Occupational Health and Safety - Research Paper Example

Control Banding Introduction According to DiBerardinis (1999), Occupational health and safety (OHS) Review commission is an independent federal agency mandated with the responsibility of giving both administrative and appeal review of cases concerning the controls on safety and health of products provided. Furthermore, the agency participates in the decisions concerning contests and penalties resulting from Occupation safety and Health Administration in virtually all American places of work. The agency performs two roles in its review functions and its administrative functions are well structured with well-mentioned procedures of; conducting hearings alongside receiving evidence from the aggrieved parties, which are considered by the Administrative Law judges. Reviews are then free consented and conducted by the same Administrative Law judges who at such instances hide themselves as a panel of commissioners. An example is the encouraging meeting held by the Occupational safety and Health Review commission in August 2012 which was meant to enhance efficiency and effectiveness about the frequent resolutions made by the commissions. The meeting was a collusion of experts from different fields apart from being held to get the public opinion about how they operate. The cases heard and determined by the bench of Administrative Law Judges are aimed to among other functions protecting the consumer from exploitation through defending the appropriate safety and health standards on the products provided and employee handling hence control banding (DiBerardinis, 1999). OSH Review Commission Case I & II These cases involve OSHA Update District of Columbia Court of Appeals Rules against OSHA in Recordkeeping Case which is a critical control branding aspect. On 6th April there was a ruling by the district court of Columbia (Johnstone, 2004). The case cited an employee who works as a record keeper; he is accused for not providing a critical record of the employer injustice towards the employees through overlooked injuries and illness on the employees. The decision from this ruling overrules a recently arrived at decision by the Occupational Safety and health Review commission of the case Secretary of Labor v. AKM LLC d/b/a Volks Constructors (2011). This case held that the record keeping section of the company kept going against rules on record keeping, this review was arrived at because the record keeping department kept making inaccurate presentations when called for indicating that they kept virtually inaccurate records. According to Taylor, Easter & Hegney, (2004), the decision by the commission is responsible for the spontaneous impacts, which include that when an injury happens to any of the employees then a recording of the same should be conducted within a shorter period of up to seven working days without which the records will be considered late submissions. When this order is followed well, the Administrative lawyers will have no otherwise but a period of up to six months to present submissions that the records are not kept well or record keeping rules are violated. Such appeals are then not quite important since they reduces the time that the employer will be in the position of identifying the violations in the record keeping rules and procedures by the employees hence not in a position of indicting the agency through their Administrative Law Judges. Section 9(c) of the OSH Act supports this rule that which provides that, “…no citation may be issued… after six months has expired following the happening of a violation of the recording rules and procedures (Johnstone, 2004). It is therefore important to note that OSH administration has consistently left the work of updated record keeping to the employee’s secretaries for the past one year and dating back to five preceding years without always caring to monitor if such records are kept well and only blowing the whistle when there is a violation. This has since prompted the Administrative Law Judges and the OSH Review Commission to continuously uphold the constant violations committed in the process of keeping such records. However, this has been rejected by the ruling commission of the long-lived practice and it has done this by overruling the six month maximum period and it insists that the OSHA is mandated to provide information regarding the records kept and trail whether they are kept correctly to help avoid the case where after the six months limitation period a crisis is created hindering the continuity as may be needed in the work places of the US industries (Johnstone, 2004). Further, the court provided and explanation that it is the role of the employer to always keep the OSHA 300 Log and such an obligation is separate and distinct from that of keeping individuals records in the organization. This distinction narrows down to the sole objective of the commission that is enhanced efficiency and effectiveness for substantial operations of the Labor union in the United States. In actual facts the court stated that the occurrence of the so identified violations as stated in Section 9(c) of the OSH Act always happen only when the employer does not file a required record case within the recommended seven days hence incase such period passes by up to a maximum of six months, the agency will then not be mandated to issuing the afore said citations as they will be rendered null and void. Given the body responsible for the citation of the decision, it is quite significant since the employer is allowed to file a contest awarded to them to a bench of Administrative Law Judges in instances when such employers are issued with citations (Taylor, Easter & Hegney, 2004). Further, in the event that the employer is not satisfied with the lawyer’s verdict, it is free again to petition the judges to a court in Washington D.C so that a review is conducted on the judges’ decisions. In case the review commission refuses to review the decisions by the judges or reviews the claims in a manner suggesting that they are affirming the earlier decisions by the judges, appeals against such can only be undertaken in the Federal Courts of Appeal within the vicinity where the employer conducts their business. Therefore, for any record keeping citations without a satisfactory ruling of the other federal courts, the aggrieved can take the same cases to the D.C circuit as appeals for further reviews (Koren, 1996). Considering cases I & II, we will be presented with the following scenarios; for the OSH Review Commission to have a three judge bench to reconsider a decision made earlier, the agency can refer the case to the D.C for full review or the agency can still petition the Supreme Court in the state to review the case (Johnstone, 2004). In as much as the following options are available at our disposal, they still do not hold any waters and therefore, the agency is forced to make the employers engage in record keeping to ensure that such violations are mitigated. The employers engagement is welcomed in terms of setting rules and overseeing the operation of the established rules given that rule making is not a one day process. Again, it is not subject to the assumption of the employers that the rules established brings to an end the problem of violations of the standards of control banding. This is because rules are likely to fail at some instances in the process of their operations hence strengthening measures have also to be put in place by the same rule makers. For example, if there happens to be a violation in the machine guarding standards, it does not need the employer to wait for a maximum of six months period to remain off machine since the agency will only be responsible of up to six months from the last day when the gadget was not well guarded (Taylor, Easter & Hegney, 2004). Federal Court Case After the Washington D.C found out inevitable evidence of retaliations of the Occupational Safety and Health Review commission verdicts by their administration’s top experts and their most critical personalities on workplace injury and illness records, the federal appeals courts decided to make rulings favoring the agency. The ruling according to the federal court would have the impacts of fully restoring the whistle blowing and tightening the rules making it extremely hard for agencies to harass their internal critics and using such bases as the only way to dismiss them from their organizations (Taylor, Easter & Hegney, 2004). For example, Robert Whitmore had been an OSHA official in charge of recordkeeping for over 25 years. This was before he was put on compulsory leave for more than two years before facing a dismissal in the year 2009 all emanating from harassment. It is in record from the testimonies presented that Whitmore had become extremely vocal in the internal operations specifically in the declining accuracy of the industry reports for employee injuries and illnesses while on-job through the rampant industrial accidents and unhealthy working conditions. On 30th May 2012, the federal courts found faults from the managers’ part as having: - plotted to through out the employee for alleged agency embarrassment; they therefore procured and embellished convincing proofs to validate his removal and ultimately fired Robert for being a loud agitator for human rights in the organization (Taylor, Easter & Hegney, 2004). The removal of the worker in a cold bloody manner was highly accepted by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) while highly condemned by the federal court as arbitrary, capricious and abusive of freedom hence not in line with the law. They argued that the MSPB had overlooked several pieces of evidence in the process of laying down their support for the decision. The federal court therefore recommended the case for consideration of all the available evidence critically scrutinizing the other proceedings used by the supporting parties which were highly inconsistent with their arguments (Koren, 1996). Conclusion The two cases above and the considerations by the federal courts exhibits several characteristics expected at the work places with regards to ethics, safety and health (DiBerardinis, 1999). The policies of the organizations analyzed proved quite stringent and inclined against the employees; on the other hand there exists the government arm which is quite protective towards its citizens in a justifiable manner. The agency is responsible for taking care of the welfare of the employees,’ therefore it cannot be entrusted with that piece of work and specifically, OSH Review Commission is not able to protect the American workers from unethical work malpractices hence cannot be fully allowed to protect workforce from other sectors not until it is in the position of protecting its own staff (Koren, 1996). In addition, OSH has undergone much struggle to try administering the pieces of legislation for the protection of the whistle blowers in the private sector right from the construction sites to prestigious offices. Given the series of evidence above, concerning the retaliatory motives OSH should act in earnest to curb such problems. References DiBerardinis, L. J. (1999). Handbook of occupational safety and health (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Johnstone, R. (2004). Occupational health and safety law and policy: text and materials (2nd ed.). Sydney: Lawbook Co. Koren, H. (1996). Illustrated dictionary of environmental health & occupational safety. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. Taylor, G., Easter, K., & Hegney, R. (2004). Enhancing occupational safety and health. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Read More