The working committee for work environment and health on Friday provided a quote as the level against a refinery company and claimed that an administrative court wrongly stated that the company had constructive knowledge of an offensive condition as a controlling employer in its workplace.  The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected Commerce City, Colorado, a refinery owned by Suncor Energy Inc. in Calgary, Alberta, in response to a complaint that an employee had fallen and received a serious injury, according to judgment in Secretary of Labor v. Suncor Energy Inc. As a result of the inspection, OSHA issued two serious offenses and one other than serious infringement, with a proposed penalty of $ 1
During the fall of 2012, at the time of the alleged damage, Suncor carried out a 30-day suspension at one of its facilities to carry out capital projects, inspections, cleaning and maintenance. Several contractors were involved in the work and none of Suncor's employees worked on the site.
U.S. The Department of Labor claimed that Suncor failed to ensure that the contractor's employees were protected from falling into scaffolding. Although Suncor did not dispute that it was a controlling employer, it claimed that DOL failed to establish that the company had constructive knowledge of the broken state as a controlling employer of a multiple employer employer.
Occupational Safety and Health Review The Commission agreed. The Commission noted that on a multi-employer employer, a controlling employer is responsible for an entrepreneur's infringement if DOL can demonstrate that the controlling employer failed to take reasonable steps to "prevent or detect and reduce the crimes caused by its supervisory authority and control of the work. . "
The Commission noted that the judge found that Suncor failed to exercise reasonable care because he did not exploit the opportunities to" become aware of the condition and prevent the accident. But the Commission noted that the judge failed by focusing on whether Suncor should have known that the security guard at the site was absent rather than knowing that the contractor's employees failed to use personal fall protection. The Court found that it was not an "offensive condition" that it was not an "offensive condition" and that therefore the judge would have judged whether Suncor failed to exercise reasonable caution to establish that no form of fall protection was used.
Similarly, the Commission argued that the Administrative Court wrongly decided that Suncor could have debriefed its contractors to find out other potential breaches imposed by OSHA.
The Commission noted that, given the scale of the project, which involved 250,000 hours of work, Suncor documented more than 350 building brand audits, 408 construction site audits and 524 fall protection audits, issues 16, 13 and 33 infringements. The Commission also found that Suncor provided evidence that coordinated efforts were made to employ only security-conscious entrepreneurs and that its review efforts showed that "Suncor's security efforts were more than proportionate to the size, complexity and short time frame associated with this project."
As a result, the Commission withdrew the referee's decision and left the quote.
Suncor could not be reached for comment.