Opinion ID: 709014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction Regulations

Text: 22 The OSH Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to establish safety and health standards, which are binding on employers. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 655. Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary has promulgated the Occupational Safety and Health Standards, also known as the general industry standards. 29 C.F.R. Part 1910. 1 In addition, the Secretary has adopted several industry-specific standards, including the construction safety standards under which ACR was cited: 23 The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter are adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6 of the Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged in construction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and places of employment of each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with the appropriate standards prescribed in this paragraph. 24 Id. Sec. 1910.12(a). Under this regulatory scheme, the general industry standards apply unless they are preempted by specific industry standards. 2 See generally Brock v. Cardinal Indus., 828 F.2d 373, 376 (6th Cir.1987). 25 If the construction industry standards are to apply--as the Commission found here--ACR must have been engaged in construction work. The starting point for determining whether ACR met this requirement is 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(b), which provides, For purposes of this section, Construction work means work for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating.ACR argues that its activities at the Mid-West site were merely ancillary to the bare-rental lease, and thus did not constitute construction work. See Brief for ACR at 33. This might be a stronger argument if ACR had merely sold or leased the crane, without providing repair services, or if the repair services had been de minimis. Clearly, there are circumstances under which a provider of equipment has such a tenuous connection to the ongoing construction work in a project that it cannot reasonably be held to be engaged in work for construction. But here, the Commission specifically found that by providing mechanic services on an ongoing and regular basis, ACR engaged in activities which were inextricably linked to the construction project in question. OSHRC Decision at 4. In so finding, the Commission located ACR's activities squarely within a line of cases which have found similar activities to fall within the definition of construction work. See, e.g., Beatty Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 577 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1978) (leasing and erecting scaffolding on construction site); Heede International, Inc., 2 O.S.H.Cas. (BNA) 1466 (OSHRC 1975) (dismantling of crane on construction site); West Allis Lime & Cement Co., 2 O.S.H.Cas. (BNA) 1453 (OSHRC 1974) (delivery of material to construction site). We find, therefore, that the Commission's conclusion that ACR was engaged in construction work was not an abuse of discretion. 26 The second question is whether the Mid-West worksite was ACR's place[ ] of employment. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a). ACR points to Reich v. Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., 3 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1993), a case in which the court found that an engineering firm which had given faulty advice which led to the collapse of part of a building under construction could not be held liable under the construction industry regulations of Sec. 1910.12. The court in Simpson said: 27 [W]e do not think that the WPI construction site is a place[ ] of employment which [the firm] had a duty under OSHA to protect. In our opinion, adoption of the Secretary's interpretation would expand the meaning of the phrase places of employment beyond any reasonable boundaries. 28 Id. at 5 (footnote omitted). 29 However, the Simpson decision was based principally on the fact that the engineering firm had no employees at the actual construction site. Id. Therefore, Simpson does not suggest to us any cause to depart from the plain language of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a)--namely, that the place where an employee works is a place of employment. The fact that Mid-West's employees also worked (or even predominated) at the construction site makes it no less a place of employment for ACR's repairman, Paisley. See Baroid Division of NL Indus., Inc. v. OSHRC, 660 F.2d 439, 445-46 (10th Cir.1981) (independent company could be penalized for exposing its employee to hazards at a worksite controlled by another employer). 30 In sum, because ACR was engaged in construction work, and because the worksite was a place of employment for ACR, the Commission properly applied the construction industry standards of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12.