The OSHRC has vacated four (4) heat-related OSHA citations against the United States Post Office. This decision was based ON LEGAL matters regarding the Feasibility of Abatement of the Hazard. ALL parties agreed to the fact that HEAT CAN BE A HAZARD, but when OSHA issues a GDC Citation, it must provide feasible abatement measures. The ALJ and OSHRC agreed that the abatement measures were not feasible. This decision is one that ALL SAFETY PROFESSIONALS should read as it breaks down the “feasibility” argument of controlling a recognized hazard really well. It is a long read but well worth it. I have removed all the legal references so it is easier to read. Here is the basis of the citations and why they were VACATED.
Between September 2016 and January 2017, OSHA issued five citations to the United States Postal Service, each alleging that it committed a repeat violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), by exposing employees to an “excessive heat” hazard. These citations relate to medical incidents involving a total of seven letter carriers working in five different cities during the summer of 2016. In each incident, the letter carrier began feeling ill while delivering mail and subsequently was treated at a hospital or urgent care clinic. With one exception, the Secretary alleges that each carrier became ill due to excessive heat. The Postal Service contested each citation, resulting in five separate cases, each involving the occurrence of an alleged violation in the following cities
- San Antonio, Texas (Docket No. 16-1713);
- Des Moines, Iowa (Docket No. 16-1813);
- Benton, Arkansas (Docket No. 16-1872);
- Houston, Texas (Docket No. 17-0023); and
- Martinsburg, West Virginia (Docket No. 17-0279)
All five (5) cases were assigned to Administrative Law Judge Sharon D. Calhoun, who held separate hearings for each case, as well as an additional “National Hearing” to hear evidence common to all five cases. The judge did not consolidate the cases for disposition and issued five separate decisions vacating each citation. The Secretary filed a Petition for Discretionary Review applicable to all five cases, and the Postal Service filed a conditional Cross-Petition for Discretionary Review. After the cases were directed for review, the Commission instructed the parties to address the issues raised in their petitions in a single set of briefs.
We hereby consolidate the San Antonio, Benton, Houston, and Martinsburg cases (Docket Nos. 16-1713, 16-1872, 17-0023, 17-0279) because they involve the same parties and overlapping legal and factual issues, and our decision in each case rests on the same rationale with the same outcome.
We vacate all four (4) GDC citations for the reasons discussed below.