Does the Texas Hazard Communication Act cover college students as 'employees' for chemical-safety training?

Plain-English summary

The Texas Hazard Communication Act makes employers tell their workers about the dangerous chemicals in the workplace, train them on safe handling, and keep safety data sheets available. The Texas Department of Health wanted to know whether college and university students count as "employees" under that law, which would mean schools owe students the same chemical-safety duties they owe their staff. The Department thought the answer was yes; the Attorney General concluded it was no.

The reasoning came down to what "employee" ordinarily means. The act has a technical definition (anyone who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals at their workplace), but the Attorney General read that as filling in around the normal meaning of the word, not replacing it. An employee is someone in a working relationship, paid wages or a salary. A student is enrolled to study and is not paid for it. On top of that, the act itself uses "students" and "employees" as two different words in the same sentence in one section, which would make no sense if they meant the same thing. And nothing in the law's history suggested the Legislature was quietly folding students into the employee category.

So a school does not owe students the full set of hazard-communication duties just because they are students. There is one carve-out: a laboratory still has to keep material safety data sheets accessible to students. And the opinion was careful to add that a student who also holds a job at the school, like a work-study position, is protected while working, but that protection comes from being an employee, not from being a student.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Confirm the current text of the Texas Hazard Communication Act in Health and Safety Code chapter 502, and any applicable federal OSHA hazard-communication requirements, before relying on anything described here.

Background and statutory framework

The Texas Hazard Communication Act (Health & Safety Code §§ 502.001-.016) requires chemical manufacturers and distributors to label hazardous chemicals and furnish material safety data sheets, and requires employers using hazardous chemicals to post chemical lists, coordinate emergency response with the local fire department, run an employee education program, and give employees access to safety data sheets (§§ 502.005, 502.006, 502.008, 502.010, 502.013(b)).

Statutes are construed according to their common and accepted meaning (Gov't Code § 311.011(a); Cail v. Service Motors, Inc.; Taylor v. Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Service Comm'n of Lubbock; Satterfield v. Satterfield). The act defines "employee" as a person who may be or may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals in the person's workplace under normal operating conditions (§ 502.003(9)). The Attorney General read that definition as a gloss on the ordinary meaning, which carries an employment relationship for wages or salary, rather than a wholesale substitution; had the Legislature meant "anyone" or "any person," it would have said so. The act's own text reinforces the point: the laboratory exclusion in section 502.004(e)(5) refers separately to "employees and students," and using both terms would be pointless if they were synonymous. The legislative history (H.B. 1112, 69th Leg., 1985) gave no contrary indication.

The Department argued its interpretation deserved deference under Government Code section 311.023(6). The Attorney General responded that the usual deference to an agency's reading does not apply where the interpretation is contrary to the act's letter, unsupported by legislative history, and unreasonable (Texas Ass'n of Long Distance Tel. Cos. v. Public Util. Comm'n). The AG therefore concluded the act does not apply to students as students, except for section 502.004(e)(5)(B), which requires that material safety data sheets be maintained by the laboratory and made accessible to students; a student employed in a work-study program may be covered, but as an employee.

Citations

• Health & Safety Code §§ 502.001-.016 (Texas Hazard Communication Act); § 502.003(9) (definition of "employee"); § 502.004(e)(5) (laboratory exclusion, including (B) requiring material safety data sheets accessible to students); §§ 502.005, 502.006, 502.008, 502.010, 502.013(b) (employer duties)
• Gov't Code § 311.011(a) (words construed by common and accepted meaning); § 311.023(6) (administrative interpretation as a construction aid)
• Cail v. Service Motors, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex. 1983)
• Taylor v. Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Service Comm'n of Lubbock, 616 S.W.2d 187, 189 (Tex. 1981)
• Satterfield v. Satterfield, 448 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex. 1969)
• Texas Ass'n of Long Distance Tel. Cos. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 875, 884 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, writ denied) (agency interpretation gets no weight when contrary to the act, unsupported by history, and unreasonable)

Common questions

Are college students "employees" under the Texas Hazard Communication Act?
No. The Attorney General concluded students are not "employees" for purposes of the act, so its chemical education, training, and information requirements do not apply to them in their capacity as students.

Does any part of the act still protect students?
Yes, one part. Section 502.004(e)(5)(B) requires a laboratory to maintain material safety data sheets and make them accessible to students, even though the rest of the act does not reach students as students.

What about a student who works on campus?
A student employed by the school, such as in a work-study program, may be covered during periods of employment if the act's other requirements are met, but that protection comes from being an employee, not from being a student.

Why didn't the Health Department's interpretation control?
The Attorney General concluded the Department's reading was contrary to the act's plain language, unsupported by the legislative history, and unreasonable, so it was not entitled to the deference an agency interpretation usually receives.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0239
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1993/dm0239.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 21, 1993

David R. Smith, M.D.
Commissioner of Health
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756-3199

Opinion No. DM-239

Re: Whether students are "employees" for the purposes of the Texas Hazard Communication Act of the Health and Safety Code sections 502.001 - .016, which require employers to furnish "employees" with education, training, and information regarding hazardous chemicals at their work places (RQ-382)

Dear Commissioner Smith:

The Texas Department of Health ("TDH") requested the attorney general's opinion concerning whether students at colleges and universities are deemed "employees" for the purposes of the Texas Hazard Communication Act, Texas Health and Safety Code sections 502.001 - .016, which require "employers" to furnish "employees" with education, training, and information concerning hazardous chemicals at their workplaces. We conclude that students are not "employees" for the purposes of the act.

The Texas Hazard Communication Act requires that a hazardous chemical manufacturer or distributor must properly label such chemicals and furnish the purchaser with material safety data sheets which contain information concerning the hazards posed by the particular chemical and how to safely handle the chemical. Health & Safety Code §§ 502.006 - .007. The act states that employers that utilize hazardous chemicals must, inter alia: display in their workplaces lists of hazardous chemicals used at the workplace and make this information available for review by employees; coordinate an emergency response program with the local fire department; conduct an employee education program; and provide employees with access to the material safety data sheets concerning the hazardous chemicals used at the workplace. Id. §§ 502.005, 502.006(c), 502.008, 502.010, 502.013(b).

Statutes should be construed pursuant to their common and accepted meaning. See Gov't Code § 311.011(a); Cail v. Service Motors, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex. 1983); Taylor v. Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Service Comm'n of Lubbock, 616 S.W.2d 187, 189 (Tex. 1981); Satterfield v. Satterfield, 448 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex. 1969). Throughout the sixteen sections of the act, the act refers to "employees" and "employers"; there is no indication from the plain language of the act that "employees" was meant to refer to students. The act defines "employee" as "a person who may be or may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals in the person's workplace under normal operating conditions." Health & Safety Code § 502.003(9). TDH contends that "employee" is intended to mean anyone exposed to hazardous chemicals at their workplace. However, we believe that the act's definition of "employee" was intended as a gloss on or an addition to the commonly accepted definition of the term, rather than an attempt to supplant the commonly accepted definition. It is implicit in the legislature's use of the term "employee" that the legislature meant to refer to someone engaged in an employment relationship, for example, one who works for wages or a salary, as opposed to a "student" who is one who is enrolled for study at an institution of learning for which he does not receive wages or a salary. See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 408, 1170 (1990) (defining "employee" and "student" respectively); Black's Law Dictionary 525 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "employee"). If the legislature intended the act to apply to "anyone" or "any person," as TDH suggests, the legislature would have said so in the act.

Moreover, the act distinguishes between "employees" and "students." Section 502.004(e)(5) of the act, which excludes certain experimental laboratories from the act's coverage, states:

This chapter does not apply to . . . :

a chemical in a laboratory under the direct supervision or guidance of a technically qualified individual if:

(A) labels on incoming containers of chemicals are not removed or defaced;

(B) material safety data sheets received are maintained and made accessible to employees and students;

(C) the laboratory complies with Section 502.008 and 502.009; and

(D) the laboratory is not used primarily to produce hazardous chemicals in bulk for commercial purposes.

[Emphasis added.]

The legislature's use of the terms "employees" and "students" in the same act suggests that the legislature did not consider the terms synonymous; if the terms were synonymous there would be no point to using separate terms. The term "students" is not defined by the act, and we assume that the legislature intended this term to be construed according to its common and accepted meaning.

Furthermore, there is no indication in the act's legislative history that the use of the term "employees" was meant to refer to students. See generally House Comm. on Public Health and Senate Comm. on Public Health and Hum. Res., Bill Analyses, H.B. 1112, 69th Leg. (1985). The plain language of the act, as well as the lack of a contrary indication in the legislative history, compels us to conclude that students are not "employees" for the purposes of the act. Therefore the act is not applicable to students in their capacity as students, except for the requirements of section 502.004(e)(5)(B) which requires that material safety data sheets must be maintained by the laboratory and made accessible to students.

Our conclusion that the act does not apply to students qua students does not imply that a student who is employed by a university or other school, such as in a work-study program, is not protected by the act. The act may apply to such an individual at his workplace, during periods of employment provided the act's other requirements are met. See Health & Safety Code § 502.004. However such an individual would be protected pursuant to the act because of his status as an employee, not because of his status as a registered student.

TDH states that in its view the act was intended to apply to students, and TDH contends that its interpretation of the act is entitled to deference. Generally, an administrative agency's interpretation of an act that it has been charged with enforcing is entitled to great weight. See Gov't Code § 311.023(6). However, this rule does not apply where the administrative interpretation is contrary to the letter of the act, there is no support for the administrative interpretation in the legislative history, and the administrative interpretation is not reasonable. See Texas Ass'n of Long Distance Tel. Cos. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 875, 884 (Tex. App.-Austin 1990, writ denied) (collecting cases).

SUMMARY

Students are not "employees" for the purposes of the Texas Hazard Communication Act, Texas Health and Safety Code sections 502.001 - .016. Therefore, the act is not applicable to students in their capacity as students, except for the requirements of section 502.004(e)(5)(B) which requires that material safety data sheets must be maintained by the laboratory and made accessible to students.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

WILL PRYOR
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Deputy Attorney General for Litigation

RENEA HICKS
State Solicitor

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
Chair, Opinion Committee