An administrative judge confirmed a quote that was received against a construction company for violating the law on occupational safety and health, but reduced the associated fines for participation in a site inspection program.
In Secretary of Labor v. All Wall Builders LLC the judge held that East Syracuse, New York-based All Wall Builders LLC had committed a serious breach of security against the OSH Protection against Fall Protection Act in a decision that was released Monday.
On August 29, 2017, a security officer in the US Security and Health Authority followed potential violations of the OSH law at a construction site in Cooperstown, New York, where all wall workers installed metal plates on a building roof.
The OSHA inspector claimed that employees were working on a surface greater than six feet in height with an unprotected edge without using a proper personal fall protection. Although the roof workers who helped with the truss installation had bags, the inspector said that at least two employees were not tied to anything, even when they came directly to the roof edge to get a guide as a pulley lifted mechanically. The inspector also claimed that two unlinked employees crossed the cabin over the roof. One of the employees admitted that he "probably" didn't get hooked up after changing places or maybe forgot to attach his keyband to the fall protection system. As a result, the administrator judge found that the workers were exposed to the danger.
The judge also found that All Wall had knowledge that the workers were exposed to the danger. The investigator showed evidence that two supervisors were in the workplace the day the alleged risk was registered, and that the company's president was present at the inspection day, driving a forklift and steering the raising of his frames on the roof.
While the president testified that he did not know that employees were unplugged to the roof, the judge found that he failed to explain why the prime minister did not realize that the workers' harness was not attached to the fall protection system. Although the judge did not believe the president was cautiously ignoring the lack of fall protection, he noted that no supervisor had been assigned to take reasonable steps to monitor the security and that the president failed to carefully and critically scrutinize security measures on judges
The verdict also dismissed All Wall's argument that unfair workers' maladministration led to the infringement and argued that even if the working rule was effectively communicated, the company did not provide evidence that the inspected breach of security or that there were consequences for infringements.
As a result, the judge confirmed the quote. After the company agreed to participate in a voluntary state inspection program and followed up on recommendations for further training, he reduced the proposed penalty by $ 1
The lawyers for all wall builders refused to comment on the decision.