Opinion ID: 200140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Citation 1 — Failure to Train

Text: 13 Congress enacted the OSH Act to reduce employment-related injury and illness. See 29 U.S.C. § 651. To that end, the Act places primary responsibility on employers — that is, those who oversee and control the work environment — to achieve compliance with its standards and ensure a safe workplace. See S.Rep. No. 91-1282, at 9 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5177, 5186 (Employers have primary control of the work environment and should insure that it is safe and healthful.). Thus, under the Act, an employer must comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2), and, if no applicable standards exist, furnish to each of his employees ... a place of employment which [is] free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. Id. § 654(a)(1). 14 For further guidance, Congress provided OSHA with authority to promulgate occupational safety and health standards by regulation. Id. § 655. Pursuant to this authority, the agency has issued two types of standards. The first, known as the general industry standards, see 29 C.F.R. pt. 1910, act as a default set of standards. In addition, OSHA has presented various sets of standards applicable only to certain industries. The agency has promulgated a set of such industry-specific standards for the implementation of the OSH Act in the construction industry. 2 See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1926. These regulations are applicable to any place of employment where construction work is performed. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12(a). 15 The construction-industry standard applicable to MCC's first citation provides: The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or injury. 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2). The citation against MCC specifically charged that employees were not adequately trained in rigging methods. In order to establish a violation of an [OSH Act] standard, the Secretary must show: (a) the applicability of the cited standard; (b) the employer's non-compliance with the standard; (c) employee access to the violative condition; and (d) the employer's actual or constructive knowledge of the violation. Modern Cont'l/Obayashi, 196 F.3d at 279. MCC challenges the Commission's order with respect to the failure-to-train citation on both legal and factual grounds. 16 MCC argues first that, as a matter of law, the citation is defective because there is no rigging standard established by OSHA and that improper rigging is not one of the hazards contemplated by § 1926.21(b)(2). According to MCC, the true hazard in this case is the danger of a falling load, a hazard that is already covered by a separate regulation and that cannot be completely eliminated by training in alternate rigging methods. 17 MCC interprets the protections of the Act far too narrowly. The training regulation in question provides in general terms that employers must instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions. 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2). The purview of the regulation is not limited to training for hazards expressly identified by OSHA regulation. The Commission has stated that [u]nder § 1926.21(b)(2), an employer must instruct its employees in the recognition and avoidance of those hazards of which a reasonably prudent employer would have been aware. Capform, Inc., 19 OSHC (BNA) 1374, 1376 (O.S.H.R.C.2001), aff'd, 34 Fed. Appx. 152 (5th Cir.2002). Similarly, the regulation does not require only such training as will completely eliminate hazards; it also requires training in the avoidance and control of dangerous conditions. 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2). Therefore, as a legal matter, it is of no moment that OSHA has not prescribed a specific rigging standard. Rather, the question is whether a reasonably prudent employer would have been aware of the hazard arising from the failure to train in proper rigging methods. Notably, MCC does not claim that a reasonable employer would not have been aware of the dangers inherent in failing to train employees in the safe rigging of loads. Nor does MCC claim that such training departs from standards in the industry. Thus, we conclude that the failure-to-train citation stands on a solid legal foundation. 18 MCC also challenges the factual basis for the ALJ's decision, arguing that the record clearly demonstrates that MCC gave adequate training in proper rigging methods. According to MCC, training in safe rigging was taught on an on-the-job basis by other laborers and journeymen. 19 In concluding that MCC did not satisfy the training requirements under § 1926.21(b)(2), the ALJ weighed the evidence presented by MCC against the evidence presented by the Secretary. Interestingly, both sides arrived at the same conclusion: MCC employees received little or no training on how to rig loads that could not be rigged horizontally. For instance, the testimony of three high-ranking MCC employees, Foremen Cappuccio and Pezzano and Wayne Rice (Rice), MCC's vice-president of corporate safety, admitted that hoisting a load vertically was not recommended because it was less stable and more difficult than lifting a load horizontally. Yet, none of these witnesses could identify any form of employee training in alternate methods. In addition, the ALJ heard testimony from a former MCC employee, Scott Collins, who did not recall ever receiving any training in rigging for small access holes, loose bundles, or vertical loads. 20 The foregoing demonstrates that the ALJ's decision was amply supported by substantial evidence in the record. And since MCC has not provided any compelling evidence to the contrary, we affirm the ALJ's conclusion as to the failure-to-train citation.