Rely on Occupational Safety & Health ReporterSM for full news coverage and documentation of federal and state workplace safety and health programs, standards, legislation,...
A Georgia HVAC contractor whose employee died after falling through a skylight has asked a federal appeals court to review a ruling that it willfully violated a fall protection standard.
Petitioner Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc., plans to contest the willful classification of the violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.501(b)(4)(i), for failing to to protect employees from falls through holes, attorney Andrew N. Gross, counsel for the company, told Bloomberg BNA June 19.
Martin Mechanical filed the petition for review in the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The appeals court hasn’t set a briefing schedule ( Martin Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor , 11th Cir., No. 17-12643, 6/12/17 ).
A construction company hired Martin Mechanical to remove a heating, ventilation and air conditioning system and install a new one on the roof of a warehouse at a car dealership in Athens, Ga. Eight skylights covered in dirty plastic coating were on the low-sloped metal roof, which was 15 feet above the ground. The company sent a three-person team to complete the project, which brought the workers within two to five feet of the skylights, according to testimony.
On Nov. 30, 2015, an employee using an electric-powered saw on the roof lost his balance after the saw caught on the metal roofing material, according to a coworker. The employee fell through the skylight and later died at a hospital.
None of the three employees had been wearing fall protection.
Administrative Law Judge Heather A. Joys of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission rejected the company’s arguments that the violation resulted from unpreventable employee misconduct and wasn’t willful. She assessed a $49,00 penalty.
She ruled that although the company had written fall protection rules that required guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems when working around holes, and distributed these rules to employees, it “did little to ensure employees understood those rules.”
The foreman at the worksite had received OSHA fall protection training 12 years prior to the accident and could not remember whether the training addressed skylights, according to his testimony.
He “was aware the installation work would place the crew on the roof of the building at a height of approximately 15 feet. He was aware the work placed the crew near the skylights and he knew of the hazard the skylights posed,” Joys wrote. “Yet he took no meaningful steps to ensure the crew was protected from falling either off the edge of the roof or through the skylights.”
The ALJ incorrectly found that the violation was willful rather than serious, according to Gross.
“The foreman was confused and didn’t realize fall protection was necessary at the jobsite,” Gross said. “So can you really have a willful violation, which, above a serious violation, requires heightened awareness the violative conduct is illegal, and conscious disregard of OSHA regulations or plain indifference to safety?”
Joys had imputed the foreman’s knowledge of the hazard to the company and affirmed the willful classification.
If the foreman “honestly believed fall protection wasn’t needed, then as a matter of law this isn’t a willful citation,” Gross said.
The Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, represents the secretary.
Andrew N. Gross, LLC, Atlanta, represents Martin Mechanical.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lars-Eric Hedberg in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Rachael Daigle at email@example.com
The petition for review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Martin Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor is available at http://src.bna.com/pYD.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)