Parisi Construction, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Parisi Construction did not dispute five citation items involving high-visibility clothing and several silica and respiratory-protection requirements. The only issue was the amount of the proposed penalties, which totaled $9,000. The judge considered that the road workers had partial protection, silica exposure involved only two employees intermittently, some face protection was used, and the company had hired a safety organization to develop a comprehensive program. He affirmed every citation item but reduced the penalties to $1,000 for the visibility item and $500 for each of the other four groupings, for a total of $3,000. He denied the company's request to redirect the penalties into its safety program because the Act requires payment to the United States.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision describes the cited requirements but does not identify their regulatory section numbers.
• Outcome: All citation items affirmed; total penalties reduced from $9,000 to $3,000.
• Key point: The Commission may reduce penalties based on gravity and good-faith circumstances but cannot redirect statutory penalties into an employer's own safety program.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                                                          |

SECRETARY OF LABOR, |
Complainant, |
|
v. |
| OSHRC DOCKET
PARISI CONSTRUCTION, INC., | NO. 01-1286
|
Respondent. |
|

APPEARANCES:

                    Susan J. Witz, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
                     Chicago, Illino is

                    Hap P igsley, Safety Co nsultant, Platt Sa fety Services, Fr anklin, W isconsin

Before: Administrative Law Judge Sidney J. Goldstein

                                    DECISION AND ORDER


   After a compliance officer with the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration inspected

a worksite of the Respondent, that agency issued the company a citation for the alleged violations
of a number of safety regulations adopted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
The Respondent disagreed with the citation and filed a notice of contest. after a complaint and
answer were filed with this commission, a hearing was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

      The citation contained five items. Item 1 related to employees on road construction work

without high visibility vests. The other four items, including sub-parts, concerned overexposure to
silica dust, failure to implement engineeringcontrols, failureto train employees regarding respirable
crystalline silica dust, failure to evaluate employee exposure to the silica dust, failure to train
employees on the capabilities and limitations of the N 95 respirator, and the unavailability of a
written respiratory protection program. The Secretary proposed a penalty of $3,000.00 for item 1
and $1,500.00 for each of the other four items.
At the hearing the compliance officer reviewed the various aspects of the citation, but there
was no problem with respect to the violations of the regulations. Indeed, in its answer the
Respondent wrote that “There is no question as to the findings of the compliance officer . . . .”
The record discloses that although Respondent’s employees did not wear high visibility vests
for one hour, they were protected by barrels on one side of the work. The Respondent also
understood that a subcontractor was responsible for traffic control. There were only two employees
intermittently exposed to silica dust, and they also had some face protection. The Respondent also
assumed that the four unions it worked with furnished safety instructions to its members. further,
the Respondent contracted with a safety organization to devise a complete safety program with an
anticipated expense of over $50,000.00.
As previously noted, the Respondent agreed with the citation. In its amended answer,
however, the company disputed the proposed penalties. As a result the sole issue in this proceeding
is the appropriateness of the Secretary’s recommended penalties.
On this subject, Section 17(j) of the Act provides:
(j) The Commission shall have authority to assess all civil penalties provided in this
section, giving due consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect
to the size of the business of the employee being charged, the gravity of the violation,
the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations.

   After a review of the record, I believe that the penalties proposed by the Secretary should be

reduced to reflect the facts adduced at the hearing. Accordingly, the penalties are modified as
follows:
Item 1 $1,000.00
Item 2a & 2b 500.00
Item 3 500.00
Item 4a & 4b 500.00
Item 5a & 5b 500.00

   In its brief, the Respondent writes “We are asking that OSHA help our employees by

                                              2

allowing us to put the money for penalties toward a safe workplace for our employees, instead of
putting it into the general funds of the United States Government.”
In this connection, Section 17(1) of the law provides:
(1) Civil penalties owed under this Act shall be paid to the Secretary for deposit into
the treasure of the United States and shall accrue to the United States and may be
recovered in a civil action in the name of the United States brought in the United
States district court for the district where the violation is alleged to have occurred or
where the employer has its principal office.

   Without authority to waive this section of the Act, I am unable to grant the Respondent’s

request.
Summarized, (1) All items of the citation are affirmed; (2) The penalties are modified as
heretofore shown; and (3) The Respondent’s request with respect to payment of penalties is
DENIED.

                                                                   /s/

                                                           Sidney J. Goldstein
                                                           Judge, OSHRC

Dated: June 17, 2002

                                              3