Opinion ID: 764916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantiality of Evidence to Support Commission's Finding of Willful Violation

Text: 23 The Commission concluded that the evidence before it, as gleaned from the record as a whole, was sufficient to establish a willful violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.550(a)(1). 24 The OSH Act provides that The findings of the Commission with respect to questions of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. 29 U.S.C. 660(a). Substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' Advance Bronze, Inc. v. Dole, 917 F.2d 944, 950 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Empire Detroit Steel, 579 F.2d at 383 (6th Cir. 1978). The substantial evidence test protects both the factual findings and the inferences derived from them, and if the findings and inferences are reasonable on the record, they must be affirmed even if this court could justifiably reach a different result de novo. Modern Drop Forge Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 683 F.2d 1105, 1109 (7th Cir. 1982). The willfulness of an OSH Act violation is a factual finding and is reviewed under this substantial evidence standard. 25 We have previously held that a willful violation is action taken knowledgeably by one subject to the statutory provisions in disregard of the action's legality. Empire, 579 F.2d at 383. A willful violation occurs where the employer is conscious of the requirements of a rule and nonetheless . . . consciously continues in its contrary practice. Donovan v. Capital City Excavating Co., 712 F.2d 1008, 1010 (6th Cir. 1983). Conduct is willful if it is intentional, deliberate, and voluntary. Id. 26 We conclude that the Commission's decision that NECCO willfully violated section 1926.550(a)(1) is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Commission determined that the critical provision with which NECCO failed to comply was the clear command in the manufacturer's manual to have all outriggers and stabilizers fully deployed whenever the boom is used. (JA 16). Section 1926.550(a)(1) requires that the employer conform to the crane manufacturer's specifications and limitations for operating the crane. It is undisputed that the crane's manual and the two warnings explicitly posted on the boom truck warn of the necessity for compliance with the manual and the prohibition on operation of the crane with the outriggers and stabilizers retracted 6 .NECCO acknowledges that it was aware of the necessity of operating the crane with the outriggers and stabilizers in place. (NECCO Br. at 27-28). Despite this knowledge, NECCO operated the crane with either partial deployment or no deployment of the supports while lifting and placing traffic barriers in spaces too tight to fully deploy the supports. 27 Further, evidence exists in the record supporting the conclusion that NECCO previously engaged in a practice of operating the crane without the outriggers and stabilizers fully deployed. The Commission noted NECCO's policy to perform lifts irrespective of whether the outriggers or stabilizers were fully extended. In support, the Commission pointed to the testimony of OSHA Compliance officer Collier who testified that NECCO's policy was to utilize the outriggers and stabilizers when space permitted; however, the use of the crane was sanctioned when a physical barrier did not allow for full deployment. 7 Foreman Ruf proffered testimony in which he indicated that where space was limited, the boom truck was operated without the front outriggers and rear stabilizers fully extended. Crane Operator Foster testified that the normal procedure was to fully extend the outriggers and stabilizers when space permitted. 28 It is further undisputed that on the night in question, the operator of the boom truck, Mr. Foster, did not advance the boom truck forward so as to permit the full extension of the outriggers in compliance with the operation manual. In view of the record as a whole, the evidence supports a finding that NECCO operated the boom truck in question in violation of the provisions of the manufacturer's specifications. Such conduct constitutes a violation of subsection 1926.550(a)(1). Thus, we are satisfied that substantial evidence exists supporting the Commission's finding that NECCO willfully violated subsection 1926.550(a)(1).