Opinion ID: 25991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competent Person to Inspect

Text: To establish a prima facie case of regulatory violation, the Secretary must prove that (1) the standard applies; (2) the employer failed to comply; (3) employees had access to the condition causing the violation; and (4) the employer had actual 5 or constructive knowledge of the violation. See, e.g., N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 88 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir. 1996). Southwestern Bell contends that it complied with the inspection regulation, and thus committed no violation, because a competent person inspected the excavation site. Inspection of an excavation, under § 1926.651(k)(1), requires that a “competent person” inspect the excavation site “prior to the start of work and as needed throughout the shift, as well as after rainfall or other hazard increasing event.” § 1926.651(k)(1). Another regulation further defines a competent person as “one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings, or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.650 (1995). The Commission interpreted those regulations together plainly to require that a competent person must have sufficient authority to remedy violations. The Commission further held that the two non-supervisory workers, Garza and Santana, did not in fact have this authority. The Commission reasoned that, although Santana and Garza “‘shared responsibility’ for safety at the work site, they lacked the requisite authority to abate hazards”, and thus were not competent persons to inspect the specific trench site in the instant case. Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Comm’n Order”), at 4-5 (Sept 27, 2000). 6 In so doing, the Commission rejected Southwestern Bell’s contention that evidence, including the testimony of a Southwestern Bell regional manager that employees could decline unsafe work individually, indicated that Santana and Garza had sufficient authority to remedy exposure to work hazards. The ALJ likewise considered and rejected evidence regarding Santana’s and Garza’s exposure to a training video, which merely asserted that it was designed to ensure that all Southwestern Bell employees were “competent” on safety issues. The Commission took note of the fact that one of the workers called his supervisor, Beck, to report to her that an excavator indicated that the trench would need shoring because it exceeded five feet. The Commission further noted that when Beck then ordered the workers into the trench nonetheless, the workers complied, despite the fact that the trench was never shored. The Commission concluded that if the workers had the requisite authority to abate hazards, they would not have simply returned to work in the potentially unsafe condition. The Commission then confirmed what Southwestern Bell had already conceded, that as the workers’ supervisor, Beck did in fact have such authority, and was thus competent to inspect. See Comm’n Order, at 4-5. It is true that the Commission has found a non-supervisory worker to be of competent status. See, e.g., Sec’y of Labor v. Rawson Contractors, Inc., No. 99-0018, 2000 WL 557314, at  (O.S.H.R.C. May 8, 2000) (finding hourly, non-management employee 7 competent to inspect excavation where employee had “twenty years experience in trenching and excavation operations”). However, the Commission also frequently disqualifies even supervisory workers, such as foremen, from competent status because the Commission will not take authority as a per se qualification to inspect, but interprets that a “competent person” requires something more in the way of special training as to the safety requirements of the task at hand. See, e.g., Sec’y of Labor v. Westar Mech., Inc., Nos. 97-0226, 97-0227, 2000 WL 1182858, at , 6-7 (O.S.H.R.C. Aug. 14, 2000) (finding neither president and owner, nor foreman of company, competent absent their “specific training in”, or knowledge about, “soils analysis” and the “use of protective systems”); Sec’y of Labor v. Bruschi Bros., Inc., No. 96-0681, 1997 WL 580798, at  (O.S.H.R.C. Sept. 17, 1997) (denying “foreman” competent person status to test a fifteen-foot trench). Considering the Commission’s past interpretations of what comprises a competent person for the purpose of inspections, the Commission’s determination here that a competent person required authority to remedy hazards is not unreasonable. Nor can that interpretation be said to be contrary to the Act’s purpose of protecting workers from hazards at work sites. Moreover, the Commission’s finding that neither Santana nor Garza had the requisite authority to abate hazards, and therefore could not conduct inspections as competent persons, is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 8