Opinion ID: 2571502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Employee Misconduct

Text: [¶28] In its final issue, Three Sons claims that it established the affirmative defense of employee misconduct and the rulings of the hearing examiner and district court to the contrary were arbitrary and not supported by the evidence. In support of its claim, Three Sons cites cases holding that an employer cannot foresee that an employee would violate a direct order and that intentional employee misconduct cannot form the basis of a citation. Horne Plumbing & Heating Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 564 (5th Cir. 1976); Brennan v. OSHRC, 501 F.2d 1196 (7th Cir. 1974). [¶29] The following quotation from Horne, 528 F.2d at 569, clearly demonstrates that it is distinguishable from the present case: In the instant case, it is undisputed that Horne had an excellent safety program. A safety expert who had examined the company's program testified that it far exceeds that of similar companies, and the administrative law judge found on undisputed evidence that Mr. Horne was diligent in providing for the safety of his employees. . . . The record shows that Mr. Horne took virtually every conceivable precaution to ensure that his employees were aware of and understood the requirements of the Act and that they conducted themselves in accordance therewith. In fact, Mr. Horne's undisputed testimony shows that for many years prior to the passage of the Act, he had been actively engaged in efforts to provide safe working conditions; and that prior to the May 19 accident his company had an excellent record of almost twenty years without a lost-time accident. On the facts of this case, it is readily apparent that Mr. Horne did everything within his power to ensure compliance with the law, short of remaining at the job site and directing the operations himself. The question then becomes whether this final effort was required. (emphasis added). [¶30] In contrast, the evidence in the present case indicated that Mr. Austin, Three Sons' principal supervisor on the job site, knew the employees had never seen a trench box or a ladder in their life. When they laid pipe out on the reservation, I soon found out they never  they never used any safety means. Despite its knowledge that the employees knew nothing about trench safety, working around trenches or safety in general, Three Sons took no precautions to ensure that these employees were aware of and understood the requirements of the OSHA excavation safety standards or that they conducted themselves in accordance with them. Unlike Mr. Horne, Three Sons did not do everything in its power to ensure compliance with the law. Rather, without providing any training in excavation safety to ensure these newly hired employees were aware of and understood the OSHA requirements and conducted themselves accordingly, Three Sons allowed them to begin work above a trench that was over seven feet deep without supervision with the ultimate intent of having them work in the trench. Other than the testimony that Mr. Austin instructed them not to enter the trench, the significance of which was brought into question by the evidence that Mr. English allowed the three members of his crew to enter the trench, there was no evidence Three Sons did anything to ensure compliance with the law. [¶31] Brennan, 501 F.2d 1196, is also distinguishable from the case before us. In Brennan, an employee was killed when he took it upon himself to cut the band holding railroad ties in place on the back of a transport truck. The labor secretary contended the violation was foreseeable because the employee was inexperienced and untrained and had been asked to be present at the place of unloading. The Commission rejected the claim primarily on the basis that the employee was not assigned to assist in the unloading process. In concluding the violation was not foreseeable under those circumstances, the Court stated: Where an employee is directly participating in a job, the employer may well, as the Commission noted, have a duty under the Act to instruct him on the safe procedure for handling the job. On the other hand, the Commission accurately recognized that training may be unnecessary for an employee who is wholly disassociated with the operation in question and who would not be foreseeably exposed to danger Id. at 1200. [¶32] In contrast to the employee in Brennan, the employees in the present case were at the excavation site specifically for the purpose of performing work in and around the trench. They were not, therefore, wholly disassociated with the operation in question as the employee in Brennan was and it was foreseeable that they would be exposed to the dangers associated with excavation work. It was undisputed that they had no experience or training in excavation work and no one communicated any safety rules to them before leaving them to begin work around the trench. Given these facts, substantial evidence supported the district court's order affirming the hearing examiner and the order was not arbitrary. [¶33] Affirmed.