Opinion ID: 388177
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Greater Hazard

Text: 18 PBR argues that it was excused from compliance with the Standard because compliance would have created a greater hazard than non-compliance. The greater hazard defense is narrowly construed and the burden of proof lies with the employer. Greyhound Lines-West v. Marshall, 575 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir. 1978). OSHRC and the courts have placed a three-folded burden on employers seeking to invoke this affirmative defense: (t)he employer must demonstrate: (1) that the hazards of compliance are greater than the hazards of non-compliance, (2) that alternative means of protecting employees are unavailable and (3) the unavailability or inappropriateness of obtaining a variance. Noblecraft Industries, et al. v. Secretary of Labor, 614 F.2d 199, 205 (9th Cir. 1980). 19 PBR contends that machine guarding would have created a greater hazard to interference with passing trains and the possibility of train wrecks. However, it is undisputed that subsequent to the fatality a machine guard was installed. The potentiality of a greater hazard was effectively eliminated by stopping passing trains on adjacent tracks while the undercutter was in operation. In fact, it was only necessary to halt trains on two occasions after the guard was installed. Additionally, PBR fails to offer a satisfactory explanation for neglecting to request a variance. This requirement is necessary in order to ensure that employers will not subject their employees to safety hazards on the basis of an incorrect assumption that their noncomplying work places are safer than sites complying with the standards. General Electric Company v. Secretary of Labor, 576 F.2d 558, 561 (3rd Cir. 1978). Accordingly, PBR has failed to meet its burden of proof to establish this affirmative defense.