Last week I shared this OSHRC case as a “cultural example” of how a management team tries to move on from a Safety Manager leaving the facility and their duties were passed on to the HR manager who had no S&H experience or training, so they hire an outside safety consultant to help with LOTO citations from OSHA. This is a technical review of the LOTO citations, Egress citations, and PPE citations. LOTO issues were lack of machine-specific procedures for equipment that had more than one (1) energy source, lack of proper training on procedures, and periodic inspections. The egress issues were labeling EXITs and no labeling doors that did not lead to an exit. The PPE issues were workers wearing PPE from the processing area where chickens were slaughtered into the cafeteria and one instance with torn PPE.
This case does a nice job of explaining many of the considerations that OSHA takes into account when making a citation Willful and/or Repeat.
Respondent operates a poultry processing facility. Both it and a predecessor operating at the same location have a history of violating provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ยง 659(c) (the OSH Act). This matter concerns an inspection of the facility by OSHA that began on March 2, 2016. This investigation led to the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) issuing three Citations on September 2, 2016.
These Citations, as amended, include alleged violations of the lockout/tagout (LOTO) standard. The Secretary alleges, in the alternative, that the LOTO violations should be characterized as willful, repeat or serious. The Citations also allege serious violations of standards related to floor holes, exits, noise exposure, and personal protective equipment (PPE).
Citation 1 includes three separate items and was issued on September 2, 2016. On the same day, Citations 2 and 3, each with multiple separate items. Respondent filed timely notices of contest bringing the matters before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission).
For the reasons discussed, these alleged violations are affirmed: from Docket No. 16-1775, Citation 1, Items 1a, 1b and 1c; and, from Docket No. 16-1731, Citation 2, Item 1; Instances (a) and (e) of Citation 2, Item 3b; Citation 2, Item 4; Citation 2, Items 5a, 5b and 5c; Citation 2, Item 7; and Citation 3, Item 2.
Instance (d) of Citation 2, Item 3b from Docket No. 16-1731, is vacated.
Factual Background