they related to  complaints. In addition, for the IMIS data we obtained and reviewed  documentation of internal controls and manually tested the data. We  interviewed both OSHA and BLS officials to establish the reliability of the  data. We found the data to be reliable for our purposes.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: The following are GAO comments on Labor’s letter dated May 21, 2004.  1.
We rephrased our recommendations to reflect Labor’s  administrative procedures.
2.
Our conclusions are based on site visits to 3 area offices  processing large numbers of complaints, reviews of case files  in those offices, interviews with 52 OSHA officials—area  directors, assistant area directors, and compliance officers— who represented 42 of OSHA’s 80 area offices, interviews with  officials in all 10 of OSHA’s regional offices, interviews with the  director of the Office of Enforcement, interviews with officials  in 13 states that have their own safety and health programs,  analysis of data on complaints from OSHA’s Integrated  Management Information System, analysis of BLS data on  injuries and illnesses, interviews with 15 employees whose  companies were the subject of complaints, interviews with 6  employees who filed complaints, and the review of agency  documents related to the complaint process.
In the appendix on scope and methodology, we corrected the  number of employee interviews, changing it to 6 from 8.
3.
We have included the agency’s explanation in the final version  of the report.
4.
We added a note to table 4 acknowledging that OSHA’s  jurisdiction is limited in the transportation area and corrected  the source of the data in the table.
5.
On the basis of our interviews with OSHA officials who said the  agency could do more to improve the quality of information  received from complainants, we continue to believe that  adopting our recommendation would help the agency better  manage its inspection resources.  Moreover, we believe that the  agency could take such actions without discouraging  employees from filing legitimate complaints.
section_title: Appendix III: Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Carl Barden, Sue Bernstein, Karen Brown, Amy Buck, Patrick di Battista,  Barbara Hills, Mikki Holmes, Cathy Hurley, Julian Klazkin, Jim Lawrence,  Luann Moy, Corinna Nicolaou, Sid Schwartz, and Michelle Zapata made  key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies  Show Promising Results, but Should Be Fully Evaluated Before They Are  Expanded. GAO-04-378  March 19, 2004.
Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement  through Improved Program Management. GAO-03-45  November 22, 2002.
Worker Protection: Labor's Efforts to Enforce Protections for Day  Laborers Could Benefit from Better Data and Guidance. GAO-02-925   September 26, 2002.
Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Should Strengthen the Management  of Its Consultation Program. GAO-02-60  October 12, 2001.
Worker Protection: OSHA Inspections at Establishments Experiencing  Labor Unrest. HEHS-00-144  August 31, 2000.
Occupational Safety and Health: Federal Agencies Identified as  Promoting Workplace Safety and Health. HEHS-00-45R  January 31, 2000.