Opinion ID: 407570
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantial Evidence-The Safety Belt Violation

Text: 30 Willson argues that the citation, insofar as it is based upon a failure to utilize safety belts under section .28(a), must be vacated because the Secretary failed to present substantial evidence showing that the use of belts was feasible on the inspection date. Underlying this claim are the concededly unusual circumstances extant on March 24, 1980. It appears that over the weekend of March 22-23 unusually high winds twisted the steel structure and vibrated loose some of the bolt connections. Thus it is conceded, and the ALJ found, that the unusual circumstances ... did present conditions where employees should not have tied off their safety belts to any steel until they assured themselves that the steel was safe to go upon .... ALJ Decision at 15, J.A. at 213. 31 The Secretary argues, however, that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's further finding that there is no acceptable explanation as to why these employees, once they went upon the steel to be tightened, did not tie off their belts. Id. We disagree. It is anomalous to say that the employees' exercise of judgment not to use belts precluded a violation only until a certain point in time, but not thereafter, unless there is sufficient evidence that at that certain point there was no question but that the employees should have used the belts. 32 The burden of proving all elements of a violation rests with the Secretary. See C.F.R. § 2200.73(a). In order to meet the burden in this case, the Secretary must have shown that under the conditions present on the inspection date, the use of safety belts was appropriate. See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28(a), supra note 4. The record shows that the compliance officer who issued the citations was at the Willson worksite for approximately one hour, 21 observed the employee on the ninth level for only ten minutes, 22 and did not herself go on the building. 23 Although another compliance officer opined that there was no reason the employees could not tie off, that individual was not at the Willson worksite on March 24th and did not observe the unusual circumstances. 24 In other decisions, the Commission has found that when the use of safety belts can result in additional danger to steel workers a citation for failure to use belts under section .28(a) is inappropriate. See American Bridge Division of United States Steel Corp., OSHRC No. 2249, 2 OSHC (BNA) 1222 (1974); Industrial Steel Erectors, Inc., OSHRC No. 703, 1 OSHC (BNA) 1479 (1974). Furthermore, the Commission apparently does not require that employers in such situations seek a variance under the procedures outlined in the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 655(d). This interpretation is, moreover, consistent with the wording of section .28(a). Safety belts can hardly be appropriate personal protective equipment if their use itself creates a hazardous condition. In light of these facts, we cannot find that this record presents substantial evidence to support a finding that section .28(a) was violated on March 24, 1980. 33