MIOSHA Civil Case - Research Paper Example

Running Head: OSHA CASE OSHA CASE Name Institution Date OSHA CASE Facts MIOSHA Civil Case On May 24, 1999, a team from a building firm was fitting sewer pipe when an disaster occurred. A worker, a 52-year old pipe layer died as a result of a cave-in. the worker died although rescue workers tried to extricate him from the trench. The fatality occurred in an area that had been excavated and was about 18 feet deep with vertical walls having no guards to protect a cave-in (Aldrich, 1997). The subsequent investigation revealed that the construction firm knew of the likely risk of injury to workers carrying out trenching duties but did not provide adequate trenching support to prevent injury to the workers. Company officials who were at the job site made no efforts to safeguard their employees from the risks. Additionally, they did not give the workers a site free of predictable risks that could result to death or serious bodily injuries (Aldrich, 1997). On March 2, 2000, the firm was provided with 30 citations of breach of the Michigan Occupation Safety and Health Act. These included 12 suspected willful serious breaches, 12 suspected serious breaches and six suspected extra serious breaches. Six of the 12 suspected Willful violations are linked directly to the deaths. The proposed penalties as a result of the violations amounted to $657, 500. The construction firm appealed for 30 civil citations resulting from the case. Consequently, MIOSHA administrative appeal in regard to the civil violations was held in abeyance until the case completion of the case (Aldrich, 1997). The criminal case has been concluded while MIOSHA was left to make a follow up of the civil case. In addition to the employee’s death, there are other cases that have not been concluded in the MIOSHA appeal process (Aldrich, 1997). Issue The issue in this case is whether the construction company violated the Occupation Safety and Health Act by failing to provide enough safety protection in a work place that had obvious risk to their lives. The purpose of the OSHA which was created by the Department of labor is to encourage workers and the employers to minimize workplace hazards and to establish new or enhance the existing safety and health measures. It also aims at offering research in occupational safety and health to create innovative ways of handling occupational safety and health issues. The OSHA establishes separate but independent duties and rights for workers and employers for the realization of improved safety and health conditions. Another important objective of the act is the creation of training programs to increase the number and proficiency of occupational safety and health workers. This is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Act (Fishback & Shawn, 2000). Rule The facts of the case point a violation of the OSHA stipulations. According to OSHA, if a party is found guilty of violation of the act the corresponding penalties apply. There are various types of violations that may be cited in a case as well as the fines. One of the violations cited is referred to as Other Than Serious Violation. This is a breach that has a direct connection with job safety and health, but is unlikely to lead to death or serious bodily harm. The proposed penalty for this violation is about $7,000 for every violation. A penalty for an other-than serious breach may be reduced by as much as 95 percent, based on the employer’s good faith. Good faith of the employer is described as the situation where the employer makes some efforts to comply with the Act’s stipulations. Other issues that are taken into account include history of previous breaches and size of the firm. When the penalty after adjustment amounts to a figure which is less than $100, no penalty is given (Taylor, 2005). The other type of violation is the serious violation. This is a breach that shows a significant likelihood that death or serious bodily harm could result and that the employer knew of the situation or should have known of the risk. A compulsory penalty of up to $7,000 for each breach is proposed. A penalty for a serious breach may be reduced based on the employer’s good faith. Other issues considered include history of previous violations, the extent of the alleged violation and the size of the company (Taylor, 2005). Willful Violation is another type of violation. This is a violation where the employer deliberately commits or commits with plain unresponsiveness of the law. The employer is either aware that what he is doing constitutes a violation or is aware that a risky condition existed and failed to make reasonable efforts to minimize or eliminate them. Penalties of up to $70,000 may be given for every willful breach with a minimum penalty of $5,000 for every breach. A proposed penalty for a willful violation may be reduced, based on the size of the company and its history of earlier violations (Fishback & Shawn, 2000). In this form of violation no credit is given for good faith. This is because there is no possibility of a good faith when one is committing a willful violation. If an employer is found guilty of a willful violation of a standard that has caused a fatality of a worker, the offense is punishable by a court ordered fine or by imprisonment of a maximum six months or both. A fine of a maximum of $250,000 for an individual or $500, 000 for a company, may be imposed for a criminal conviction (Taylor, 2005). Analysis The occupational safety and Health Act (OSHA) is the fundamental national law that controls occupational health and safety in the private sector and federal government. The main objective of the Act is to ensure that employers provide safe working environments for their workers which are free from predictable hazards such as exposure to poisonous chemicals (Smith, 2007). According to the facts of the case, the construction company was involved in two types of violations: serious violation and willful violation. Being a construction company, the employer should have been aware of the risks involved in the construction process. The employer should have known the risks involved particularly in the fitting of sewer pipes. A compulsory penalty of up to $7, 000 is proposed for each violation classified under this category. The penalty could also be adjusted if the employer showed ‘good faith’ in the course of the violation. In the case, there should be no adjustment on the penalty because the employer did not show any signs of good faith. In addition, the employer had previous other cases of violation of the Act while the firm was large enough to provide appropriate safety measures (Smith, 2007). The company was also involved in willful violation of the Act. This is a type of violation where the employer deliberately commits or commits a violation with plain unresponsiveness of the law. The employer in the case was aware that failing to provide the appropriate safety measures for the workers working in such a site was a violation of the law. The fact of the case indicated that company officials were at the site before the accident but made no efforts to protect their employees from the risks (Fishback & Shawn, 2000). The officials also failed to give the employees a work place free of recognizable hazards that could lead to serious physical injuries or even death. All these actions constitute a willful violation of the stipulations of the Act. This is because the construction company did not make any reasonable efforts to minimize or eliminate them. The penalties to this type of violation are a minimum penalty of $5, 000 for every violation with the maximum penalty being $50, 000. Although these penalties can be adjusted on the lower side depending on the size of the company and its earlier violations, the act of good faith is not considered. The company was also guilty of violation of a standard that caused the death of the 52-year old worker. It failed to provide the appropriate safety measures to prevent the collapse of walls knowing very well that the employee was working in an area enclosed by vertical walls. This violation carried a penalty of a maximum of $500, 000 because this is a corporation (Mendeloff, 1979). Conclusion OSHA has quoted penalties for various industries and firms as a result of infringement of the OSHA rules and policies. The rules and regulations have been put in place in order to reduce accidents, deaths and various other work related issues. Many times, many companies do not comply with the stipulations and thus find that they are answerable to OSHA. The coverage of OSHA covers all employers and their employees under federal government jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is provided directly by federal OSHA or through programs that have been put in place by OSHA. The act thus applies to employers and employees in various fields including manufacturing, construction, agriculture and law (Mendeloff, 1979). The construction company was found guilty of violating the OSHA act and was served accordingly with 30 citations of violation of the act. The violations mentioned were 12 suspected willful serious infringements, 12 alleged serious breaches and six suspected additional serious violations. Six of the 12 willful violations were connected directly with the deaths. There was no consideration for a show of good faith and thus the penalties given were fair. Both the criminal cases against the company as well as the civil suits should be determined in accordance to the stipulations of the Act (Mendeloff, 1979). References Aldrich, M. (1997). Safety First: Technology, Labor and Business in the Building of Work Safety, 1870-1939. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Fishback, P. & Shawn K. (2000). A Prelude to the Welfare State: The Origins of Workers' Compensation. New ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Mendeloff, J. (1979). Regulating Safety: An Economic and Political Analysis of Occupational Safety and Health Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press, Smith, Sandy. "Kennedy, Murray, Woolsey Relaunch the Protecting America's Workers Act." Occupational Hazards. April 26, 2007 Taylor, B. (2005). "Understanding OSHA and Safety and Health Regulations." In Effective Environmental, Health, and Safety Management: Using the Team Approach. Bill Taylor, ed. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Read More