قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The Commission of Inquiry confirms repeated fall protection

The Commission of Inquiry confirms repeated fall protection



A judge in the Administrative Court of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission on Tuesday confirmed a repeated quote to a construction company for not providing fall protection to a worker.

An incident in 2019 in which a worker was preparing to pour concrete approximately 20 meters above the ground without fall protection resulted in a referral to Turner Constriction Inc. in Naples, Florida. It was two years after the company was found to have violated the same occupational health and safety standard of fall protection when a worker was exposed to a 13-foot fall risk without protection, according to documents in Secretary of Labor v. Turner Construction Inc. in Naples filed in Washington.

Following an inspection in 201

9, an OSHA safety and health representative issued a referral claiming a repeated breach of the standard requiring employers to provide employee fall protection while working on an area more than six meters above the next lower level . OSHA proposed a $ 20,420 penalty.

Turner Construction, in disputing the citation, alleged employee conduct, according to documents.

The judge in the administrative court agreed and wrote in Tuesday's decision that "the post reveals that Turner Construction did not have, enforce, or effectively communicate any specific rule, aimed at preventing the alleged infringement" and that even if a business executive "testified that his employees had taken fall protection courses after the previous violation, he provided no evidence that any relevant specific fall protection work rule was communicated to

The judge added that "instead, the evidence presented at the trial shows that there were no fall protection systems in the workplace" , adding that "Turner Construction failed to demonstrate that it effectively applied any rules or disciplined any employee when the alleged infringement occurred."

The judge reduced the fine to $ 10,210 due to the small size of the company, according to d


Source link