By: Brent I. ClarkJames L. Curtis, Kay R. Bonza, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth SynopsisThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has initiated a Site-Specific Targeting 2016 (SST-16) Program using the injury and illness information electronically submitted by employers to initiate OSHA inspections.  OSHA Directive No. 18-01, CPL 02, effective October 16, 2018.

In its news release about the Site-Specific Targeting 2016 Program, OSHA indicated that it “will target high injury rate establishments in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors for inspection.”  The agency will then perform comprehensive inspections of employers who are selected for Program.  For CY 2016, OSHA required employers to electronically submit Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) by December 15, 2017. The deadline for submitting the 300A data for CY 2017 was July 1, 2018, though OSHA indicted that employers may still provide this information to the database.

The SST-16 indicates that “OSHA will create inspection lists of establishments with elevated Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate, together with a random sample of establishments that did not provide the required 2016 Form 300A data to OSHA.”  The inspection cycles are generated using software that randomly selects the establishments from among those that fall into the categories above. According to OSHA, the purpose of including non-responding employers on the inspection list is to deter employers from failing to report their injury and illness information in order to avoid inspection.  Similarly, OSHA will select a sample of low DART rate establishments to verify the reliability of the 300A data being submitted to the agency.  The scope of the inspection will be comprehensive, and not simply limited to recordkeeping practices or potentially hazardous areas or operations that caused an elevated DART rate.  Employers who have received a comprehensive safety or health inspection within 36 months of the creation of the SST-16 inspection list will not be inspected again.

Going forward, establishments with 250 or more employees that are currently required to keep OSHA injury and illness records, and establishments with 20-249 employees that are classified in specific industries with historically high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses, will be required to electronically submit their 300A forms to OSHA each year by March 2.

In the SST-16, OSHA clearly lays out how the agency plans to use the injury and illness data it now electronically collects from employers.  Given the tangible impact the data will have on programmed OSHA inspections, employers are advised to take a proactive approach to monitor and address patterns in their injury and illness rates and should take care to ensure they are submitting accurate records to OSHA.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Mark A. Lies, II,  Brent I. ClarkAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  OSHA has just issued a Standard Interpretation clarifying the Obama-era guidance that prohibited incentive programs and circumscribed post-incident drug testing;  “Clarification of OSHA’s Position on Workplace Safety Incentive Programs and Post-Incident Drug Testing Under 29 C.F.R. §1904.35(b)(1)(iv).”

We previously blogged about OSHA’s 2016 retaliation regulation and associated guidance, which had explained examples of post-accident drug-testing and safety incentive as instances of unlawful retaliation.  OSHA’s 2016 retaliation rule left employers uncertain about what programs were permissible and whether they would face citations for long-standing safety programs aimed at encouraging safe behaviors and reducing injury rates.

  1. OSHA’s Revised Perspective is Apparent in the New Standard Interpretation

OSHA’s new Standard Interpretation intends to “to clarify the Department’s position that [the rule] does not prohibit workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing. The Department believes that many employers who implement safety incentive programs and/or conduct post-incident drug testing do so to promote workplace safety and health.”  The Interpretation explains that “evidence that the employer consistently enforces legitimate work rules (whether or not an injury or illness is reported) would demonstrate that the employer is serious about creating a culture of safety, not just the appearance of reducing rates.”

Post-incident drug testing policies and safety incentive programs will be considered retaliatory and unlawful only where they seek “to penalize an employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness rather than for the legitimate purpose of promoting workplace safety and health.”  Properly formulated and lawful post-incident drug testing policies and safety incentive programs will be permitted and will not result in OSHA citations.

  1. OSHA Permits Consistent Post-Incident Drug Testing Policies

For years, OSHA’s position on post-incident drug testing confounded employers, and employers faced complicated questions in the hours following workplace safety incidents.  The Standard Interpretation clarifies that “most instances of workplace drug testing are permissible,” including:

  • “Random drug testing”;
  • “Drug testing unrelated to the reporting of a work-related injury or illness”;
  • “Drug testing under a state workers’ compensation law”;
  • “Drug testing under other federal law, such as a U.S. Department of Transportation rule”; and
  • “Drug testing to evaluate the root cause of a workplace incident that harmed or could have harmed employees.  If the employer chooses to use drug testing to investigate the incident, the employer should test all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just employees who reported injuries.”

Accordingly, employers may lawfully implement, random drug testing programs, DOT drug testing programs, drug testing programs under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and post-incident (also “post-accident”) drug-testing programs.  Post-incident drug testing should be conducted consistently on any employee whose conduct may have contributed to the accident, and not merely the employee who was injured in an accident.  For example, if a forklift operator collides with a pedestrian and injures the pedestrian, both the operator and pedestrian should be drug tested.  OSHA reiterates that employers may not use a post-injury drug testing program, which the Agency views as retaliatory and also exposes employers to worker’s compensation retaliation tort claims.

  1. OSHA Permits Safety Incentive Programs

The Standard Interpretation reverses course on the 2016 retaliation regulation’s prohibition of safety programs.  With limited adjustments, OSHA now permits employers to bring back reporting-based safety programs, which the Standard Interpretation lauds as an “important tool to promote workplace safety and health.”  The Standard Interpretation permits a program which offers a prize or bonus at the end of an injury-free month.  OSHA’s new position thus permits employers to bring back cash bonuses or the much-maligned monthly pizza party.  The Standard Interpretation also permits programs that evaluate managers based on their work unit’s lack of injuries.

However, to lawfully implement such a safety program, the employer must implement “adequate precautions” to ensure that employees feel free to report an injury or illness and are not discouraged from reporting.  According to OSHA, a mere statement that employees are encouraged to report and will not face retaliation is insufficient.  Employers need to undertake their choice of additional “adequate precautions,” such as:

  • “An incentive program that rewards employees for identifying unsafe conditions in the workplace;”
  • “A training program for all employees to reinforce reporting rights and responsibilities and emphasizes the employer’s non-retaliation policy;” or
  • “A mechanism for accurately evaluating employees’ willingness to report injuries and illnesses.”

The Standard Interpretation thus permits and encourages safety incentive programs that reward employees for identifying unsafe conditions in the workplace.  A second precaution, a brief training on reporting illnesses and injuries, would be simple for employers to conduct and add to onboarding for new hires.  The “mechanism for accurately evaluating employees willingness to report” could be a regularly scheduled, random questionnaire on employee willingness to report injuries and illnesses.  Accordingly, if employers adopt these low-burden precautionary measures, they may bring back or now adopt safety programs that are popular and effective at reducing workplace injury rates.

For related information on drug testing requirements, we had blogged on the recent Department of Transportation (DOT) final rule amending its drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation TeamLabor & Employment, or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Last week, Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill No. 2334, Occupational Injuries and Illness, Employer Reporting Requirements, and Electronic Submission.

A six-month statute of limitations period currently applies to all citations issued under Cal/OSHA. Assembly Bill 2334 will allow the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), starting January 1, 2019, to cite employers for injury and illness record-keeping violations “until it is corrected, or the division discovers the violation, or the duty to comply with the violated requirement ceases to exist.” In theory, the six-month limitation period could, depending on the circumstances, extend up to the five years that employers must maintain injury and illness records.  The limit firmly remains six months for federal OSHA.  See OSHA “Removes” Late Term Rule Which Allowed OSHA to Cite Injury Recordkeeping Violations Going Back Five-Years.

The new law also may require the state to establish an advisory committee to determine whether employers should be required to file copies of their workplace injury and illness (WII) records with the state.

The law’s provisions leave many questions to be determined.  For example, if federal OSHA drops the requirement for employers to electronically file summaries of each injury with the Agency, would the committee recommend Cal/OSHA require employers to file with the state, instead?  It may well be quite a while before the committee is even created, much less makes recommendations to Cal/OSHA because the committee would conceptually be formed after federal OSHA loosens current filing requirements.

The bill appears to be a direct reaction to the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back record-keeping mandates set during the previous administration. Under the Obama administration, federal OSHA established a 5-year limit for record-keeping violations, however that limit was set aside by a congressional resolution signed by President Trump. The Trump Administration also substantially diminished employer obligations to electronically submit injury and illness data to federal OSHA.

We have frequently blogged on the contentious federal WII Rule.  See Roller Coaster Rulemaking: OSHA Publishes Proposed Rule to Reduce Injury and Illness Electronic Reporting RequirementsAll State Plan Employers are Now Required to Electronically File 2017 Form 300A DataOSHA Intends to “Reconsider, Revise, or Remove Portions” of Injury and Illness E-Reporting Rule Next YearOSHA Delays Electronic Filing Date for Injury and Illness Records Until December 1, 2017, and Despite Lawsuit, OSHA Publishes Interpretation for New Workplace Injury and Illness Reporting Rule.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Mark A. Lies, IIJames L. CurtisDaniel Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  New Review Commission decision refines the definition of what OSHA must prove to establish a “Repeat” violation.

On September 30, 2008, OSHA issued a citation to Angelica Textile Services, Inc., a commercial laundry, alleging ten Serious and four Repeat items. Seyfarth represented the employer, Angelica Textile Services, Inc. After the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision affirming two of the Serious items and vacating the remaining twelve items, including the Repeat citations. The Secretary of Labor appealed, arguing that the judge improperly vacated two Repeat citations that alleged deficiencies of permit required confined spaces (PRCS) and lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedures.

On July 24, 2018, nearly a decade after the citations were issued, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) affirmed the previously vacated citation items, but characterized and reclassified them as Serious rather than Repeat violations, and issued a single reduced penalty of $7,000. See Secretary of Labor v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc., No. 08-1774.

Most importantly, the Commission refined the definition of what OSHA must prove to establish a Repeat violation. OSHA has traditionally taken the position that all the evidence it had to show to meet the “substantial similarity” standard was merely that the same type of equipment, process or regulation that was involved in the current violation was also involved in a prior final citation which served as the basis for the Repeat violation. In the Angelica decision, the Commission clarified that a showing of “substantial similarity” can be rebutted with a showing of “disparate conditions and hazards associated with these violations of the same standard.”

The decision also refined what defenses an employer may have to a Repeat citation based on the abatement actions it took to abate the earlier violation. Applied to the facts of the case, the Commission noted that the prior PRCS citation identified “critical deficiencies” in the employer’s compliance program.  However, in response to the prior citation, the Company “actively sought out and eliminated similar hazards,” including developing a PRCS program specific to the condition cited.

The majority in Angelica noted that the Company’s prior abatement efforts also resulted in reduced citations in the current matter.  Similarly, the Commission noted that the prior LOTO citation to the Company had identified a “comprehensive failure of compliance.”  However, the present case involved procedures established in the interim, as well as surveys completed for machines that the Company had undertaken in response to the prior violations.  Rather than lacking the previous comprehensive procedures as was the case in the earlier citations, there were only two discrete deficiencies in the employer’s current program.

Significantly, the Commission also remarked in a footnote that the Secretary had accepted the Company’s prior abatement method, thus giving no basis for OSHA to conclude that the Company knew that its interim safety precautions and corrective actions were not compliant.

After comparing the employer’s attempts at compliance with the prior and subsequent citations, the Commission reasoned that, while the prior citations had been based on a complete failure to comply, the current citations reflected only minimal deficiencies. In other words, “[the Company] took affirmative steps to achieve compliance and avoid similar violations in the future.”  Because of these interim abatement actions, the Commission concluded that there was no basis for a Repeat citation.

In light of the Angelica decision, it appears that OSHA’s burden of proof has been measurably increased to establish a Repeat violation and it will be more difficult for OSHA to prove Repeat citations against employers. Following the acceptance of a citation, employers should work with a team well versed in the concepts espoused in the Angelica decision so that it can take the appropriate steps to establish that it acted in good faith and took effective and documented action to correct the violation. Employers should “actively [seek] out and eliminate[] similar hazards,” or “[take] affirmative steps to achieve compliance and avoid similar violations in the future.”  As there is no mechanical way to avoid a Repeat citation, and the corrective actions taken will depend on the factual circumstances surrounding the citation, employers should consult experienced counsel for guidance on what constitutes abatement of the citation and how to properly document such actions. Most importantly, beyond the concern of legal liability, if an employer takes the interim actions endorsed by the Angelica decision, it will measurably enhance the safety and health of its workplace.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By James L. CurtisKay R. Bonza, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A railcar cleaning company and its executive officers were recently charged in a 22-count indictment with conspiracy, violating worker safety standards resulting in worker deaths, violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and for submitting false documents to a federal agency.

Nebraska Railcar Cleaning Services LLC (NRCS) employees sent workers in to railcars to scrape and remove various commodities from tanker cars, including gasoline, ethanol, petroleum by-products, pesticides, herbicides, and food grade products.  Two of the company’s workers were killed and a third was injured when the contents of a railcar ignited while being cleaned.  According to the indictment, the company, NRCS and its owners and executives, allegedly failed to implement worker safety standards and then tried to cover that up during an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection.  The defendants also allegedly mishandled hazardous wastes removed from rail tanker cars during the cleaning process.

OSHA requires employers to test air in confined spaces such as rail tanker cars for hazardous gases prior to allowing employees to enter the confined workspace, and to provide employees exposed to certain chemicals with respirators for which they must be assessed and fit tested.  EPA requires facilities like NRCS to ensure that hazardous wastes generated are properly treated and disposed of.

The indictment alleges that after a 2013 inspection of NRCS, the company represented that NRCS had been testing for hazardous wastes, including benzene, since July 2014.  After OSHA returned to NRCS in March 2015 to conduct a follow-up inspection and was turned away, documents were “created” and submitted to OSHA to “falsely show” that NRCS had been purchasing equipment to test the contents of railcars for benzene and had taken other required safety precautions.  In addition, “during inspections by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2013 and 2014 respectively, NRCS was informed that it was required to test its wastes to determine if they were hazardous in order to properly dispose of them, rather than send all untested waste to a landfill not permitted to receive hazardous waste.”  The indictment alleges that was not done before April 2015.

In April 2015, the contents of a railcar ignited while being cleaned by NRCS employees. Two employees were killed and a third was injured. Two days after the explosion, NRCS had three railcars tested to assess whether their contents were hazardous, and two were determined to be hazardous.

Employer Takeaways

This indictment presents a good example of what not to do when dealing with OSHA and environmental agency inspectors.  First, if the employer represents that it is implementing certain safety measures — do it!  Secondly, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of providing complete and accurate submittals to government entities.  A deliberate falsification can have serious ramifications, both by way of civil penalties and criminal prosecution.  As everyone has learned through countless infamous cases, it’s not the crime but the cover-up that will really come back to bite the employer.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By James L. CurtisKay R. Bonza, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  OSHA today published a proposed rule to amend the injury and illness recordkeeping rules by rescinding the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees to electronically submit information from OSHA Forms 300 and 301.  OSHA is amending provisions of the “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (WII Rule) final rule to protect sensitive worker information from potential disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  83 Fed. Reg. 36494 (July 30, 2018).

OSHA, in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), has “preliminarily determined” that the risk of disclosure of information contained in OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report), the costs to OSHA of collecting and using the information and the reporting burden on employers are “unjustified given the uncertain benefits of collecting the information.”  The proposed rule eliminates the requirement to file the Form 300 and 301 for establishments with 250 or more employees.  These large employers will still be required to electronically file the OSHA 300A summary of work-related injuries and illnesses. OSHA submits that this proposed change will maintain safety and health protections for workers while also reducing the burden to employers of complying with the current rule.

We had blogged previously on the WII Rule.  See All State Plan Employers are Now Required to Electronically File 2017 Form 300A DataOSHA Intends to “Reconsider, Revise, or Remove Portions” of Injury and Illness E-Reporting Rule Next YearOSHA Delays Electronic Filing Date for Injury and Illness Records Until December 1, 2017, and Despite Lawsuit, OSHA Publishes Interpretation for New Workplace Injury and Illness Reporting Rule..

In the proposed rule, OSHA notes that Form 301 requires the collection of sensitive information about each individual worker’s job-linked illness or injury, information an employer must collect with or without the worker’s consent.  “While some of the information is likelier to be regarded as particularly sensitive—namely, descriptions of injuries and the body parts affected—most of the form’s questions seek answers that should not be lightly disclosed, including:”

  • Was employee treated in an emergency room?
  • Was employee hospitalized overnight as an in-patient?
  • Date of birth?
  • Date of injury?
  • What was the employee doing just before the incident occurred? Describe the activity, as well as the tools, equipment, or material the employee was using. Be specific.
  • What happened? Tell us how the injury occurred.
  • What was the injury or illness? Tell us the part of the body that was affected and how it was affected; be more specific than “hurt,” “pain,” or “sore.”
  • What object or substance directly harmed the employee?

In the May 2016 final rule (81 Fed. Reg. 29624), the recordkeeping regulation was revised to require establishments with 250 or more employees to electronically submit information from the OSHA Forms 300, 300A, and 301 to OSHA annually.  Individual injury and illness case information from these forms could be disclosed to third parties pursuant to FOIA requests from the public, thereby endangering worker privacy.  The NPRM proposes to amend OSHA’s new electronic recordkeeping regulation by rescinding the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees to electronically submit information from the OSHA Forms 300 and 301, to protect sensitive worker information.  OSHA also admits that it has not devised a plan for how it would “collect, process, analyze distribute, and programmatically apply” this information in a meaningful way to justify its collection.

OSHA seeks comment on this proposal, particularly on its impact on worker privacy, including the risks posed by exposing workers’ sensitive information to possible FOIA disclosure.  Comments, due on September 28, 2018, may be submitted to docket number OSHA-2013-0023.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Mark A. Lies, IIJames L. Curtis, Adam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A contractor’s employee fell 36 feet while working at a warehouse construction site and not using fall-protection equipment.  Following a bench trial before the District Court, the Defendant contractor DNRB, Inc. was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for willfully violating two safety regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1926.760(a)(l) and (b)(l)), and causing the employee’s death. The Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction.

  1. Willful Fall Protection Citation Based on Fatality Leads to Criminal Prosecution.

OSHA commonly cites construction employers whose employees fail to use fall protection.  In fact, 29 CFR § 1926.501 (Fall Protection in Construction) is the most frequently cited regulation by federal OSHA.  Employers who fail to provide and enforce the use of fall protection do so at their own peril, as OSHA will cite employers with willful violations, dramatically increasing the civil penalties.  In the event of a fatality a willful citation can then lead to a criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice.

  1. Presence of Fall Protection Equipment Does not Negate Criminal Intent.

United States v DNRB, Inc., No. 17-3148 (8th Cir. July 17, 2018), is an example  of just this kind of prosecution, where OSHA cited the employer for a willful violation of the fall protection standard for steel erection rules, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.760.  The Contractor was also criminally prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum penalty.

On appeal, the employer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, several evidentiary rulings and the sentence imposing the statutory maximum fine of $500,000.  It argued that the Department of Justice failed to prove the three elements necessary to find a criminal conviction (29 CFR § 666(e)): (1) that the company violated an applicable standard, (2) that it did so willfully, and (3) that the violation caused an employee’s death.

Principally, the employer argued that its conduct was not willful because it provided fall protection and anchorage points, and the employee was wearing a harness.  The Court countered that while the employee had a personal fall-arrest harness and connectors, he was not using them to secure himself to an anchorage point on the warehouse’s frame.  The Court explained that “the regulations state that employees ‘shall be protected’ by appropriate equipment, not that they merely be provided with or possess such equipment” (emphasis added).

  1. Court Relies on Past Citation and Prior Warning to Establish Criminal Intent.

The Eighth Circuit then noted that the Contractor had a previous citation for violating the same standard (§1926.760), and so concluded that the Contractor was aware of its requirements.  “Moreover, a supervisor’s knowledge can be imputed to his employer, and there was evidence supporting a conclusion that [the employee’s] supervisor … intentionally disregarded the safety requirements here.”  In fact “a crane operator stated that he expressly warned [the supervisor] about [the employee’s] failure to use fall-protection equipment.”

Finally, the Court found that the employee would not have fallen to his death had he been connected to an anchorage point, and that the employer’s failure to make him use required fall-protection equipment was a “but-for cause” of his death.  In addition it determined that the fall was “a foreseeable and natural result” of working more than 30 feet above the ground without using fall-protection equipment.

  1. Employers Must Enforce Safety Rules and Contest Unfounded Citations.

Employers may draw numerous lessons from this case.  Foremost is the absolute importance of providing fall protection, supervising employees who are exposed to fall hazards to ensure they use the equipment, and enforcing the employer’s safety rules.  Only then will employers be able to prove the affirmative defense of employee misconduct when an employee fails to use his assigned fall protection equipment.  United States v DNRB, Inc., shows the perils for employers who fail to enforce safety rules and fail to respond to reports of noncompliance by an employee.  This case also illustrates how accepting and settling citations may set-up an employer for a willful citation in the future, and even a criminal prosecution in the event of a fatal accident.  Employers should consult with legal counsel regarding an OSHA fall protection citation and ensure that any defensible citations are contested and vacated.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Brent I. Clark, Adam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA recently released new publications directed towards safety professionals and managers. The publications offer guidance on what to look for during worksite safety check walk-arounds.  In addition, OSHA suggests that the employer’s completed 300 logs may be used by the employer as a guide to improving worksite safety.

The publications are Safety Walk-Around for Managers, Walk-Arounds for Safety Officers, and That Was No Accident! Using Your OSHA 300 Log to Improve Safety and Health.  While these publications may be useful tools to supplement current workplace safety programs and policies, these should not be considered rules or templates for adoption.  Each workplace is different and compliance may vary substantially from location to location.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Benjamin D. Briggs, Patrick D. Joyce, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA has just reminded temporary staffing agencies and their clients (i.e., host employers) that they are jointly responsible for a  temporary employee’s safety and health in two new guidance documents relating to respiratory protection, noise exposure, and hearing conservation. Temporary agencies and host employers that use their services should review this guidance in carrying out their shared responsibility for temporary worker safety.

Nearly two years after the last bulletin, OSHA has just released two new temporary worker bulletins relating to respiratory protection, noise exposure, and hearing conservation.  See Temporary Worker Initiative (TWI) Bulletin No. 8 – Respiratory Protection, and Temporary Worker Initiative Bulletin No. 9 – Noise Exposure and hearing Conservation.

We have blogged previously about OSHA’s enforcement activities and guidance documents relating to temporary workers: “OSHA Releases Two More Temporary Worker Guidance Documents,” “New Guidance for ‘Recommended Practices’ to Protect Temporary Workers,” “OSHA Issues Memo to ‘Remind’ its Field Staff about Enforcement Policy on Temporary Workers,” and “OSHRC Reviews Employment Relationships.”

Under TWI Bulletin No. 8, OSHA notes that both the host employer and staffing agency are “jointly responsible to ensure workers wear appropriate respirators when required. While both the host and the staffing agency are responsible to ensure that the employee is properly protected in accordance with the standard, the employers may decide that a division of the responsibility may be appropriate. Neither the host nor the staffing agency can require workers to provide or pay for their own respiratory protection when it is required.”

Under TWI Bulletin No. 9, OSHA notes that both the host employer and staffing agency are jointly responsible for ensuring that “workers receive protection from hazardous noise levels when it is required under OSHA standards. Neither the host nor the staffing agency can require workers to provide or pay for their own hearing protection devices or require workers to purchase such devices as a condition of employment or placement. In addition, employees must be paid for the time spent receiving their audiograms, and the audiograms must be at no cost to the employee.”

Employer Takeaway

It is OSHA’s view that staffing agencies and host employers are jointly responsible for temporary workers’ safety and health. However, as the two newly published bulletin’s make clear, fulfilling the shared responsibility for temporary worker safety requires thoughtful coordination between staffing agencies and host employers. OSHA has previously acknowledged that a host employer may have more knowledge of the specific hazards associated with the host worksite, while the staffing agency has a more generalized safety responsibility to the employees. As a result, OSHA allows host employers and staffing agencies to divide training responsibilities based upon their respective knowledge of the hazards associated with the specific worksite. While host employers will typically have primary responsibility for training and communication regarding site specific hazards, staffing agencies must make reasonable inquiries to verify that the host employer is meeting these requirements.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By James L. CurtisPatrick D. Joyce, and  Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA reminded specific employers on Monday that the deadline for electronically submitting their 2017 Form 300A data to OSHA is July 1, 2018.

Electronic submission of 2017 Form 300A data is due by July 1, 2018 for establishments with 250 or more employees that are currently required to keep OSHA injury and illness records, and establishments with 20-249 employees that are classified in specific industries. Form 300As should be submitted using OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA).

Each establishment’s Form 300A for 2018 will be due March 2, 2019. We will continue to monitor OSHA’s activities relating to this rule. OSHA has indicated that it will be reviewing the rule and will be issuing future guidance or revisions.

Employers operating facilities in state plan states should check with their local state plan office to confirm each individual state’s e-filing requirements. For example, Kentucky OSHA requires e-filing using Federal OSHA’s ITA, while the State of  Washington has indicated that employers with facilities in Washington State are not required to e-file on Federal OSHA’s ITA.

We have previously blogged concerning OSHA’s contentious electronic reporting rules.  See All State Plan Employers are Now Required to Electronically File 2017 Form 300A Data, OSHA Intends to “Reconsider, Revise, or Remove Portions” of Injury and Illness E-Reporting Rule Next Year, OSHA Delays Electronic Filing Date for Injury and Illness Records Until December 1, 2017, and Despite Lawsuit, OSHA Publishes Interpretation for New Workplace Injury and Illness Reporting Rule.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.