Occupational Safety & Health Administration - Assignment Example

Assignment in Law Question The standards associated with the 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105(a) principally protects the safety needs of workforce, within the workplace, from any hazardous condition erupting due to faulty infrastructure or usage of any harmful equipment or chemical in absence of appropriate protective measures (United States Department of Labor, 2014). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is accountable to look after the safety measures of the companies, especially in the warehousing and manufacturing industries, to establish effective classification of the regulations within the United States. According to the basic principles of mandates under the standards of 29CFR, organizations are liable to provide safety nets when the workers have to complete their tasks, at least 25 feet above the ground or water surface. More significantly, these standards are also applicable while the surface may exist in the form of using ladders, temporary floors, catch platforms and other impractical surfaces, above 25 feet height (Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1997). In relation to the case scenario of Able Roofing Company, Mrs. Robinson, the owner of Able may be held liable in case of any accidental event causing trauma and suffering to the labor(s), due to the inappropriate infrastructure in accordance with the OSHA 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105(a) standards. In order to avoid any issue caused by the occurrence of accidental events, the owner, Mrs. Robinson should be highly focused on compliance with the principles and policies associated with the OSHA standards. In this regard, of the workers operating on the metal roof, which is 40 feet above the ground surface, with no safety nets, can lead to major issues in terms of accidental risks, for the owner and the company as well. The owner of the company should therefore be highly focused on the renovation of the steel roofing infrastructure, as it may violate the required guiding principles of the 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105(a) that emphasizes the importance of providing safety nets if the height of the roof is above 25 feet from the ground surface. Question 2 With an in-depth understanding of the case, it can be clearly identified that the general contractor and the subcontractor, who were being hired by the small manufacturing plant of Georgia, lacked to provide adequate safety to the demolition workers. The concern related to the avoidance or inappropriate measures for the workers involving, hazardous conditions might further impose major legal issues for the organization. The inspection process made by the OSHA inspector also identified a number of aspects that violated the principle of Walking-Working Surface of the working environment as proscribed under the regulation of 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1). To be noted in this regard, the principle of Walking-Working Surfaces in the standard of 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1) applies to each permanent space of employment, apart from the domestic or agricultural places that might cause physical injury to any of the individuals in the workplace (1United States Department of Labor, 2014). In order to avoid the consequences from any issue associated with the standard of 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1), the president or the board members of the manufacturing company should focus on appropriate selection of the contractors while making demolition of firm or any renovation activities. Although the selection of contractors with lowest responsible bid can save a huge financial cost, the functions performed by the local workers can also raise major issues relating to the safety of the working environment in the organization. Furthermore, the appointment of local subcontractors in the demolition process has least concern in response to the negative impacts that might cause hazardous situations for any individual working in the organization. According to the observation of the scenario, it has been witnessed that the subcontractor, neither provided respirators to the demolition workers, nor did he prepare any clear space within the demolition process. In this circumstance, it is obvious to raise major issues relating to the safety of the workers. Therefore, the president of the manufacturing organization is highly recommended to appoint contractors, who can protect the workplace, taking preventive measures to protect from hazardous conditions in the demolition process, and accordingly, ensure appropriate equipment usage that can reduce the impacts on the manufacturing workers. Question 3 As revealed in the case, the situation details about the fact associated with violating the standards of 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(5) and 1910.266(d)(6)(ii). The standard of 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(5) generally details about the environmental conditions that might cause hazardous conditions for the workers. According to this particular standard, the functioning of the organizations dealing with performing works in natural environment are likely to be terminated in terms of any dangerous environmental conditions. Moreover, the organizations involved these types of working activities must strive to protect workers from strong winds, electrical storms that might affect the fall of trees and heavy rain or snow-fall apart from other environmental conditions. In this regard, the standard imposes major accountability risks to the organizations concerning its responsibility to protect employees from hazardous environmental conditions while performing their job roles (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2014). Similarly, the standard noted under 1910.266(d)(6)(ii) also states that the working area shall be assigned in an appropriate location, where the trees cannot fall down into the specific area, occupied by the adjacent. The organizations must therefore assign workers apart from at least two tree lengths. The distance amidst the working area occupied by the adjacent should also reflect the degree of slope along with the height of the trees along with soil structure and different other hazardous factors that are reasonably anticipated within the working area (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2014). In relation to the case of a national timber company, it can be recommended that compliance with the regulatory principles of 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(5) and 1910.266(d)(6)(ii) is highly essential for the company to prevent issues that might be caused due to the hazardous conditions prevailing in the environment. In this regard, Montana State Forester should highly focus on delivering precautious information to each individual worker involved in the logging activities, especially while a hazardous condition of the environment is anticipated. Moreover, the foresters of the state should also need to incorporate and emphasize the prerequisite information to the workers, such as mandatory distance to be maintained or appropriate knowledge about the surface area, when assigning job roles to the logging workers. Question 4 Based on the observation in this case, the death of uncle of a Mexican worker can be observed to become subjected to claims against the electroplating company grounded on the terms of 29 CFR 1910, 146(a) standards. This particular section contains adequate requirements for procedures and practices of the organizations to protect employees from different working hazards. The section also tends to detail about the protection of workers in general industry, from various types of hazardous situations, arising due to inappropriate measures taken to work in confined spaces. However, it is noteworthy that in this section of the OSHA standard does not protect employees from construction and agriculture and shipyard industries (1Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2014). In relation to the incident that took place in the electroplating company, it can be stated that inappropriate compliance of providing training to each employee led the worker face such hazardous conditions. The owner of the company therefore, can be considered as the primary responsible of the accident. Notably, the automated cleaning facility of the liquid cyanide tanks should have been clearly communicated by the owner to each individual member within the company. Lack in providing training to the workers to effectively perform operational activities, summed up with deficiencies in the operation management functions, can also be considered as the major causes leading to the hazardous accident. In addition, the inappropriate hiring processes of the workers, that is, without examining their capabilities and skills, may be considered as a major factor leading to such a hazardous condition. In relation to the operational functions of the company, the job roles of each individual worker can be observed to involve major risks that contributed to injuries in consequence. Therefore, the owner of the electroplating company should highly focus on providing clear precaution in order to protect workers from different hazardous conditions. Question 5 OSHA provides a number of effective principles and regulations for encouraging health and safety in the modern restaurant business industry. In order to ensure adequate compliance with the standards and policies, the OSHA officials are often observed to inspect restaurants and take necessary decisions in case of any non-compliance with the regulations. The major requirements in the OSHA regulation for restaurant business generally involve few major categories encompassing different operational functions to be performed within the restaurant (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2010). Ensuring compliance with the regulations, especially those related to floor management, is one of the primary factors for the OSHA principles. Correspondingly, the restaurant must strive to maintain the floors clean and dry to prevent slip-and-fall injuries of the staff members and customers. The use of quality based floor mats that can prevent the fall down of any individuals may be useful in this regard. Moreover, the requirement associated with food handling is also identified as a key factor in the OSHA regulatory guidelines. In this context, the restaurant must ensure that the food items are maintain at appropriate hygiene standards and processed with adequate care, preventing the use of contaminated foods that might lead to cause physical harm to the consumers. Adequate cleanliness of the staff members along with their food processing functions is also a major consideration of the OSHA requirements. References Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. (1997). Secretary of Labor v. Anderson Excavating and Wrecking Company. Retrieved from http://www.oshrc.gov/decisions/pdf_1997/92-3684.pdf Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2010). A menu for protecting the health and safety of restaurant workers. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/dte/grant_materials/fy10/sh-20864-10/rest_worker_manual.pdf Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2014). Logging operations. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9862 1Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2014). Permit-required confined spaces. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9797 1United States Department of Labor. (2014). Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9714 United States Department of Labor. (2014). Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=10668&p_table=STANDARDS Read More