雇主权利和OSHA引用的法律辩护

Thomas Oriet, L. Oriet
{"title":"雇主权利和OSHA引用的法律辩护","authors":"Thomas Oriet, L. Oriet","doi":"10.3844/AJEBASP.2018.31.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Congress placed a statutory duty on the employer and employee to be safe in the workplace, but the courts do not reciprocate this duty onto employees. 1With plant managers understandably unaware of their rights,2  and with governmental tactics to obtain consent for administrative ease,3  a company's threat to litigation may derive from its ignorance of the law. This paper aims to educate employers of their rights and counter-arguments to Secretary of Labor (\"Secretary\") litigation as they seek independent legal counsel. An employer can deny entry of an Occupational Health and Safety Administration (\"OSHA\") inspector lacking a warrant unless the business is in a pervasively regulated industry. The employer may ask for a copy of the warrant and the basis for the warrant and the OSHA inspector must articulate the scope and purpose of the search. An employer may request counsel to accompany the OSHA inspector during the investigation. Upon completion of the inspection, the Secretary or OSHA must issue a citation within six-months. In other words, the date of discovering a violation or when the alleged violation occurred starts the six-month statute of the limitations for a valid citation to be issued. The employer must appeal by notifying the Secretary within 15 business days after receipt of the citation. The Secretary of Labor always bears the initial burden of proving every element of an Occupational Safety and Health Act (\"OSH Act\") violation that resulted from the employer's alleged failed compliance. An employer may raise the Multi-Employer Doctrine to argue it was an employee from another employer that created and controlled the hazard inducing incident. The employer must prove: \"(1) it did not create the violative condition to which its employees were exposed; (2) it did not control the violative condition, so that it could not itself have performed the action necessary to abate the condition as required by the standard; and (3) it took all reasonable alternative measures to protect its employees from the violative condition.\" 4 An employer may argue that the OSH Act compliance is infeasible by demonstrating: \"(1) that compliance with a particular standard either is impossible or will render performance of the work impossible; and (2) that the employer  undertook  alternative  steps  to protect its workers or that no such steps were available.\" 5 To rebut the presumption that the employer bears full responsibility for workplace safety, an employee's isolated and unforeseen misconduct may be held against the employee using the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense. The employer shall need to prove: \"(1) it established work rules or policies  designed  to  prevent the violation;(2) it has adequately communicated these rules to its employees; (3) it has taken steps to discover violations of the work rules; and (4) it has effectively enforced these work rules when violations have been discovered.\"6  An employer can seek a variance proceeding that allows OSHA to preapprove the alternative safety measure before being issued a citation. However, if the alternative private-sector created safety measure appears unable to provide equivalent safety protection as the OSHA standard, then the employer risks receiving a citation after OSHA makes a final determination. The employer relinquishes the option of arguing the Greater Hazard Defense upon requesting a variance proceeding. The Greater Hazard Defense requires the employer to prove: (1) compliance with OSHA standards or guidance would result in a greater hazard to employees, which the standard was designed to prevent, than would noncompliance; (2) the employer took reasonable alternative protective measures, or there are no  alternative means of employee protection; and (3) a variance was unavailable or applying for a variance would have been inappropriate.7 The employer may seek a variance or risk losing the Greater Hazard Defense. An unjustified failure to seek a variance proceeding shall preclude the Greater Hazard Defense; thus, there is no defense when the employer failed to ask for one when appropriate. If an employer can show it could not seek a variance proceeding due to a statue or procedure, then the defense may be raised. An employer should do everything it can to reduce its employees' exposure to reasonably foreseeable hazards to reduce the gravity  of the citation charges, even if the OSHA standard is economically or technically infeasible.","PeriodicalId":169514,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Economics and Business Administration","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Employer Rights and Legal Defenses to OSHA Citations\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Oriet, L. Oriet\",\"doi\":\"10.3844/AJEBASP.2018.31.51\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Congress placed a statutory duty on the employer and employee to be safe in the workplace, but the courts do not reciprocate this duty onto employees. 1With plant managers understandably unaware of their rights,2  and with governmental tactics to obtain consent for administrative ease,3  a company's threat to litigation may derive from its ignorance of the law. This paper aims to educate employers of their rights and counter-arguments to Secretary of Labor (\\\"Secretary\\\") litigation as they seek independent legal counsel. An employer can deny entry of an Occupational Health and Safety Administration (\\\"OSHA\\\") inspector lacking a warrant unless the business is in a pervasively regulated industry. The employer may ask for a copy of the warrant and the basis for the warrant and the OSHA inspector must articulate the scope and purpose of the search. An employer may request counsel to accompany the OSHA inspector during the investigation. Upon completion of the inspection, the Secretary or OSHA must issue a citation within six-months. In other words, the date of discovering a violation or when the alleged violation occurred starts the six-month statute of the limitations for a valid citation to be issued. The employer must appeal by notifying the Secretary within 15 business days after receipt of the citation. The Secretary of Labor always bears the initial burden of proving every element of an Occupational Safety and Health Act (\\\"OSH Act\\\") violation that resulted from the employer's alleged failed compliance. An employer may raise the Multi-Employer Doctrine to argue it was an employee from another employer that created and controlled the hazard inducing incident. The employer must prove: \\\"(1) it did not create the violative condition to which its employees were exposed; (2) it did not control the violative condition, so that it could not itself have performed the action necessary to abate the condition as required by the standard; and (3) it took all reasonable alternative measures to protect its employees from the violative condition.\\\" 4 An employer may argue that the OSH Act compliance is infeasible by demonstrating: \\\"(1) that compliance with a particular standard either is impossible or will render performance of the work impossible; and (2) that the employer  undertook  alternative  steps  to protect its workers or that no such steps were available.\\\" 5 To rebut the presumption that the employer bears full responsibility for workplace safety, an employee's isolated and unforeseen misconduct may be held against the employee using the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense. The employer shall need to prove: \\\"(1) it established work rules or policies  designed  to  prevent the violation;(2) it has adequately communicated these rules to its employees; (3) it has taken steps to discover violations of the work rules; and (4) it has effectively enforced these work rules when violations have been discovered.\\\"6  An employer can seek a variance proceeding that allows OSHA to preapprove the alternative safety measure before being issued a citation. However, if the alternative private-sector created safety measure appears unable to provide equivalent safety protection as the OSHA standard, then the employer risks receiving a citation after OSHA makes a final determination. The employer relinquishes the option of arguing the Greater Hazard Defense upon requesting a variance proceeding. The Greater Hazard Defense requires the employer to prove: (1) compliance with OSHA standards or guidance would result in a greater hazard to employees, which the standard was designed to prevent, than would noncompliance; (2) the employer took reasonable alternative protective measures, or there are no  alternative means of employee protection; and (3) a variance was unavailable or applying for a variance would have been inappropriate.7 The employer may seek a variance or risk losing the Greater Hazard Defense. An unjustified failure to seek a variance proceeding shall preclude the Greater Hazard Defense; thus, there is no defense when the employer failed to ask for one when appropriate. If an employer can show it could not seek a variance proceeding due to a statue or procedure, then the defense may be raised. An employer should do everything it can to reduce its employees' exposure to reasonably foreseeable hazards to reduce the gravity  of the citation charges, even if the OSHA standard is economically or technically infeasible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":169514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Economics and Business Administration\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Economics and Business Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3844/AJEBASP.2018.31.51\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Economics and Business Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3844/AJEBASP.2018.31.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国会对雇主和雇员在工作场所的安全规定了法定义务,但法院并没有回报雇员的这一义务。可以理解的是,由于工厂经理不了解他们的权利,以及政府为了行政便利而采取的策略,一家公司面临诉讼的威胁可能源于它对法律的无知。本文旨在教育雇主他们的权利和反对劳工部长(“秘书”)诉讼,因为他们寻求独立的法律顾问。雇主可以拒绝职业健康与安全管理局(“OSHA”)检查员进入,除非该企业是在一个普遍监管的行业。雇主可以要求获得搜查令的副本和搜查令的依据,OSHA检查员必须阐明搜查的范围和目的。雇主可以要求律师在调查期间陪同OSHA检查员。检查完成后,秘书或OSHA必须在六个月内发出传票。换句话说,从发现违反行为之日或指称违反行为发生之日起,即为发出有效传票的六个月诉讼时效。雇主必须在收到传票后的15个工作日内通知秘书提出上诉。劳工部长总是承担最初的责任,证明因雇主据称未能遵守《职业安全与健康法》而违反《职业安全与健康法》(“OSH法”)的每一个要素。雇主可以提出多雇主原则,辩称是另一雇主的雇员制造并控制了诱发危险的事件。用人单位必须证明:“(一)没有造成其雇员所处的违法条件;(二)对违法情况没有控制,自身不能按照标准的要求采取必要措施减轻违法情况的;(3)采取了所有合理的替代措施来保护其员工免受违规情况的影响。”雇主可以通过证明:“(1)符合某一特定标准是不可能的,或将使工作无法完成;(2)雇主采取了其他措施来保护工人,或者没有这样的措施。”为了反驳雇主对工作场所安全负有全部责任的假设,雇员的孤立和不可预见的不当行为可以用不可预防的雇员不当行为辩护来反对雇员。雇主需要证明:“(1)制定了防止违规行为的工作规则或政策;(2)已将这些规则充分传达给员工;(三)已采取措施发现违反工作制度的行为;(四)发现有违法行为时,有效执行本工作制度。雇主可以寻求变更程序,允许OSHA在发出传票之前预先批准替代安全措施。但是,如果私营部门创建的替代安全措施似乎无法提供与OSHA标准相同的安全保护,那么雇主可能会在OSHA做出最终决定后收到传票。雇主在申请变更程序时放弃争辩大危害防御的选择权。更大危害防御要求雇主证明:(1)遵守OSHA标准或指导将对员工造成更大的危害,而这是该标准旨在防止的;(二)用人单位采取合理的替代保护措施,或者对劳动者没有替代保护措施的;(3)无法获得方差或者申请方差是不合适的雇主可能会寻求变更,否则可能会失去更大危害防御。不合理的未寻求变更程序应排除更大危险防御;因此,当雇主没有在适当的时候提出要求时,就没有理由为自己辩护。如果雇主能够证明,由于法律或程序,它不能寻求变更程序,那么就可以提出抗辩。雇主应该尽其所能减少雇员接触到合理可预见的危险,以减少引证费用的严重性,即使OSHA标准在经济上或技术上是不可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Employer Rights and Legal Defenses to OSHA Citations
Congress placed a statutory duty on the employer and employee to be safe in the workplace, but the courts do not reciprocate this duty onto employees. 1With plant managers understandably unaware of their rights,2  and with governmental tactics to obtain consent for administrative ease,3  a company's threat to litigation may derive from its ignorance of the law. This paper aims to educate employers of their rights and counter-arguments to Secretary of Labor ("Secretary") litigation as they seek independent legal counsel. An employer can deny entry of an Occupational Health and Safety Administration ("OSHA") inspector lacking a warrant unless the business is in a pervasively regulated industry. The employer may ask for a copy of the warrant and the basis for the warrant and the OSHA inspector must articulate the scope and purpose of the search. An employer may request counsel to accompany the OSHA inspector during the investigation. Upon completion of the inspection, the Secretary or OSHA must issue a citation within six-months. In other words, the date of discovering a violation or when the alleged violation occurred starts the six-month statute of the limitations for a valid citation to be issued. The employer must appeal by notifying the Secretary within 15 business days after receipt of the citation. The Secretary of Labor always bears the initial burden of proving every element of an Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSH Act") violation that resulted from the employer's alleged failed compliance. An employer may raise the Multi-Employer Doctrine to argue it was an employee from another employer that created and controlled the hazard inducing incident. The employer must prove: "(1) it did not create the violative condition to which its employees were exposed; (2) it did not control the violative condition, so that it could not itself have performed the action necessary to abate the condition as required by the standard; and (3) it took all reasonable alternative measures to protect its employees from the violative condition." 4 An employer may argue that the OSH Act compliance is infeasible by demonstrating: "(1) that compliance with a particular standard either is impossible or will render performance of the work impossible; and (2) that the employer  undertook  alternative  steps  to protect its workers or that no such steps were available." 5 To rebut the presumption that the employer bears full responsibility for workplace safety, an employee's isolated and unforeseen misconduct may be held against the employee using the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense. The employer shall need to prove: "(1) it established work rules or policies  designed  to  prevent the violation;(2) it has adequately communicated these rules to its employees; (3) it has taken steps to discover violations of the work rules; and (4) it has effectively enforced these work rules when violations have been discovered."6  An employer can seek a variance proceeding that allows OSHA to preapprove the alternative safety measure before being issued a citation. However, if the alternative private-sector created safety measure appears unable to provide equivalent safety protection as the OSHA standard, then the employer risks receiving a citation after OSHA makes a final determination. The employer relinquishes the option of arguing the Greater Hazard Defense upon requesting a variance proceeding. The Greater Hazard Defense requires the employer to prove: (1) compliance with OSHA standards or guidance would result in a greater hazard to employees, which the standard was designed to prevent, than would noncompliance; (2) the employer took reasonable alternative protective measures, or there are no  alternative means of employee protection; and (3) a variance was unavailable or applying for a variance would have been inappropriate.7 The employer may seek a variance or risk losing the Greater Hazard Defense. An unjustified failure to seek a variance proceeding shall preclude the Greater Hazard Defense; thus, there is no defense when the employer failed to ask for one when appropriate. If an employer can show it could not seek a variance proceeding due to a statue or procedure, then the defense may be raised. An employer should do everything it can to reduce its employees' exposure to reasonably foreseeable hazards to reduce the gravity  of the citation charges, even if the OSHA standard is economically or technically infeasible.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信