Opinion ID: 1035300
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Administrative Law Hearing and Decision

Text: On July 18, 2011, an administrative hearing was held before the ALJ. The Secretary called one witness in support of her case: Compliance Officer Spencer. He testified about what he saw when he arrived at the Lawrenceville jobsite and about the substance of his interviews with the people at the scene. He testified that when he asked Cobb why he had failed to properly protect the trench, Cobb replied that he was just not paying attention to what he was doing.7 6 Arno testified at the administrative hearing that when he returned to the jobsite during the investigation he was “taken aback” by how large the trench was. That size excavation was very unusual, not consistent with his instructions, not planned for, and not “[priced] into the job.” 7 This account was confirmed by Cobb, when he later testified (during ComTran’s case) that he did not realize the trench had gone deeper than four feet because: “I just kept on digging. I had problems [finding the utilities] and was trying to get out of there, and really I didn’t pay no 10 Case: 12-10275 Date Filed: 07/24/2013 Page: 11 of 30 After the Secretary rested her case-in-chief, ComTran called five witnesses to testify, including --- in addition to Cobb and Arno --- Greg Bostwick (President of ComTran); Glen Sherwood (Vice President); and Phillip Clark (Vice President of Premise Cabling). These witnesses testified about the general type of work that ComTran performs and about the details of the Lawrenceville project. In addition, they testified about ComTran’s safety program and the extent to which employees have been disciplined for violating safety standards. The ALJ subsequently affirmed both citations by written order. After noting that it was undisputed that the Secretary had satisfied the first three elements of her prima facie case --- i.e., the applicability of the regulations, failure to comply with them, and employee exposure to the dangerous condition --- the ALJ went on to discuss the fourth and final element: employer knowledge. The ALJ began this portion of his analysis by holding that Cobb had knowledge of the violative conduct because “he himself had dug the excavation and placed the spoil pile at its edge.” Relying on Commission precedent, the ALJ further held that since Cobb was a supervisor, his knowledge of his own malfeasances was imputable to attention to it until OSHA come up and started asking me questions [about] how deep the hole is and about my spoil pile.” He similarly testified on cross examination that “I didn’t realize how deep I was until Spencer made me aware of the spoil pile.” In fact, however, Cobb knew earlier that he was not following proper procedure. He acknowledged during the hearing --- in response to direct questioning by the ALJ --- that he was “not supposed to ever infringe on the silt fence”, let alone “tear it down.” Thus, while it may be true that Cobb got “lost in his work” while he was actually digging in the trench, he knew from at least the moment that he took down the fence that he was doing something he was not supposed to do. 11 Case: 12-10275 Date Filed: 07/24/2013 Page: 12 of 30 ComTran. See Secretary of Labor v. Dover Elevator Co., Inc., 16 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1281, at  (1993) (stating that “when a supervisory employee has actual or constructive knowledge of the violative conditions, that knowledge is imputed to the employer, and the Secretary satisfies [her] burden of proof”). During his discussion of this issue, the ALJ noted that the Fifth Circuit has concluded that “a supervisor’s knowledge of his own malfeasance is not imputable to the employer[.]” See W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 459 F.3d 604, 608 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis original). However, as the ALJ further noted, the Sixth Circuit has held to the contrary. See Danis-Shook Joint Venture XXV v. Secretary of Labor, 319 F.3d 805, 811-12 (6th Cir. 2003). Insofar as the Eleventh Circuit had not yet weighed in and “directly addressed this issue”, the ALJ held that the afore-cited Commission precedent applied. The ALJ then considered the unforeseeable employee misconduct defense, ultimately concluding that ComTran failed to establish the four elements under that defense. However, the ALJ reduced the penalty (from $9,800.00 to $5,000.00) because ComTran showed “good faith” by taking “decisive steps” to strengthen its safety program after the violations were discovered. The ALJ’s order became a final decision when the Commission denied discretionary review, and ComTran now appeals.