Speedy Rooter/Capital Plumbing, Inc.

Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Speedy Rooter replaced a residential sewer line using a trench more than six feet deep. The judge found that the two workers were company employees, not independent contractors, because Speedy Rooter obtained and assigned the work, paid them by the hour, and supplied tools and permits. OSHA proved that the company failed to train the workers on cave-in hazards, keep excavated material away from the edge, have a competent person inspect the trench, and provide an adequate protective system. The cave-in-protection violation was willful because the owner knew protection was required above five feet, owned a trench box, knew workers would enter the trench, and made no effort to provide protection. All four citation items were affirmed with penalties totaling $29,394.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(j)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1)
• Outcome: Three serious items and one willful item were affirmed, with total penalties of $29,394.
• Key point: Knowing that a trench required cave-in protection but sending employees into it without the available trench box supported a willful classification.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


Document

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20 th
Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

Secretary of Labor,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No.
1 7- 0 274

SPEEDY ROOTER/CAPITAL PLUMBING, INC. ,

Respondent .

APPEARANCES:                                

Matthew R. Epstein,
Esquire,

U.S. Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

For the Secretary

Richard H. Mylin, III,
Esquire,

York, Pennsylvania

For the Respondent

BEFORE:    Keith E. Bell

Administrative Law Judge

D ECISION
AND ORDER

On
O c t o ber
5 ,
2016,
O c c u p a t i o n a l
S a f e t y
a n d
H e a l t h
Administration (OSHA)
C o m p l i a n c e
O f f i c e r
( C O )
E l a i n e
D a i l e y
r e s p o n d e d
t o
a
c o m p l a i n t
o f
a n
e m p l o y e e
w orking in a n
u n p r o t e c t e d
trench
at
a
r e s i d e n c e
a t
1735 East Canal Road, Dover,
Pennsylvania
( w o r k s i t e
o r
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e ) .

S p e e d y
R o o t e r / C a p i t a l
P l u m b i n g ,
I n c .
( S p e e d y
R o o t e r
o r
R e s p o n d e n t )
h a d
e x c a v a t e d
a
t r e n c h
a n d
w a s
r e p l a c i n g
a
l a t e r a l
s e w e r
l i n e
a t
t h e
w o r k s i t e .

O n
January 13, 2017 ,
OSHA
issued a
Citation and Notificati on of Penalty
( c i t a t i o n )
t o
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
w i t h
o n e
w i l l f u l
a n d
three serious
violation s
of OSHA ’ s cons truction sta n dar d
for
a total
p rop osed
penalty of $ 29,39 4 .
The
c itation a lleged
Re s pondent had not
trained its employees on cave-in hazards, had not
kept materials at least two feet from the edge of
the
trench, had not
inspected the trench , and had not provided an ad e quate cave -in prot ect ion system in the tren ch .

Respondent
filed a timely notice of contest, bringing this matter before
the Occupational
Safety and
Health
Review Commission (Commission) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act
of
1970, 29
U.S.C. § 659(c) (Act).

A
one-day hearing was held in
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
on
June
13,
2018.

Four
witnesses
provided
testimony:

OSHA
Compliance
Officer,
Elaine
Daily;
William
Fishel
(owner
of
the
residence
at
the
worksite);
Austin
Bryant
(worker
at
the
Canal
Road
worksite);
and
Andrea
Crone
(owner
and
manager
of
Speedy
Rooter). Both parties
submitted post-hearing briefs.

STIPULATIONS

The
parties
agreed
to
and
stipulated
the
following
facts.

1. Respondent w as
   hired to repair a
   s e wer li ne
   a t
   1735
   E .
   Canal Road , Dover , Pennsylvania (the “worksite”), in Se ptember
2. Successive servi ce calls resulted in
   Respondent who hired Jerry Ricke tts
   and Austin Bryant to replace the entire sewer line from the home at t ha t property to the s e we r mai n o n
   Canal
   R oa d.

(Tr.
261).

2. Andr ea Crone
   is the sole owner of Respondent
   an d is a licensed plumber. She hi red Jerry Ricketts an d Austin Bryant to perform work
   at t he worksite. Ms. Crone obtained permits and
   O ne- C all documentation fo r
   the worksi t e .

(Tr.
261).

3. And rea
   Cro ne or
   Respon dent
   owned
   the excavat or used at the worksite which was
   used by Jerry Ricketts who had s igned an
   e quipment
   u s e
   a greement.

(Tr.
261).

4. The plywood and
   2x4s
   installed in a trench and photographed by CSHO Dailey were n ot
   a n OS HA
   app r oved s hor ing system
   a n d not
   intend ed as such.

(Tr.
261-62).

The
primary
dispute
is
whether
the
individuals
working
at
the
Canal
Road
worksite,
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant,
were
employees
of
Speedy
Rooter.

Respondent
asserts
that
because
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr.
Bryant
were
independent
subcontractors
the
citations
against
Speedy
Rooter
must
be
vacated. 1

Respondent
presented
minimal
assertions
to
refute
the
Secretary’s
allegations
that
the
four
cited
OSHA
standards
had
been
violated.

For the
following reasons,
I
find
Mr.
Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant
were
employees
of
Speedy
Rooter,
the
citations
are
affirmed
and
a
penalty
of
$29,394
is
assessed. 2

JURISDICTION

Based upon the record,
I find
that at all relevant times
Speedy
Rooter
was engaged in a business affecting
commerce and
was
an employer
within the
meaning of sections 3(3) and
3(5) of the Act .

I find
that the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in
this case. 3

(Tr.
259-60).

FACTS

The Company and the project

At the tim e
of the
h earing,
S peedy Rooter
h a d
b e e n
i n
bus in ess
f o r
1 4
y e a r s
a n d
p e r f o r m e d
inter io r
an d exterior pl umbing wor k,
i n c l u d i n g
repair
and replacement of
sewer
l i n e s . (Tr.
24 ,
2 4 4 ). S p e e d y
R o o t e r
w a s
s o l e l y
owned and ma naged
by A ndrea Cr one , a
licensed pl um ber. ( T r.
2 4 2 ,
261 ).

The pro ject at the
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
started
a f ew weeks be fore
t h e
O S H A
i n s p e c t i o n . T h e
F i s h e l s
hired
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
to r epair
a clogged sewer lin e. (Tr.
30,
59 ,
7 9 ).

M r s .
F i s h e l
c a l l e d
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
a n d
s p o k e
t o
A n d r e a
C r o n e .

( T r .
7 8 - 7 9 ,
2 3 2 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
s e n t
J e r r y
R i c k e t t s
a n d
A u s t i n
B r y a n t 4
t o
t h e
F i s h e l
h o m e
o n
t w o
co nsecut i v e
d a y s
t o
c l e a r
t h e
l i n e .

( T r .
5 9 - 6 0 ,
2 6 1 ) .

W h e n
t h e
c l o g
reoccurred
t h e
t h i r d
d a y ,
M r .
R i c k e t t s
t o l d
M r .
F i s h e l
t h a t
t h e
h o u s e
s e w e r
t r a p ,
w h i c h
w a s
u n d e r g r o u n d
a n d
locate d
s e v e n
t o
e i g h t
f e e t
f r o m
t h e
h o u s e ,
n e e d e d
t o
b e
r e p l a c e d .

( T r .
3 5 ,
6 0 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
c o n t a c t e d
P e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s
O n e - C a l l 5
s e r v i c e
w i t h
a
r e q u e s t
t o
h a v e
t h e
u n d e r g r o u n d
u t i l i t i e s
m a r k e d
b e f o r e
d i g g i n g
o u t
t h e
s e w e r
t r a p .

( T r .
1 7 4 ,
2 4 6 ,
2 6 1 ;
C X - 1 3 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
i n f o r m e d
O n e - C a l l
that
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n
w o u l d
b e
a b o u t
4 x 8
f e e t
w i d e
a n d
5
t o
6
f e e t
d e e p .

( C X - 1 3 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
a s s i g n e d
J e r r y
R icket ts and
Austin Bryant
to replace the
s e w e r
trap
a n d
d e l i v e r e d
t h e
b a c k h o e
o w n e d
b y
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
t o
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e . (Tr .
1 7 9 - 8 0 ,
2 6 1 ;
C X - 1 4 C ) .

O n
S e p t e m b e r
1 8 ,
2 0 1 6 ,
Mr. Bryant
a n d
Mr. Ricketts
used
t h e
excavato r to dig a hole
t h a t
w a s
a p p r o x i m a t e l y
s ix
f e e t
d e e p . (Tr.
35 ,
6 0 - 6 1 ,
6 3 - 64 ;
C X - 1 3 ). M r .
R i c k e t t s
w a s
i n
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n
a b o u t
1 0
m i n u t e s
t o
r e p l a c e
t h e
t r a p .

( T r .
2 4 7 ) .

M r .
F i s h e l
s a w
t h a t
“ m o s t l y ”
Mr. Ricketts
w o r k e d
i n s i d e
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n .

( T r .
6 4 ) .

N o
c a v e - i n
p r o t e c t i o n
w a s
used . (Tr. 38).

Replacing
the
s e w e r
trap
did not
fix the
problem . ( Tr. 64-65). A
w e e k
l a t e r ,
M s .
C r o n e
s e n t
Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
b a c k
t o
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
w h e r e
t h e y
d etermined
t h e
c a s t
i r o n
s e w e r
l a t e r a l
f r o m
t h e
h o u s e
t o
t h e
D o v e r
B o r o u g h ’ s
m a i n
l i n e
n e e d e d
t o
b e
r e p l a c e d .

( T r .
6 5 ,
2 4 0 - 4 1 ,
2 4 7 ) .

Mr. Bryant
w a s
t h e n
a s s i g n e d
t o
a
s e r v i c e
c a l l
a t
a n o t h e r
l o c a t i o n ,
s o
Mr. Ricketts
d i d
m o s t
o f
the
w o r k
f o r
t h e
s e w e r
l a t e r a l
e x c a v a t i o n .

( T r .
3 9 ,
6 5 ) .

T h e
t r e n c h
w a s
o p e n
f o r
t w o
d a y s
w h e n
w o r k
w a s
i n t e r r u p t e d
b y
a
f o u r - d a y
r a i n s t o r m .

( T r .
6 6 ,
2 4 8 ;
C X - 1 4 A ) .

M s .
C r o n e
v i s i t e d
t h e
w o r k s i t e
d u r i n g
t h e
r a i n s t o r m
t o
c h e c k
o n
t h e
t r e n c h .

( T r .
1 8 6 ,
2 3 5 ) .

M s. C rone v i s i te d the
C a n a l
R o a d
worksite
t h r e e
t i m e s
during the project .

(Tr. 186-87 ,
2 3 5 ).

Mr. Ricketts
u s e d
t h e
b a c k h o e
t o
d i g
t h e
r e s t
o f
t h e
f i f t y - f o o t
t r e n c h
o n
O c t o b e r
3
a n d
4 ,
2 0 1 6 .

( T r .
6 5 ,
2 4 8 - 4 9 ;
C X - 9 ,
C X - 1 4 A ) .

Mr. Ricketts
e s t i m a t e d
t he trench was
a b o u t
6 ½
f e e t
d e e p
f r o m
t h e
t o p
o f
t h e
s e w e r
p i p e . (Tr.
2 4 8 ; CX- 1 4 A ).

T h e
e x c a v a t e d
s o i l
w a s
p i l e d
a l o n g
t h e
e d g e
o f
the
t r e n c h .

( T r .
9 7 ;
C X - 9
p .
0 0 4 8 ,
C X - 1 1 A ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .

M r .
R i c k e t t s
u s e d
a
s h o v e l
t o
e v e n
o u t
t h e
t r e n c h
f l o o r
s o
t h e
p i p e
c o u l d
b e
i n s t a l l e d
a t
t h e
correc t
e l e v a t i o n .

( T r .
6 9 ) .

G r a v e l
f o r
t h e
t r e n c h
f l o o r
w a s
d e l i v e r e d
o n
O c t o b e r
4 ,
2 0 1 6 .

( T r .
1 6 6 ,
2 4 2 ) .

Mr.
Fishel
observed
Mr.
Ricketts
working
in
the
trench
below
the
spoil
pile.

(Tr.
81-82;
CX-11A).

Mr.
F i s h e l
s a w
t h a t
t h e
t r e n c h
w a s
o v e r
s i x
f e e t
d e e p
b e c a u s e
i t
w a s
o v e r
Mr. Ricketts ’
h e a d . 6

( T r .
8 1 - 8 2 ) .

A f t e r
t h e
o l d
p i p e
w a s
r e m o v e d ,
1 0 - f o o t
s e c t i o n s
o f
n e w
p i p e
w e r e
c o n n e c t e d
a n d
t h e n
l o w e r e d
i n t o
t h e
t r e n c h
b y
Mr .
Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant .

( T r .
2 4 8 - 4 9 ;
C X - 1 4 A ) .

O n
O c t o b e r
5 ,
2 0 1 6 ,
t h e
m a i n
s e w e r
l i n e
w a s
d a m a g e d
d uring
Speedy Rooter ’ s work . As a result,
t h e
D o v e r
B o r o u g h
i s s u e d
an
o r d e r
f o r
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
t o
c e a s e
w o r k
o n
t h e
p r o j e c t .

( T r .
6 8 ,
2 5 2 ) .

W h e n
t h e
c e a s e
w o r k
o r d e r
w a s
e v e n t u a l l y
l i f t e d ,
Mr.
F i s h e l
d i d
n o t
a l l o w
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
t o
c o m p l e t e
t h e
p r o j e c t .

( T r .
2 0 9 ) .

T h e
I n s p e c t i o n

O n
O c t o b e r
5 ,
2 0 1 6 ,
C O
D a i l e y
w a s
a s s i g n e d
t o
i n v e s t i g a t e
a
c o m p l a i n t
o f
a n
e m p l o y e e
w o r k i n g
i n
a n
u n p r o t e c t e d
t r e n c h
a t
t h e
F i s h e l
r e s i d e n c e
( C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e ) .

( T r .
9 6 ) .

C O
Dailey
a r r i v e d
a t
t h e
w o r k s i t e
t h a t
a f t e r n o o n . (Tr.
9 6 ;
C X - 1 0 ,
p .
2 ). 7
T h e
C O
i m m e d i a t e l y
s a w ,
n e x t
t o
a
l o n g
t r e n c h ,
a
p o s t e d
n o t i c e
f r o m
t h e
D o v e r
B o r o u g h
t o
“ c ease
w o r k
u n t i l
f u r t h e r
n o t i c e ”
( c e a s e
w o r k
o r d e r ) .
( Tr.
97 ;
CX-11 A ).
T h e
B o r o u g h
s h u t
d o w n
t h e
w o r k s i t e
t h a t
m o r n i n g
a f t e r
t h e
c i t y ’ s
m a i n
l i n e
w a s
d a m a g e d .

( T r .
8 4 ;
C X - 1 0 ,
p .
2 ) .

N o
o n e
w a s
w o r k i n g
a t
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
w h e n
t h e
C O
a r r i v e d .

A f t e r
o b s e r v i n g
t h e
o p e n
t r e n c h ,
CO Dail ey
i dentified her self to
Mr. F ishel .

T h e y
d i s c u s s e d
the
o p e n
t r e n c h
a n d
t h e
w o r k
t h a t
o c c u r r e d
a t
t h e
w o r k s i t e .

( T r .
1 0 6 ) .

M r .
F i s h e l
t o l d
h e r
t h a t
h e
h i r e d
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
a b o u t
t h r e e
w e e k s
e a r l i e r
t o
f i x
a
c l o g g e d
s e w e r
l i n e . (Tr.
5 9 ,
2 4 9 ;
C X - 1 3 ).
M r .
F i s h e l
b e l i e v e d
t h e
p r o j e c t
took
s o
l o n g
b e c a u s e
Mr. Ricketts
a nd
Mr.
Bry ant
h a d
b e e n
reassigned to other work
s i t e s
d u r i n g
t h e
p r o j e c t .

(Tr.
65 ).

C O
D a i l e y
p h o t o g r a p h e d
t h e
o p e n
t r e n c h
a n d
t h e
p i l e
o f
e x c a v a t e d
s o i l
a longside
i t .

( T r .

9 9 - 1 0 5 ) .

T h e
t r e n c h
w a s
a p p r o x i m a t e l y
2
f e e t
w i d e
b y
5 0
f e e t
l o n g .

( T r .
1 1 5 - 1 6 ,
1 4 3 ,
2 4 8 ;
C X - 9 ,
p p .
0 0 4 5 - 0 0 4 7 ) .

T h e
t r e n c h
w a l l s
w e r e
v e r t i c a l . (Tr.
108 ;
C X -11A ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .

T h e
C O
s a w
t h e
n e w
s e w e r
p i p e
r e s t i n g
o n
f r e s h
g r a v e l
a t
t h e
b o t t o m
o f
t h e
t r e n c h .
( T r .
1 6 6 ;
C X - 9 ,
p .
0 0 4 4 ) .

CO Da iley
coll ecte d a soil samp le
a n d
ob served
t h a t
t he s oil
t y p e
i n
t h e
t r e n c h
w a s
“ previ ously dist u rbed ”
b e c a u s e
i t
w a s
i n
the
same location as the
p r e - e x i s t i n g
s e wer
line. ( Tr.
11 1- 12) . A n
e x c a v a t o r ,
lad der,
s u m p
pump ,
an d
sho vels were
n e a r
the trench. (Tr.
11 7 ).

I n
t h e
a r e a
o f
t h e
t r e n c h
w h e r e
t h e
n e w
p i p e
c o n n e c t e d
t o
t h e
o l d
p i p e ,
a
p l y w o o d
s h e e t
h a d
b e e n
p l a c e d
o n
e a c h
s i d e
o f
t h e
t r e n c h ,
c o n n e c t e d
b y
perpe n di cular
2 x 4 s .

( T r .
1 0 8 - 1 1 1 ,
1 1 3 - 1 4 ;
C X - 9 ,
p .
0 0 4 6 ;
C X - 1 1 B ) .

T h e
p l y w o o d
c o n f i g u r a t i o n
w a s
n o t
d e s i g n e d
t o
b e
a
s h o r i n g
s y s t e m
t o
p r e v e n t
c a v e - i n s ;
i t
h a d
b e e n
p l a c e d
i n
t h e
t r e n c h
a f t e r
M r .
F i s h e l
e x p r e s s e d
c o n c e r n
t h a t
s o m e t h i n g
w a s
n e e d e d
t o
h o l d
th e
s o i l
w h en
s o m e o n e
worked
i n
t h e
t r e n c h . ( T r.
6 8 ,
113- 14 ,
2 6 1 - 6 2 ) .

C O
D a i l e y
m easured
t h e
d e p t h
o f
the
t r e n c h
a t
f o u r
p l a c e s
a r o u n d
t h e
p i p e
c o n n e c t i o n .

( T r .
1 1 0 - 1 1 ,
1 1 5 - 1 6 ;
C X - 9 ,
p p .
0 0 4 5 - 0 0 4 6 ,
C X - 1 0 ) .

The
f i r s t
d e p t h
m e a s u r e m e n t
w a s
4
f e e t
2
i n c h e s ,
t h e
s e c o n d
w a s
4
f e e t
7
i n c h e s ,
t h e
t hird
w a s
5
f e e t
8
i n c h e s ,
a n d
t h e
f o u r t h
w a s
6
f e e t
8
i n c h e s .
( T r .
1 1 0 ,
1 1 5 - 1 6 ;
C X - 9 ,
p p .
0 0 4 5 - 0 0 4 6 ,
CX - 10 ). T h e
s p o i l
p i l e
e x t e n d e d
along
t h e
5 0 - f o o t
length
o f
the
t r e n c h .
( T r .
9 7 ;
C X - 9
p .
0 0 4 8 ,
C X - 1 1 A ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .

C O
D a i l e y
m e a s u r e d
t h e
s p o i l
p i l e
a s
s i x
f e e t
h i g h
b y
e i g h t
f e e t
w i d e .

( T r .
9 7 ,
1 0 0 ,
1 4 3 ;
C X - 7 ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .

T h e
s p o i l
p i l e
w a s
less t han two fe e t from the
edge of
t he
t renc h. (Tr. 108 ,
1 3 9 ;
C X - 9 ,
p .
0 0 4 8 ).

T h e
C O
t e s t i f i e d
t h a t
d u r i n g
t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i v e
i n t e r v i e w ,
Ms. Cro ne
admitted the trench
w as
d eeper than
five feet
a n d
t h a t
s h e
k n e w
t h a t
s h o r i n g
w a s
required
f o r
a
t r e n c h
o v e r
f i v e
f e e t
i n
d e p t h . (Tr.
12 3,
183).
F u r t h e r ,
w h e n
t h e
CO
p rovide d
O S H A ’ s
de f initio n of
a
competent p e rson ,
M s .
C r o n e
a d m i t t e d
t h e
tr ench
h a d
n o t
b e e n
i n s p e c t e d
by
a
competent
person . ( Tr. 124).

DISCUSSION

R i c k e t t s
a n d
B r y a n t
were
e m p l o y e e s
o f
S p e e d y
R o o t e r

Responde nt asserts
t h a t
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant
were
not employees .

R e s p o n d e n t
a r g u e s
t h a t
Mr.
Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
w e r e
p a i d
a s
i n d e p e n d e n t
s u b c o n t r a c t o r s
a n d
t h a t
i t
d i d
n o t
control
t h e
w o r k s i t e .
( R .
B r .
7 ,
9 ) .

A s
d i s c u s s e d
b e l o w ,
t h e s e
a r g u m e n t s
a r e
r e j e c t e d
as
unsu pported by the evidence .

For th e following
reas on s, I
find
Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
w e r e
e m p l o y e e s
o f
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
u n d e r
t h e
A c t .

Darden
A naly sis

“[T]h e Secretar y
h as the bur d en
o f
p roving
[ t h e ]
cited respondent
is t he employe r o f the affected worker s
at the site .” 
All Star Realty C o., Inc .,
24 BNA OS HC
1 356, 1 35 8
(No. 12-1597, 2014) (cita tion
o m itted).

The Act def ines
a n empl oyee
as “an emplo yee
of a n
employer who
is
em ploy e d in
a bus iness of
his em ployer which af fect s
commerce .” 29 U.S.C. § 652(3) . 8

T he Supreme Court has relied
on the
commo n
law fo r guidanc e
to determine
whether
a n
in divid ual is an em ployee , or alte rnat ively, the kind of pe rson the
c ommo n law wo ul d
co nsider
an
employee ,
i n
s i m i l a r l y
w o r d e d
s t a t u t e s .

Se e
Nationwide Mu t. Ins. Co. v.
Da rden,
5 03 U.S. 318,
322-23 (1992) ( Dard en ). Th e Commissio n
a p p l i e s
the
Darden
facto r s
to d etermine if an
indivi dual
is an employee of the cite d emp loye r.
Sharon &
Wa lter
Co nst r ., Inc .,
23 BNA OS HC 1286,
1289 (No. 00- 1 40 2,
2010) ( S&W ).

The common-la w ag ency doctrine set forth in
Darden
focus es
on the c ompany’s
“ri ght t o control the man n e r and
means
by which
the product” is accompli sh ed.

S & W,
23 BNA OS HC
at 1289 (c it ation
omit t ed). The company’ s
control over the wor k er is a
“princip al g uidepost”
to dete rmine the existence of a n employment re la tionship.
Froe dter t Mem'l
Lutheran Hosp.,
I n c.,
2 0
BNA OSHC 1500 , 1506 (No. 97-1839, 20 04 ) (citations
omitted) .

Addition al
f act or s
rel e vant
to
t h e
analys i s include:

the skill
r equi red [for
the
job ]; the source
of
the instrumentalities and to ols; the lo ca tion of t he work; t he d ura tion of the relat i o nship
betwe en the pa rties; whether the hiring p ar ty has t he right
to
assign add it ional
p roj e cts to t he hired p a rty; the extent of th e
hir ed party 's d iscr etion over wh en a nd how long to work; the met hod of paym en t; the hi red party' s ro le
in hiring and pay i n g ass istant s; whethe r the work is part of the r eg ular bus iness of
th e hiring pa rt y; wh e t her
the hiri ng party i s
in business; [and] t h e pr ovision
of e mplo yee benefits
and
the tax treatment of the hir ed party.

S &W ,
23 BNA
OSHC at 12 89
( c iti ng
Darden , 503 U. S . at
323-24 ) .

Con trol over the manner and means of acc om plishin g wo rk

“Cont ro l over
t he
‘manner and means
of
accomplishing the w o rk’ must include c on trol over the
worke rs
and not just the results of their work .” Don D avis,
19 BNA OSHC 1477, 1482 (No.
9 6 -13 78, 2001) (emph asis in original).

R e s p o n d e n t
a r g u e s
t h a t
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
d i d
n o t
h a v e
c o n t r o l
o f
th e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e ,
t h a t
M r .
R i c k e t t s
d e t e r m i n e d
s c o p e
o f
w o r k ,
t h a t
t h e
h o m e o w n e r ’ s
s o l e
c o n t a c t
f o r
t h e
j o b
w a s
M r .
R i c k e t t s
( n o t
S p e e d y
R o o t e r ) ,
a n d
t h a t
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
p r o v i d e d
n o
i n s t r u c t i o n s
f o r
t h e
w o r k s i t e .
( R .
B r .
5 ,
7 ) .

A s
d i s c u s s e d
below ,
I
f i n d
Mr.
Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Brya nt
d i d
n o t
h a v e
c o n t r o l
o v e r
t h e
m e a n s
a n d
m a n n e r
o f
a c c o m p l i s h i n g
the
w o r k .

T o
s u p p o r t
i t s
c l a i m
t h a t
Mr. Ricketts ,
n o t
S p e e d y
R o o t e r ,
h a d
c o n t r o l
o f
the
w o r k s i t e ,
R e s p o n d e n t
a s s e r t s
t h a t
Mr. Ri cketts
determine d
t h e
s c o p e
o f
w o r k .

( R .
B r .
8 ) .

T h i s
assertion
i s
n o t
s u p p o r t e d
b y
t h e
r e c o r d .

Mr. Ricketts
w a s
a s s i g n e d
t o
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
b y
M s .
C r o n e .

( T r .
5 9 - 6 0 ,
2 6 1 ) .

M r .
R i c k e t t s
a n d
M r .
B r y a n t
c a l l e d
i n
f r o m
t h e
j o b
s i t e
t o
l e t
M s .
C r o n e
k n o w
t h e
a p p r o x i m a t e
m e a s u r e m e n t
f o r
t h e
l eng th
o f
the
t r e n c h
( f r o m
h o u s e
t o
s i d e w a l k ) ,
w h a t
m a t e r i a l s
w e r e
n e e d e d ,
a n d
t h a t
a
b a c k h o e
was
r e q u i r e d .

( T r .
3 8 ,
2 5 2 ,
2 5 7 ;
C X - 1 4 A ,
C X - 1 4 B ) .

Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryan t
p r o v i d e d
i n f o r m a t i o n
t o
M s .
C r o n e ,
s o
t h a t
s h e
c o u l d
d e t e r m i n e
t h e
s c o p e
a n d
c o s t s
o f
the
j o b .

F u r t h e r ,
n e i t h e r
Mr. Ricketts
n o r
Mr. Bryant
c o u l d
c o n t r o l
t h e
s c o p e
o f
w o r k
a t
the
C a n a l
R o a d
s i t e
b ecause
t h e y
c o u l d
n o t
o b t a i n
a
p e r m i t
f r o m
t h e
D o v e r
B o r o u g h .

( T r .
1 7 7 - 7 8 ,
1 8 2 ) .

T h i s
d e m o n s t r a t e s
S p e e d y
R o o t e r ’ s
c o n t r o l
over the worksite .

R e s p o n d e n t
also
a s s e r t s
t h a t
b e c a u s e
Mr. Rick etts
w a s
t h e
h o m e o w n e r ’ s
p r i m a r y
c o n t a c t ,
M r .
R i c k e t t s
c o n t r o l l e d
t h e
w o r k s i t e .

( R .
B r .
8 ) .

T h i s
i s
n o t
s u p p o r t e d
b y
t h e
r e c o r d .

T h e
i n i t i a l
c a l l
f o r
r e p a i r
w a s
m a d e
t o
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
d i r e c t l y ,
a n d
th en
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
s e n t
M r .
R i c k e t t s
o u t
t o
mak e
t h e
r e p a i r .

( T r .
5 9 ,
7 9 ,
2 3 1 ) .

F u r t h e r ,
M r .
F i s h e l
t e s t i f i e d
that
w h e n
t h e
j o b
w a s
t a k i n g
t o o
l o n g ,
h e
c a l l e d
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
a n d
d i s c u s s e d
t h e
p r o b l e m
w i t h
M s .
C r o n e .

( T r .
8 0 ) .

H e
s t a t e d ,
“ I neve r called
J e r r y . I don’t have
his p hone number. I have
no conne ction with Jerry
other than when he wa s on
the job
s ite.”

(Tr. 80 ).

T h i s
s h o w s
t h a t ,
t h r o u g h
M s .
C r o n e ,
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
h a d
c o n t r o l
o f
t h e
w o r k s i t e .

M r .
F i s h e l ’ s
c o n t a c t
w i t h
M r .
R i c k e t t s
w a s
not
related to overall contr ol of the site .

M s .
C r o n e
acce pted ,
s c h e d u l e d ,
a n d
a s s i g n e d
p l u m b i n g
j o b s
f o r
t h e
R e s p o n d e n t .

( T r .
5 9 - 6 0 ,
2 3 1 ,
2 5 2 ,
2 6 1 ;
C X - 1 4 A ) .

Ms . Crone h ir ed
Jerry Ri cketts a nd
Austin
B r y a n t
to
perf o rm wo rk at the
Canal R oad
w orksite . ( Tr .
2 6 1 ) . Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
r e c e i v e d
M s .
C r o n e ’ s
a p p r o v a l
b e f o r e
w o r k
b e g a n .

( T r .
2 9 - 3 0 ,
3 8 ,
2 5 2 ,
2 5 7 ) .

If
additiona l supplies we re requi red, Ms. Crone h ad to appro ve and
aut horize payment fo r the supplies. 9 (Tr. 30).

Ms. Cr one
a s s i g n e d
t h e
w o r k
a n d
determined the sc op e
of w ork at
a
j o b
site . 10
M s .
C r o n e
e x e r c i s e d
s i g n i f i c a n t
c o n t r o l
o v e r
t h e
m e a n s
a n d
m a n n e r
t o
a c c o m p l i s h
t h e
w o r k .

This fac tor weighs
in favor of finding a
traditional em pl o ye r-e mploye e relationship.

W ork
loc atio n , hours wo rked, and
right
to assign ad d iti onal pr ojects

Ms.
Crone controlled the dai ly schedule and wo r k location . Mr. Bryant described tha t for a typic al ass ignment ,
he receiv ed a text mes sa ge wit h the location of
t he
a s s i g n e d
job. He picked up Spe edy
R ooter’s van , which includ ed the tool s
for plumbing wor k, and went to the assigned jo b. When finished w ith that j ob, he
c o n t a c t e d
Ms. Crone
f o r
h i s
n e x t
a s s i g n m e n t . (T r. 19 -20) .

Ms. Cro ne scheduled
the Cana l Road p roject with the homeown er and
t h e n
a ssig n ed
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant
to the
project. ( T r .
2 5 2 ,
2 6 1 ). Ms. Cron e directe d
Mr. Bryant
to leave the C a na l
Roa d
j o b
to work a t
a
d i f f e r e n t
S peedy
Rooter site. (Tr . 39,
2 4 7 ). Mr. Ricketts
de scribed himself a s on - call 24 hour s a day for plumbin g em e rgencies. ( T r .
2 5 2 ;
CX-14A ).

Ms. Cro ne d etermined
which
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
j o b s
w e r e
a s s i g n e d
t o
Mr. Ricketts
an d
Mr . Bryant ,
t h u s
c o n t r o l l i n g
b o t h
t h e
w o r k
l o c a t i o n
a n d
s c h e d u l e .

(Tr. 19,
3 9 ,
2 3 1 ,
2 6 1 ;
CX - 14A ). See
Barbosa Gr oup , Inc.,
21 BNA OSHC 186 5, 1 8 67 (No. 02-08 65,
2007) ,
a f f ’ d ,
2 9 6
F .
A p p ’ x
2 1 1
( 2 d
C i r .
2 0 0 8 )
(unpublished)
(finding employer- empl oyee relationship where
respo n dent
made d aily assig nment s).

This cont ro l
o v e r
w o r k
a s s i g n m e n t s
a n d
l o c a t i o n
is ind icative of an employer-employee
relationshi p ,
not of
an i n dependent contractor relationship.

Skills requir e d

Mr . Bryan t
described himself a s self-trained and that h e an d Mr. Rick etts
w o r k e d
t o g e t h e r
to solve
probl ems at a worksite.

(T r. 27 - 2 9 , 3 4).

M r . Ricketts
a nd
Mr. Bryant
were not license d plumbers . ( T r. 34,
1 8 2 ). Only a licensed plumber c ould obtai n
a
Dover Boroug h
work p ermit for th e
Canal Road
j o b .

( T r .
1 8 2 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
w a s
Sp eedy Root er’s licensed
plumbe r
f o r
t h e
p r o j e c t . (Tr.
1 8 2 ,
2 6 1 ;
C X - 1 2 ).

Mr. Ricketts
an d
Mr. Bryant
were
no t plumb ers
and
had no specialized skill or training in
ex cavati ons.
Th is factor weighs in fa vor of
a traditional employer-employ ee
relationshi p. See A.C.
Castle Constr . ,
882 F . 3d
3 4 ,
39
( 1 s t
C i r .
2 0 1 8 )
(findi ng
a n employer-employe e re lati onship w her e the
company o wner
held the
license that permitted work);
see also, Absolute R oofing
& C onst r.,
5 80 F .
A pp’x 357, 361 (6th Cir .
2014)
( unpublished )
( A b s o l u t e )
(high level of s kil l suggests
an independent contract or
re lation ship an d
a
low-l evel of skill
suggest s
an
emplo yer-emp loyee re l ati o nship).

S o u r c e
o f
t o o l s

Speedy Rooter p rovided the
e s s e n t i a l
too ls
n e c e s s a r y
t o
c o m p l e t e
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n
a n d
p l u m b i n g
w o r k
a t
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e .

Mr. Bryant
a n d
M r .
R i c k e t t s
drov e
a
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
v a n
to
the job
site. (Tr . 19,
2 4 2 ;
C X - 1 4 C ).
Spee dy
R o o ter owned the backhoe
used t o ex cavate
the trench. ( T r .
2 6 1 ).
M s .
C r o n e
d e l i v e r e d
t h e
b a c k h o e
t o
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
s i t e .
( T r .
2 3 5 ,
2 4 1 ,
2 5 4 ;
C X - 1 4 B ,
C X - 1 4 C ) .

The
ladde r, shovels ,
and
sump p ump at the wo rksit e
were provided by
Speedy Rooter. 11 (T r.
19 - 2 0 ,
2 02 ,
2 4 1 - 4 2 ,
2 5 1 - 5 2 ; CX -14A ,
C X - 1 4 B ).
M s. Crone contact ed On e-Call so utiliti es could be mark ed
befo re
excavat i n g . ( Tr. 17 4-78 ; CX-13 ). M s .
C r o n e
a c q u i r e d
t h e
n e c e s s a r y
p e r m i t
f r o m
t h e
D o v e r
B o r o u g h .

(Tr.
17 7 -78,
182 ; CX-1 2).

M r .
Ricketts
an d
Mr . Br y ant
occasionally
u s e d
t h e i r
o w n
small ha nd tools
a t
a
worksite ; however ,
a l l
the
e s s e n t i a l
t o o l s
w e r e
p r o v i d e d
b y
S p e e d y
R o o t e r .

T h i s
f a c t o r
s u p p o r t s
a n
employer - e m p l o y e e
r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e c a u s e
t h e
t o o l s
n e c e s s a r y
f o r
t he
j o b
w e r e
s u p p l i e d
b y
S p e e d y
R o o t e r .

S e e
Loomis Cabinet Co. v. OSHRC , 20 F . 3d
938, 942 (9th Cir. 1994 ) (finding employer status w here
employer pro vided tools);
Absolute ,
58 0
F . App ’ x
a t
3 61
(all tools
on sit e were
the
pr operty of
employ er) .

T he work
wa s a regu lar
part o f Speedy Rooter’s
busi n ess

Speedy Rooter was a plumbing cont ractor
t h a t
did interior an d exterior plu mbing
work ,
i n c l u d i n g
ex cava tion, repai r ,
an d re p lacem e nt of sewer
lin es. (Tr.
24 , 38,
2 4 4 ,
2 6 1 ). The owner ,
Ms. Cro ne, was a licens ed plu mb er. (Tr.
261 ).
Mr. Ricketts
an d
M r. B r yant
d i d
p l u m b i n g
w o r k
f o r
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
a t
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e . (Tr.
2 61 ).
T h e
w o r k
b y
Mr. R icketts
and
Mr. Bryant
was
a
r egular
p a r t
of Speedy Roote r ’ s
b u s i n e s s .

This factor
is indicat ive of
a traditional
employ er-em ployee rela tionship. See
gen e rally
Slingluff v. OS HRC,
425 F.3d 861, 869 ( 10th Cir.
2005 ) (st u cco co ntrac tor that hired
wo rker t o
help with stucco work ,
emplo yed the worker in question) .

Duration of
the relations h ip and
hiring
or paying of ass i stants

Mr.
Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant
e a c h
w o rked for Speedy Roo ter for about two yea rs. (Tr.
1 6, 181, 243 ;
C X - 1 4 C ). D urin g
the
t wo year s
that Mr. Ricketts worked for
Speedy
Roo ter he
comple ted about 30
excavation jobs
in add ition to other assignme n ts.

(Tr.
2 3 6 - 3 8 ).

M r .
Bryant
w o rked
for Sp eedy
Rooter about 40 hour s a week during t he
2 0 1 6
busy
seas on . (Tr.
1 7 - 1 8 ).
N e i t h e r
Mr. Rickett s
n o r
Mr. Bryant
hired an ass istant. (Tr . 28). Speedy
Rooter had a
dir ect ,
i n d i v i d u a l
rel ationship with both
Mr.
Ricketts
and
M r. Br yant ,
a n d
M s .
C r o n e
a s s i g n e d
e a c h
t o
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e . (Tr.
1 9 1 ).

T he
duratio n and ope n-ended nature of the
arrangement ref lect
a tra ditional employe r-emplo yee
relationship.
See Absolute ,
580 F . App’x
a t
362
( c i t a t i o n s
o m i t t e d )
( i n d e f i n i t e
d u r a t i o n
a n d
indefinite
n a t u r e
o f
r e l a t i o n s h i p
f a v o r s
e m p l o y e e
s t a t u s ) . I find thes e fac tors weigh in favor of a n
em ployer-employee relati onship.

Method of payment

E a c h
F r i d a y ,
Mr. B rya nt was paid
bas ed o n an hourly
rate, usually
a round $ 11 per hour, and
g enera lly i n cash. (Tr. 17-1 8,
2 1 0). Mr .
Ricketts was a lso
p aid
o n
a n
h o u r l y
b a s i s
in
cash each week . (Tr. 146, 2 10, 252; CX-14A). Ms. Crone c onfirmed tha t she typic a lly
pa id
Mr. Bry ant
and
Mr. Ric ketts
in ca sh. (Tr. 210).

I
f i n d
t h a t
p a y m e n t
i n
c a s h ,
a t
a n
h o u r l y
r a t e
i s
i n d i c a t i v e
o f
a n
e m p l o y e r - e m p l o y e e
r e l a t i o n s h i p .

S e e
A b s o l u t e ,
5 8 0
F .
A p p ’ x
a t
3 6 3 .
( a
s e t
h o u r l y
w a g e
w e i g h s
i n
f a v o r
o f
e m p l o y e e
s t a t u s ) .

Tax treatme nt and em ployee benefits

S p e e d y
R o o t e r
p r o v i d e d
n o
e m p l o y e e
b e n e f i t s
t o
Mr. Ri ckett s
o r
Mr. Bryant .

( T r .
1 8 8 - 9 0 ) .

Speedy
R o o t e r
did not wi thhold income tax or soci al secu rity tax from
Mr. Brya nt ’s
a nd
M r .
Rick ett s ’
pay ;
i t
s e n t
I R S
1 0 9 9
f o r m s
t o
Mr. Bryant
a n d
M r .
R i c k e t t s . ( Tr.
1 8 8 ,
2 0 4 ;
C X - 1 7 ). T h e
1 0 9 9
f o r m s
s e n t
t o
Mr. Ricke tts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
f o r
t h e
20 16
t a x
y e a r
w e r e
p l a c e d
i n
e v i d e n c e . 12

( C X - 1 7 ). T h e r e
w a s
n o
d o c u m e n t a t i o n
p r o v i d e d
f o r
t h e
2 0 1 5
t a x
y e a r . 13

( T r .
2 0 3 ,
2 0 5 ) .

T he t ax
t r e a t m e n t
a nd benefit s are like thos e of an i ndepen dent contracto r
relationship. However,
the
C o m m i s s i o n
h a s
n o t e d
t h a t
t ax
repor ting status
a l o n e
is no t
the co ntrolling factor in a
D a rden
analysis. See S&W ,
2 3
BN A
OS HC at 1290. (“fail ur e to
wi t hhold federal i ncome and soci al sec urit y t axes was . . . not
a bona fide
reflection of an authentic
indep endent contractor relati onsh i p.”)

I find the tax treatme n t
and l ack of benefits
are not
dispositive
t o
the determination of
t h e
t y p e
o f
e m p l o y m e n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p
h e r e ,
e s p e c i a l l y
w h e n
c o n s i d e r e d
i n
th e
l i g h t
o f
r o u t i n e
p a y m e n t s
t o
Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr.
Bryan t
i n
c a s h .

The
a g r e e m e n t s

M s .
C r o n e
te stified
t h a t
t h e
S u b c o n t r a c t o r
A g r e e m e n t
( R X - 1 5 )
a n d
E q u i p m e n t
U s e
A g r e e m e n t
( R X - 1 6 )
b e t w e e n
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
a n d
M r .
R i c k e t t s
p r o v e d
h e
w a s
a n
independent
contra ctor .

( R .
B r .
4 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
tes tified
t h a t
s h e
c o n s i d e r e d
b o t h
Mr. Bryant
a n d
Mr.
R icketts
t o
b e
i n d e p e n d e n t
s u b c o n t r a c t o r s ;
h o w e v e r ,
s h e
o n l y
h a d
a
w r i t t e n
a g r e e m e n t
w i t h
Mr.
Ricketts . 14

( T r .
2 2 4 - 2 5 ) .

T h e
S u b c o n t r a c t o r
A g r e e m e n t
w a s
a
b o i l e r p l a t e
a g r e e m e n t
t h a t
w a s
n o t
p e r s o n a l i z e d
f o r
M r .
R i c k e t t s
o r
S p e e d y
R o o t e r .

( T r .
2 0 0 ;
R X - 1 5 ) .

T h e
n a m e s
o f
t h e
p a r t i e s
t o
t h e
a g r e e m e n t
o n l y
a p p e a r
i n
t h e
s i g n a t u r e
b l o c k s
a t
t h e
e n d
o f
the
a g r e e m e n t .

( R X - 1 5 ) .

T h e
S u b c o n t r a c t o r
A g r e e m e n t
r e q u i r e d
t h e
s u b c o n t r a c t o r
( R i c k e t t s )
t o
f u r n i s h
a l l
l a b o r
a n d
m a t e r i a l s
t o
pe rform
t h e
w o r k
a n d
to
c o n t a c t
pu blic
u t i l i t i e s
b e f o r e
e x c a v a t i o n .

( R X - 1 5 ,
p p .
0 1 2 8 ,
0 1 3 0 ) .

A s
d i s c u s s e d
a b o v e ,
Mr. Ricketts
d i d
n o t
f u r n i s h
a l l
l a b o r
a n d
m a t e r i a l s
o r
c o n t a c t
t h e
p u b l i c
u t i l i t i e s
f o r
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e . Rather,
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
p r o v i d e d
m o s t
o f
t h e
m a t e r i a l s ,
c o n t a c t e d
t h e
u t i l i t y
p r i o r
t o
e x c a v a t i o n ,
a n d
a s s i g n e d
M r .
B r y a n t
t o
w o r k
a l o n g s i d e
M r .
R i c k e t t s
at the worksite .

F u r t h e r ,
t h e
S u b c o n t r a c t o r
A g r e e m e n t
r e q u i r e d
t h e
s u b c o n t r a c t o r
t o
maintain
commerci al general
liability, aut omo bi le, commercial umbrella,
and
workers compensation insurance.

( R X - 1 5 ,
p .
0 1 3 2 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
c l a i m e d
t h a t
Mr. Ricketts
p r o v i d e d
a
certificate
o f
i n s u r a n c e
t o
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
i n
2 0 1 5 .

( T r .
1 9 6 ) .

H o w e v e r ,
R espo nd en t
s u b m i t t e d
n o
d o c u m e n t
t o
s u p p o r t
t h i s
c l a i m .

( T r .
1 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

T h e
E q u i p m e n t
U s e
A g r e e m e n t
w a s
b e t w e e n
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
( E q u i p m e n t
O w n e r )
a n d
J e r r y
R i c k e t s
( U s e r )
t o
o p e r a t e
a
K u b o t a
e x c a v a t o r
a n d
a
J o h n
D e e r e
b a c k h o e .

( R X - 1 6 ) .

T h i s
a g r e e m e n t
r e q u i r e d
Mr. Ricketts
t o
m a i n t a i n
l i a b i l i t y
i n s u r a n c e
with
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
a s
a n
a d d i t i o n a l
i n s u r e d
o n
t h e
p o l i c y .

Id.

B o t h
a g r e e m e n t s
were
d a t e d
O c t o b e r
5 ,
2 0 1 5
a n d
i n c l u d e d
a
s i g n a t u r e
f o r
Mr. Ricketts .

( R X - 1 5 ,
R X - 1 6 ) .

T h e
s i g n a t u r e
o f
Mr. Ricketts
w a s
n o t
a u t h e n t i c a t e d . 15

( T r .
1 9 8 ) .

F u r t h e r ,
Mr. Ricke tts ’
s i g n a t u r e
o n
t h e
O S H A
in terv i ew
s t a t e m e n t
a p p e a r e d
t o
b e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t
t h a n
t h e
s i g n a t u r e
o n
the
a g r e e m e n t s .

( T r .
1 9 9 ;
C X - 1 4 A ;
R X - 1 5 ,
R X - 1 6 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
c l a i m e d
s h e
w i t n e s s e d
Mr. Ri cke tts
s i g n i n g
t h e
two agreements .

( T r .
1 9 8 ) .

D u e
t o
M s .
C r o n e ’ s
c l e a r
d e s i r e
t o
e s t a b l i s h
that
M r .
R i c k e t t s
w a s
a n
i n d e p e n d e n t
s u b c o n t r a c t o r ,
I
g i v e
l i t t l e
w e i g h t
t o
R e s p o n d e n t ’ s
c l a i m
t h a t
M r .
R i c k e t t s
s i g n e d
t h e
a g r e e m e n t s .

F u r t h e r ,
I
f i n d
t h e s e
t w o
a g r e e m e n t s
d o
n o t
s u p p o r t
R e s p o n d e n t ’ s
c l a i m
that
Mr. Ri ckett s
a n d
Mr. Bryant
were
i n d e p e n d e n t
s u b c o n t r a c t o r s .

F i r s t ,
d e s p i t e
M s .
C r o n e ’ s
t e s t i m o n y
t h a t
b o t h
Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
w e r e
i n d e p e n d e n t
c o n t r a c t o r s ,
t h e r e
w a s
n o
w r i t t e n
a g r e e m e n t
w i t h
Mr. Bryan t .

( T r .
1 9 1 ,
2 2 5 ) .

S e c o n d ,
t h e
requiremen t
t o
p r o v i d e
l a b o r ,
m a t e r i a l s ,
a n d
c o n t a c t
t h e
u t i l i t y
w a s
n o t
f u l f i l l e d
b y
Mr. Ricketts .

F i n a l l y ,
Respondent
p r o v i d e d
n o
d o c u m e n t s
t o
v e r i f y
M r .
R i c k e t t s
c a r r i e d
t h e
i n s u r a n c e
r e q u i r e d
b y
t h e
a g r e e m e n t s .
( T r .
1 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

S e e
Ca peway
Roo fing S ys ., I nc. ,
20 BN A
OSH C
133 1, 1342-1343 ( No. 00-196 8 , 2 0 03) ,
a f f ’ d ,
3 9 1
F . 3 d
5 6
( 1 s t
C i r .
2 0 0 4 )
( “ Th e  C ommission has also no ted
that w hen
one part y has
evidence
but
d oes not present
it, i t is
reasonab le to
draw
a
negative
or adv e rse
inferenc e again st th at p ar ty,   i.e . , t hat
th e
ev ide nce
woul d no t help t hat
part y 's ca s e ” )
( c i t a t i o n s
o m i t t e d ) .

T h e
e v i d e n c e
d o e s
n o t
d e m o n s t r a t e
t h e
t e r m s
l i s t e d
i n
t h e
a g r e e m e n t s
w e r e
i n
e f f e c t .

I
f i n d
t h e
s u b c o n t r a c t o r
a g r e e m e n t
a n d
e q u i p m e n t
u s e
a g r e e m e n t
d o
n o t
d e m o n s t r a t e
t h e
e x i s t e n c e
o f
a
t r u e
s u b c o n t r a c t o r
r e l a t i o n s h i p
w i t h
e i t h e r
Mr. Ricketts
o r
Mr. Bryant .

See
g e n e r a l l y
S & W , 23 BNA OSH C
a t
12 89-90
(finding
the
ex istenc e of a subc ontractor disclaim er form and
fa ct that com pany wa s p aid as a
sub contractor did not
m ean t here
was not an emplo yer/e m ployee relati onship
for
pur p oses of the
Act ).

Considering
all
a s p e c t s
o f
t he r ela tions hip
be tween
Mr. Bryant
a n d
Mr. Ricketts
w i t h
S p e e d y
R o o t e r ,
I find
the relatio nship was m or e aki n
to
that of
an e mployer -emplo yee
th an
that
o f a n
i ndepende nt c ontr a ctor .

I n
p a r t i c u l a r ,
becaus e
o f
the
R e s p o n d e n t ’ s
significant co n tro l
in
obtaini ng ,
assig ning ,
a n d
c o n t r o l l i n g
t h e
work,
p a y i n g
o n
a n
h o u r l y
b a s i s
( o f t e n
i n
c a s h ) ,
a n d
providin g the
t o o l s
a n d
p e r m i t s
n e c e s s a r y
t o comple te t he
w o rk,
I find
that
Mr. Bryant
a n d
M r. Ricketts
w e r e
e m p l o y e e s
o f
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
for purposes o f the Act .

S ecre tary’s Burde n
of Proof

To
establish a violation of an OSHA standard, the Secretary must
prove:
(1)
the
cited standard applies;
(2) the
terms
of
the
standard
were violated;
(3)
one
or
more
employees had access
to the cited condition; and (4) the employer knew, or with
the exercise
of reasonable diligence
could have known, of the violative condition. As tra
P harm. Prod s ., 9 BNA
OSHC
2126,
2129
(No.
78-6247, 1981),
aff’d i n rel ev a nt
p a rt,
681 F.2d 69 (1st
Cir.
1982). The Secretary
has
the burden of proving his
case by a preponderance
of the evidence.

Id.

C itation 1, Item 1

Respondent
was cited
for a serious
violation of
29 C.F.R.
§
1926.21(b)(2):

( b)  Em ploy er
resp onsib ility .
.
.
.
( 2)  The e m ployer shal l ins truc t
eac h employe e i n t he
recogn ition
and avoidanc e of unsafe
c onditi ons
an d the reg ulations
applic able to his w ork e nvironment to
control
or
eliminate
a ny hazards or othe r ex p osure t o
ill ne ss
o r
i nju ry.

The
Secretary
asser ts th a t Res po nden t
did not pr o vide
training
on
t h e
r e co gni t i o n
and
avoid a n c e
o f
c ave-in hazards
f o r employe es
wo rkin g
i n a trenc h
e x c a v a t i o n
a t
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e . 16

The
st andar d
a pplies ,
e m p l o y e e s
w e r e
e x p o s e d ,
a n d
t h e
s t a n d a r d
w a s
v i o l a t e d

As
discussed
above,
two
Speedy
Rooter
employees,
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant,
worked
at
the
Canal
Road
worksite.
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant
removed
and
installed
a
lateral
sewer
pipe
in
a
trench
excavation.

The
standard
applies
and
employees
were
exposed.

Speedy
Rooter
was
required
to
train
employees
on
hazardous
conditions
related
to
trench
excavations.

S e e
Sup e rio r Cus tom Cabinet
Co . , In c. ,
1 8
B N A
O S H C
1 0 1 9 ,
1 0 2 1
( N o .
9 4 - 2 0 0 ,
1 9 9 7 )
( i n s t r u c t i o n s
m u s t
b e
“s peci f ic enough
to
advi se
employees o f
the haza rd s assoc ia ted
w ith their wor k an d
th e
w ays
t o avoid
t hem ” )
( c i t a t i o n s
o m i t t e d ) .

M r .
B r y a n t
t e s t i f i e d
that
h e
h ad
r e c e i v e d
n o
t r a i n i n g
o n
t h e
u s e
o f
t r e n c h
b o x e s .

( T r .
3 7 ,
2 5 5 ;
E x .
C X - 1 4 B ) .

W h e n
i n t e r v i e w e d
b y
t h e
C O ,
Mr. Br yant
s t a t e d
that
h e
h a d
n o t
r e c e i v e d
a n y
s a f e t y
t r a i n i n g
a n d
d i d
n o t
k n o w
a b o u t
s o i l
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s
f o r
t r e n c h i n g .

( T r .
2 5 5 ;
C X - 1 4 B ) .

D u r i n g
Mr. Ricketts ’
i n t e r v i e w
s t a t e m e n t
t o
t h e
C O ,
M r. Ricketts
r e v e a l e d
h e
h a d
n o t
r e c e i v e d
a n y
s a f e t y
t r a i n i n g ,
d i d
n o t
k n o w
o f
a ny
s a f e t y
p r o g r a m ,
a n d
d i d
n o t
k n o w
a b o u t
s o i l
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .

( T r .
1 4 4 - 4 5 ,
2 5 0 - 5 1 ;
E x .
C X - 1 4 A ) .

H i s
o n l y
t r a i n i n g
w a s
s o m e
c o l l e g e
a n d
p l u m b i n g
t r a i n i n g
p r i o r
t o
w o r k i n g
f o r
S p e e d y
R o o t e r .

( T r .
2 5 0 ;
C X - 1 4 A ) .

M s .
C r o n e
t e s t i f i e d
t h a t
s h e
k n e w
t h a t
Mr. Ricketts
h a d
n o
O S H A
t r a i n i n g
o n
e x c a v a t i o n
s a f e t y .

( T r .
1 8 1 - 8 2 ) .

When
asked
about
training
d u r i n g
t h e
i n s p e c t i o n ,
M s .
C r o n e
t o l d
C O
D a i l e y
t h a t
s a f e t y
w a s
d i s c u s s e d
a t
a
g r o u p
m e e t i n g
h e l d
e v e r y
t h r e e
m o n t h s .

( T r .
1 2 4 - 2 5 ,
2 4 3 - 4 4 ;
C X - 1 4 C ) .

M s .
C r o n e
c l a i m e d
t h a t
s h e
k e p t
a
l o g
o f
t h e
a t t e n d e e s
a t
t h e s e
m e e t i n g s .

( T r .
1 2 4 - 2 5 ,
2 4 3 - 4 4 ;
C X - 1 4 C ) .

H o w e v e r ,
R e s p o n d e n t
d i d
n o t
p r o v i d e
a
c o p y
o f
t h e
m e e t i n g s ’
l o g s
o r
c o n t e n t s
t o
s u p p o r t
t h i s
c l a i m .

See
Ca peway ,
20 BN A
OSHC
at
1342-13 43
( reasonable
to draw
inference
against
the party
with
control
over the evidence) .

Speedy
Rooter
d i d
n o t
p r o v i d e
t r a i n i n g
t o
r e c o g n i z e
a n d
a v o i d
h a z a r d s
a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h
e x c a v a t i o n s .

T h e
stan da rd
w a s
v i o l a t e d .

Knowledge

The
Secretary
must
prove
“the employer either
knew, or with
the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could
have
known
of
the
hazardous
condition.” P S P
M o n o t e c h
I n d u s . ,
22
BNA
OSHC
1303,
1305-06
(No.
06-1201,
2008)
( P S P ).

The
employer’s
knowledge is directed to
the physical conditions
that
constitute a violation.

Phoe nix
R o o fing,
Inc. , 17
BNA OSHC 1076,
1079-1080 (No.
90-2148,
1995),
aff’d ,
79
F.3d 1146 (5th
Cir. 1996)
(unpublished).

The
Secretary need not
show
that an
employer understood or acknowledged
that
the physical
conditions were actually
hazardous. I d .

Several factors are considered in
assessing
reasonable
diligence,
including the employer's
“obligation to inspect the work
area, to
anticipate
hazards
to
which employees may be exposed, and to take
measures
to prevent the
occurrence.”

Crane sville
Bl o ck
Co. , I nc./Clark Div . ,
23
BNA OSHC
1977,
1986
(Nos.
08-0316 & 08-0317, 2012)
( C r a n e s v i l l e )
(citation omitted).

The employer's
conduct is
viewed in its
totality and “whether
a
reasonable
employer would have
done more.”

C apform ,
I n c .,
16 BNA OSHC
2040,
2042
(No. 91-1613,
1994).

M s .
C r o n e
k n e w
a
t r e n c h
w o u l d
b e
e x c a v a t e d
a t
t h e
w o r k s i t e
and
k n e w
t h a t
someone
h a d
t o
w o r k
i n
t h e
t r e n c h
t o
connect
t h e
n e w
s e w e r
l i n e .

( C X - 1 2 ) .

She
k n e w
t h a t
M r .
R i c k e t t s
h a d
n o
p r i o r
t r a i n i n g
i n
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n s . 17

Further , she
knew
t h a t
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
h a d
n o t
p r o v i d e d
t r a i n i n g
o n
t r e n c h i n g
h a z a r d s
t o
Mr. Ricketts
o r
Mr. Bryant .

R e s p o n d e n t ,
t h r o u g h
M s .
C r o n e ,
h a d
k n o w l e d g e
t h a t
Mr.
R i c k e t t s
a n d
Mr. Bryant
w o r k e d
a t
th e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
w i t h o u t
a n y
t r a i n i n g
i n
t r e n c h i n g
h a z a r d s .

K n o w l e d g e
i s
e s t a b l i s h e d .

S e r i o u s
C h aract eri zation

T h e
S e c r e t a r y
c h a r a c t e r i z e d
t h i s
v i o l a t i o n
a s
s e r i o u s .

The Act
st a t es th at “a
s er ious
v iola t ion shall be dee med to
exist in
a
place o f
em pl oyment
if ther e
is a substa ntial
proba bi lit y that de ath or serious phy sical
h arm
co u ld
re su lt f rom ”
t h e
v i o l a t i v e
c o n d i t i o n .
Sec . 17(k)
o f
t he
A ct;
29
U.S.C.
§ 666(k). A
serious
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
is
a ppr o priate
when
“a  seriou s  injury
is the  li ke ly
result
should
an
accident  occur .” 
P e te Mi ller,
In c. ,
19 BNA
OSHC 1257, 1258 (No. 99-0947,
2000).

According to CO Dailey,
an
employee
is
exposed
to
serious
injury
or
death
from
engulfment
if
a
cave-in
occurs
in
a
trench
excavation.
(Tr.
140-41).

Training
provides
an
employee
with
the
ability
to
recognize
the
hazards
of
working
in
a
trench
excavation.
(Tr.
140).

The
serious
characterization
is
supported.

S e e
M o sser C onstr. ,
In c , 23
B N A
O S H C
10 44 ,
1 0 4 7
( No .
0 8 - 0 6 3 1 , 20 10 )
( M o s s e r )
( r e c o g n i z i ng
c a v e - i n
i n c l u d e s
“ p o t e n t i a l l y
s e r i o u s
o r
d e a d l y
c o n s e q u e n c e s ” ) ;
Commu nications, I nc .,
7
BNA OSHC 1598, 1602
(No.
76-1924,
1979) (employees
likely
would
suffer serious physical harm from collapse of
trench 6′2″ deep, particularly if they
were in a
bending position).

P e n a l t y

Section 17(j) of
the Act requires
the Commission to
give due consideration to four
criteria in assessing penalties: the
size of
the employer’s business, the gravity of the violation,
the
employer’s good faith, and
the
employer’s
prior
history of violations. C ompass Envt ’ l , Inc. ,
23
BNA
OSHC 1132, 1137 (No. 06-1036,
2010),
a f f ’ d ,
663
F.3d
1164
(10th
Cir.
2011). The gravity
of the violation is generally accorded
greater weight. Se e
J.
A.
Jones Constr. Co. , 15
BNA OSHC
2201, 2213-14 (No. 87-2059,
1993).

The maximum penalty for a serious violation is $12,471. 18

29
U.S.C.
§ 666(b),
29
C.F.R. §
1903.15(d)(3)
(2016). The penalty was
adjusted
for
a
moderate
gravity
based
on
a
high
severity
and
lesser
probability.

(CX-6).

The
size
adjustment of
70% reduced
the penalty to
$2,672.

I d .

I
find
the
penalty adjustments are appropriate
for this
violation.

Citation
1 ,
Item
2

Respondent
was
cited
for a
serious
violation
of 29 C.F.R.
§ 1926.651(j)(2):

( j)  Protecti on o f
emplo yees f ro m lo o se rock or
soil.
.
. .
( 2)  E mplo yees
shall be p rot ected
f rom
exca vated or other materials o r
equi pment t hat
co uld po se
a h azard
by fall ing or roll ing into e xc avat io ns. P r o tectio n shall b e provi de d by placin g an d
ke eping
such
materi a ls
o r equip ment
at lea st 2 feet ( .61 m) fr om the edg e of
exca vations, o r b y the
u se
of re taining devices that are s u ffici ent to
prev en t mate ri als
or eq uipment
from fallin g or rolli ng
int o
excav a t ions,
or by a c ombinat io n of both i f ne c ess ary.

The Secretary asserts
that
an employee
at
the
Canal
Road
worksite
worked
in
a
trench where the
spoil
pile was
placed
at
the
edge
of the excavation.

Respondent
does
not
dispute
that
the
spoil
pile
was
at
the
edge
of
the
excavation.

T h e
s t a n d a r d
a p p l i e s ,
e m p l o y e e s
w e r e
e x p o s e d ,
a n d
t h e
s t a n d a r d
w a s
v i o l a t e d

Excavated
soil
was
piled
along
the
edge
of
the
trench.

( T r .
9 7 ;
C X - 1 1 A ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .
M r .
R i c k e t t s
w a s
i n
t h e
t r e n c h
c o n n e c t i n g
t h e
p i p e s
b e l o w
t h e
s p o i l
p i l e .

( T r .
8 1 - 8 2 ,
9 7 ,
2 4 9 ;
C X - 1 4 A ) .

The
standard
applies
and
employees
were
exposed.

T h e
s t a n d a r d
r e q u i r e s
t h e
e x c a v a t e d
s o i l
t o
b e
e i t h e r
b e h i n d
a
r e t a i n i n g
d e v i c e
o r
n o
c l o s e r
t h a n
2
f e e t
f r o m
t h e
e d g e
o f
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n .

T h e
s p o i l
p i l e
w a s
s i x
f e e t
h i g h
b y
e i g h t
f e e t
w i d e
a n d
l e s s
t h a n
2
f e e t
f r o m
the
e d g e
o f
the
t r e n c h .

( T r .
9 7 ,
1 0 0 ,
1 4 3 ;
C X - 7 ,
C X - 9
p .
0 0 4 8 ) .
T h e
C O ’ s
p h o t o g r a p h s
s h o w
t h e
e x c a v a t e d
s o i l
w a s
p i l e d
a l o n g
t h e
e d g e
o f
the
5 0 - f o o t
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n
w i t h
n o
r e t a i n i n g
d e v i c e
t o
k e e p
t h e
s o i l
f r o m
f a l l i n g
i n t o
t h e
t r e n c h .

( T r .
1 3 9 ;
C X - 9
p .
0 0 4 8 ,
C X - 1 1 A ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .

N o
r e t a i n i n g
d e v i c e
w a s
u s e d
a t
t h i s
w o r k s i t e
a n d
t h e
s o i l
w a s
p l a c e d
c l o s e r
t h a n
2
f e e t
f r o m
t he
excavatio n ’ s
e d g e .

T h e
s t a n d a r d
w a s
v i o l a t e d .

K n ow led ge

The
Secretary must prove
“the employer either
knew,
or with
the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could have known of the
hazardous
condition.” P S P ,
22
BNA
OSHC
at
1305-06.

Commission
precedent states that
the
employer's conduct is
viewed in
its
totality and
“whether
a
reasonable employer
would have
done more.”

C apfo r m ,
16 BNA OSHC
at
2042. Further, an employer
has constructive
knowledge of
conditions that are “readily
apparent.” 
See  Ha milton Fixture , 16 BNA OSHC 1073,
1091 (No. 88-1720,
1993),  aff 'd , 28
F.3d 1213 (6th Cir. 1994).

A s
d i s c u s s e d
a b o v e ,
M s .
C r o n e
k n e w
t h a t
t h e
w o r k
a t
t he
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
r e q u i r e d
d i g g i n g
a
l o n g
t r e n c h
t o
i n s t a l l
a
n e w
s e w e r
l a t e r a l .

( T r .
2 3 6 :
C X - 1 2 ) .

T h e
s p o i l
p i l e
w a s
i n
p l a i n
v i e w
a s
d e m o n s t r a t e d
b y
p h o t o g r a p h s
a n d
M r .
F i s h e l ’ s
o b s e r v a t i o n
o f
Mr. Ricketts
a t
w o r k
i n
t h e
t r e n c h
b e l o w
the
s p o i l
p i l e .

( T r .
8 1 - 8 2 ;
C X - 1 1 A ,
C X - 1 1 B ) .

Se e
KS Ener g y Servs., Inc . , 22 BNA OS HC
1 2 6 1 ,
1267-6 8
( N o .
0 6 - 1 4 1 6 ,
2 0 0 8 )
( s i g n a g e
w a s
i n
p l a i n
v i e w
e s t a b l i s h i n g
c o n s t r u c t i v e
k n o w l e d g e ) ;
A. L. Baumga rtner Constr.,
In c .,
16 BNA OSHC 1 995, 1998 (No .
92 - 10 22, 19 94)
( finding
c o n s t r u c t i v e
k n o w l e d g e
w h e r e
a
c o n d i t i o n
i s
“ r e a d i l y
a p p a r e n t
t o
a n y o n e
w h o
l o o k e d ” ) .

D e s p i t e
t h i s ,
M s .
C r o n e
m a d e
n o
e f f o r t
t o
an ti ci p ate
t h e
h a z a r d
o f
the
s p o i l
p i l e
a n d
t o o k
n o
a c t i o n
t o
prevent
t h e
s p o i l
p i l e
f r o m
b e i n g
o n
t h e
e d g e
o f
the
e x c a v a t i o n .

S e e
Cran esville ,
23 BN A OSHC
a t
1986
( reas onable
d i l i g e n c e
i n c l u d e s
t h e
e m p l o y e r ’ s
o b l i g a t i o n
t o
i n s p e c t
t h e
w o r k s i t e ,
a n t i c i p a t e
h a z a r d s ,
a n d
t a k e
a c t i o n
t o
p r e v e n t
o c c u r r e n c e
o f
h a z a r d s ) . T h e
s p o i l
p i l e
w a s
i n
p l a i n
v i e w
a n d
M s .
C r o n e
k n e w
t h a t
s o i l
w o u l d
b e
e x c a v a t e d
t o
c r e a t e
t h e
t r e n c h .

K n o w l e d g e
i s
establi shed .

S e r i o u s
Ch aracterization

A
s eriou s
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
is
appropriate
wh e n
“a  serious  injury is the  likely
result
should
an accident  occur .” 
P ete Mi ller ,
19 BNA
OSHC
at
1258. This
item
was
characterized
as
serious
because
a
cave-in
would
result
in
serious
injury
or
death.

(Tr.
139).

CO Dailey testified
that a
spoil
pile
on
the
edge
of
an
excavation
creates
additional
pressure
on
the
trench
walls
increasing
the
likelihood
of
a
cave-in.

(Tr.
139).

The
Commission
has
recognized
that
a
trench
cave-in
is
a
serious
hazard.

S e e
Mo sser , 23
B N A
O S H C
a t
1 0 4 7
( find ing
c a v e - i n
i n c l u d e s
“ p o t e n t i a l l y
s e r i o u s
o r
d e a d l y
c o n s e q u e n c e s ” ) ;
Communic ations ,
7 BNA OSHC
at
1602
(employees
likely
would
suffer serious physical harm from collapse of trench 6′2″ deep, particularly
if they were in a bending position).

The
serious
characterization
is
supported.

Pena lty

The
maximum penalty for
a serious violation is $12,471.

The
gravity
was
assessed
as
moderate
based
on
high
severity
and
lesser
probability.

(CX-7).

The size adjustment of
70%
reduced
the penalty
to
$2,672.

I d .

I find
the
penalty adjustments are appropriate for this
violation.

C itation 1 ,
Item
3

Respondent was cited for a
serious violation
of 29 C.F.R.
§
1926.651(k)(1):

(k)  I nspec tions.

(1)  Daily inspec tions of
exca vations, the adja cent ar eas , a n d
p rotective system s shal l be made
by
a comp e tent per son
for
evidence of
a situation
that could
result i n
possible
c ave- ins,
indic a tio ns of fa ilure of prot ec tive
systems, haza rd ou s atm osphe res, or ot her hazardous
conditio ns.
An inspection sha ll be c ond uct e d
b y the competent
person
prior to
the
start
of work
and
as
n eeded throu ghout the sh ift. Inspec tions sha ll
also be
m ade
after
ever y
ra instorm
or other haza rd
incr easing occurr en ce . The se in spections
are only requ ired when
emp loyee exposure ca n be re aso nab l y
a nticipated.

The Secretary asserts
that
a
competent
person
did
not
conduct
a
daily
inspection of
the
trench
excavation.

Respondent
asserts
that
Mr. Ricketts
was
a
competent
person. (Tr. 181).

T h e
s t a n d a r d
a p p l i e s ,
e m p l o y e e s
w e r e
e x p o s e d ,
a n d
t h e
s t a n d a r d
w a s
v i o l a t e d

A
5 0 - f o o t
l o n g
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n
w a s
d u g
a t
t h e
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
t o
r e p l a c e
a
l a t e r a l
s e w e r
l i n e .

( T r .
6 5 ,
2 4 8 - 4 9 ;
C X - 1 2 ) .

Mr. Ricketts
a n d
Mr. Bryant
w o r k e d
i n
a n d
a r o u n d
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n .

( T r .
6 7 ,
8 1 - 8 2 ,
2 4 8 - 4 9 ,
2 6 1 ) .

T h e
s t a n d a r d
a p p l i e s
a n d
employees
w e r e
e x p o s e d
t o
t h e
h a z a r d .

A
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
i s
d e f i n e d
as “one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the
surroundings,
or
working conditions which
are unsanitary, hazardous, or
dangerous
to employees, and who has authorization
to
take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.”

29 C.F.R.§
1926.650(b).

T h e
s t a n d a r d
r e q u i r e s
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n
a n d
i t s
a d j a c e n t
a r e a s
t o
b e
i n s p e c t e d
f o r
h a z a r d o u s
c o n d i t i o n s
b y
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
b e f o r e
the
s t a r t
o f
w o r k
d a i l y
( o r
m o r e
o f t e n
w h e n
c o n d i t i o n s
c h a n g e ) .

The
inspection of an excavation consists of more than a
“casual
observation.”

Ca pf orm, Inc.,   1 3 BNA
OSHC 2219 , 2 221-22,
(No.
84- 0 556, 1 9 89) ,  aff ' d ,   9 01
F.2d 1112 (5th
C ir .
1990 )
(unpublished) .

OSHA’s
excavation
standard
requires
a
competent
person
to
“ensure
compliance
with
applicable
regulations
and
to
make
those
inspections
necessary
to
identify
situations
that
could
result
in
possible
cave-ins,
indications
of
failures
of
protective
systems,
hazardous
atmospheres,
or
other
hazardous
conditions,
and
then
to
[e]nsure
that
corrective
measures
are
taken.”

U.S.
Dep’t
of
Labor,
OSHA,
Interpretation
Letter
to
G.
Kennedy
(March
23,
1992),
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1992-03-23 .

M s .
C r o n e
a s s e r t e d
t h a t
Mr. Ricketts
w a s
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
a n d
t h a t
h e
h a d
inspe cted
t h e
t r e n c h .

( T r .
1 8 1 ,
2 3 8 ,
2 4 3 ;
C X - 1 4 C ) .

S h e
k n e w
h e
h a d
n o
O S H A
e x c a v a t i o n
t r a i n i n g ,
b u t
b e l i e v e d
h e
w a s
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
b e c a u s e
t h e r e
h a d
b e e n
n o
p r o b l e m s
o r
c i t a t i o n s
f r o m
O S H A
o r
a
m u n i c i p a l i t y
d u r i n g
t h e
t w o
y e a r s
Mr. Ricketts
h a d
w o r k e d
f o r
S p e e d y
R o o t e r .

( T r .
1 8 1 ,
2 1 6 - 1 7 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
believ e d
t h e
l a c k
o f
c i t a t i o n s
w a s
p r o o f
t h a t
h e
w a s
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n . 19

( T r .
2 1 7 - 1 8 ) .

M s .
C r o n e ’ s
b e l i e f
t h a t
Mr. Ricketts
w a s
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
w a s
n o t
r e a s o n a b l e .

T h e
l a c k
o f
c i t a t i o n s
f r o m
O S H A
o r
a
m u n i c i p a l i t y
i s
n o t
a
v a l i d
b e n c h m a r k
t o
d e t e r m i n e
i f
s o m e o n e
i s
a b l e
t o
i d e n t i f y
h a z a r d s
a n d
m a k e
n e c e s s a r y
c o r r e c t i v e
a c t i o n s .

A s
e x p l a i n e d
i n
th e
p r e a m b l e
t o
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n
r u l e ,

it i s important to note that what co nstitutes a “c ompeten t person” dep ends
on the context in which the term i s
u sed.
In ord e r t o b e
a “competen t person” fo r the purpo ses
of t his
stan dar d
one must
h ave had
specific tra in i ng i n, a nd be
k nowledgeable
about, soils
analysis, the use of protective
systems, and
the req uirements of
this
standard .  One who does not have su ch
train ing or
kno wle dg e cannot po ssibly be ca pable of id enti fyin g e xisti ng
a n d predict a ble haza rds in excav at i on w ork
or ta ki ng prompt cor rective meas ures .

Occupational Safety and
Health Standar ds — Exca vations , 54 F e d .
R e g .
45894 ,
4 5 9 0 9
( O c t .
3 1 ,
1 9 8 9 )
(to be codi fied at
29 C .F.R. part
1926) .

Respo ndent
p r e s e n t e d
n o
e v i d e n c e
t h a t
Mr. Ric ketts
h a d
t h e
s k i l l s
t o
i d e n t i f y
h a z a r d s
i n
a
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n
o r
t h e
a b i l i t y
t o
c o r r e c t
h a z a r d s
a t
a
w o r k s i t e .

I n
h i s
s i g n e d
w r i t t e n
statement ,
M r .
R i c k e t t s
s t a t e d
h e
d i d
n o t
k n o w
a b o u t
s o i l
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .

( T r .
2 5 0 ;
C X - 1 4 A ) .

F u r t h e r ,
h e
s t a t e d
t h a t
he had
not ins pected
the tr e nch. (Tr. 251 ; CX-14A).

W h e n
q u e s t i o n e d
b y
t h e
C O
a b o u t
w h a t
m a k e s
a
t r e n c h
s a f e ,
h e
c o u l d
n o t
p r o v i d e
a n
e x p l a n a t i o n .

( T r .
1 4 5 ) .

D u r i n g
t h e
i n s p e c t i o n ,
M s .
C r o n e
a d m i t t e d
t o
the
C O
t h a t
Mr.
Ricket ts
d i d
n o t
m e e t
O S H A ’ s
d e f i n i t i o n
o f
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n .

( T r .
1 2 4 ) .

F u r t h e r ,
M s .
C r o n e
a d m i t t e d
i n
h e r
t e s t i m o n y
t h a t
s h e
d i d
n o t
b e l i e v e
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
w o u l d
g o
i n t o
t h e
t r e n c h
a t
the
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e .

( T r .
2 3 8 - 3 9 ) .

Mr.
Ricketts
was
not
a
competent
person
as
defined
by
the
standard.

He
h a d
n o
t r a i n i n g
i n
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n s .

N o r
did he
h a v e
k n o w l e d g e
a b o u t
s o i l
t y p e s
o r
p r o t e c t i v e
s y s t e m s .

He
was not trained about
the
hazards
affiliated
with
a
trench
excavation
or
use
of
protective
systems
in
a
trench.

W i t h o u t
t h i s
k n o w l e d g e
h e
c o uld
n o t
ad e qua tel y
a s s e s s
t h e
h a z a r d s
i n
t h e
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n .

Respondent
cannot
rely
on
a
lack
of
citations
at
its
worksites
as
proof
that
Mr.
Ricketts
was
a
competent
person.

S e e
g e n e r a l l y
R. Wil liams Const r . C o.
v.
S e c ’ y ,
464 F.3d 1060, 1064
(9th
Cir.
2006)
(company
cannot
discharge
its
duty
to
have
a
competent
person
by
relying
on
general
work
experience
or
common
sense).

I
find
that
Mr. Ricketts
was
not
a
competent
person
as
defined
by
the
standard
and
thus
there
was
no
inspection
of
the
trench
by
a
competent
person.

The
standard’s
requirement
was
violated.

Knowledge

The
Secretary must prove
“the employer either
knew, or with
the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could have known of the
hazardous
condition.” P S P ,
22
BNA
OSHC
at
1305-06.

Commission
precedent states
that
the
employer's conduct is
viewed
in its
totality and “whether
a
reasonable employer would have
done more.”

Ca pform ,
16 BNA OSHC
at
2042.

A s
d i s c u s s e d
a b o v e ,
M s .
C r o n e
k n e w
t h a t
t h e
w o r k
a t
t he
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
r e q u i r e d
Mr. Ricketts
o r
Mr. Brya nt
t o
g e t
i n t o
t h e
t r e n c h
t o
connec t
t h e
n e w
p i p e
t o
t h e
e x i s t i n g
s e w e r
m a i n .

( T r .
2 3 6 ;
C X - 1 2 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
k n e w
Mr. Ricketts
h a d
n o
t r a i n i n g
o n
e x c a v a t i o n
h a z a r d s
o r
a b a t e m e n t .
( T r .
1 8 1 - 8 2 ) .

F u r t h e r ,
Respondent
p r o v i d e d
n o
t r a i n i n g
o r
s a f e t y
g u i d e l i n e s
f o r
t r e n c h
i n s p e c t i o n .

M s .
C r o n e
m a d e
n o
e f f o r t
t o
e n s u r e
t h e
t r e n c h
excavation
w a s
i n s p e c t e d
b y
a
c o m p e t e n t
p e r s o n
b e f o r e
e m p l o y e e s
w o r k e d
i n
t h e
t r e n c h .

S e e
Cra nesville ,
23 BNA OSHC
a t
198 6
( reason able
d i l i g e n c e
i n c l u d e s
t h e
e m p l o y e r ’ s
o b l i g a t i o n
t o
i n s p e c t
t h e
w o r k s i t e ,
a n t i c i p a t e
h a z a r d s ,
a n d
t a k e
a c t i o n
t o
p r e v e n t
o c c u r r e n c e
o f
h a z a r d s ) . K n o w l e d g e
i s
establish ed .

S e r i o u s
Ch a r act erization

A
seri ous
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
is
appropriate w hen
“a  serious  injury is the  likel y
result
should
an accident  occur .” 
P e t e Mi ller ,
19 BNA
OSHC
at
1258. This
item
was
characterized
as
serious
because
an
inspection
is
needed
to
determine
if
the
trench
is
safe
to
work
in;
a
cave-in
would
result
in
serious
injury
or
death.

(Tr.
139).

S e e
M o sser , 23
B N A
O S H C
a t
104 7
( findin g
a
c a v e - i n
i n c l u d e s
“ p o t e n t i a l l y
s e r i o u s
o r
d e a d l y
c o n s e q u e n c e s ” ) ;
Communi cations ,
7 BNA OSHC
at
1602
(employees
likely would
suffer serious
physical harm
from
collapse of trench 6′2″ deep, particularly
if they were in a bending position).

The
serious
characterization
is
supported.

Pena lty

The
maximum penalty
for a
serious violation is $12,471.

The
gravity
was
determined
as
moderate
based
on
a
high
severity
and
lesser
probability.

(CX-8).

The size
adjustment of
70% reduced
the penalty
to
$2,672.

I d .

I find
the
penalty
adjustments are appropriate for this
violation.

Citat i on
2 ,
Item
1

Respondent was cited for a willful violation
of 29 C.F.R.
§ 1926.652(a)(1):

( a)  P rotection of emp loyees
in exc avatio n s .

( 1)  Ea ch
employ e e
in an
e xcava tion sh all
be pr otect ed
from c ave-ins by
an a de qu a te
protect ive
system d esign ed i n acc ordan c e w it h para g raph
(b)
or
(c ) of this
s ection
except when:

(i)  Excavations are m a de
enti rely
in s table rock; or

( ii)  Ex cavatio ns are
l ess
t han
5
feet ( 1 . 52m) i n
depth
and ex ami nation
of t he
ground
by a comp etent
p er s on
provide s no
indicat ion o f a
poten tial
c ave -i n.

(2)   Prot ecti ve
sys tems shall
have th e capacity to resist without failu r e a ll l oads
that
are intended or
could
reason ably b e
exp ec ted
to
be ap p l ied or
t ransm itted t o t he sys tem.

The Secretary
asserts
an
employee worked
in
a trench
that was 6 feet
8
inches deep
without protection against cave-in.

Respondent
stipulated
the
plywood
in
the
trench
excavation
was
not
intended
to
be
an
adequate
protective
system.

(Tr.
261).

The
st andard applies ,
e m p l o y e e s
w e r e
e x p o s e d ,
a n d
t h e
s t a n d a r d
w a s
v i o l a t e d

As
discussed
above,
two
Speedy
Rooter
employees,
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant
removed
and
installed
sewer
pipe
in
a
trench
excavation
at
the
worksite.

The
standard
applies
and
employees
were
exposed.

The
trench
was
over
5
feet
in
depth.

(Tr.
110,
115-16).

Mr.
Ricketts
connected
pipes
in
the
trench
without
using
a
protective
system.

(Tr.
261).

T h e
stan d a rd
w a s
v i o l a t e d .

Knowl edge

The Secretary must prove
“the employer either
knew,
or with
the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could have known of the
hazardous
condition.” P S P ,
22
BNA
OSHC
at
1305-06
(No.
06-1201,
2008).

Commission
precedent states that
the
employer's conduct
is
viewed
in its
totality and “whether
a
reasonable employer would have
done more.”

Capform ,
16 BNA OSHC
at
2042.

Ms.
Crone
testified
that
she
knew
there
was
a
requirement
for
a
trench
box
or
other
cave-in
protection
when
an
excavation
was
over
5
feet
in
depth.

(Tr.
182-83).

Speedy
Rooter
owned
a
trench
box
that
was
not
delivered
to
the
Canal
Road
worksite
for
use.

(Tr.
148,
250;
CX-14A).

A
trench
box
had
been
used
at
other
jobs
and
Ms.
Crone
knew
that
additional
equipment
was
needed
at
a
site
to
lift
and
place
the
trench
box
into
the
excavation.

(Tr.
242,
250;
CX-14A,
CX-14C).

M s .
C r o n e
k n e w
t h e
e x c a v a t i o n
w o u l d
b e
o v e r
5
f e e t
i n
d e p t h .

I n
h e r
O n e - C a l l
r e q u e s t
f o r
u t i l i t y
m a r k i n g
s h e
s t a t e d
t h a t
a n
e x c a v a t i o n
f i v e
t o
s i x
f e e t
d e e p
w o u l d
b e
d u g
a t
t h e
w o r k s i t e .

( C X - 1 3 ) .

M s .
C r o n e
also
k n e w
t h e
w o r k
a t
t he
C a n a l
R o a d
w o r k s i t e
r e q u i r e d
Mr. Ricket ts
o r
Mr. Bryant
t o
g e t
i n t o
t h e
t r e n c h
t o
connect
t h e
n e w
p i p e
t o
t h e
e x i s t i n g
s e w e r
m a i n .

( T r .
2 3 6 ;
C X - 1 2 ) .

Despite her knowledge
th at
an
excavation
was
required ,
M s .
C r o n e
d i d
n o t
e x e r c i s e
r e a s o n a b l e
d i l i g e n c e
to inspect the worksite. She took no steps
t o
e n s u r e
a
p r o t e c t i v e
s y s t e m
w a s
u s e d
i n
the
t r e n c h
e x c a v a t i o n .

S e e
Cranesville ,
23 B NA OSHC
a t
198 6
( reasona ble
d i l i g e n c e
i n c l u d e s
t h e
e m p l o y e r ’ s
o b l i g a t i o n
t o
i n s p e c t
t h e
w o r k s i t e ,
a n t i c i p a t e
h a z a r d s ,
a n d
t a k e
a c t i o n
t o
p r e v e n t
o c c u r r e n c e
o f
h a z a r d s ) . K n o w l e d g e
i s
establ is h ed .

W illful
C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n

The
Secretary
characterized
Respondent’s
violation
of
the
requirement
to
provide
a
trench
protective
system
as
willful.

The
Secretary
asserts
that
Respondent,
through
Ms.
Crone,
had
a
heightened
awareness
of
the
requirement
to
use
a
protective
system
and
was
plainly
indifferent
to
the
standard’s
requirements.

(S.
Br.
24).

Respondent
did
not
present
an
argument
to
refute
the
Secretary’s
position.

A willful violation is
“one committed ‘with intentional,
knowing or voluntary disregard for
the requirements of
the Act
or with plain
indifference
to employee
safety.” Bur ke s
Mec h ., Inc. ,
21 BNA OSHC 2136,
2140
(No.
04-0475,
2007)
(citations
omitted);
see also ,
Bia nc h i Tris on
C orp. v.
Se c’y ,
409 F.3d 196, 208
(3d
Cir. 2005)
(“Although the
Act does not define the term willful,
courts have
unanimously held
that
a willful
violation of
the
Act
constitutes an
act done
voluntarily
with
either an
intentional disregard
of,
or
plain indifference
to,
the [OSH]
Act's requirements.”) (citations
omitted).

“The
Secretary
must show that
the employer
was actually
aware, at the
time
of the
violative act,
that
the act was
unlawful,
or
that it
possessed a state of mind such
that
if
it
were informed of
the
standard,
it
would not
care.” B u rkes ,
21
BNA
OSHC
at
2140
(citations omitted).

“A
willful
violation
is
differentiated
by
heightened awareness
of
the
illegality
of the conduct or conditions and
by
a
state of
mind of
conscious disregard
or plain indifference.” E.
Sm a lis Pa i ntin g Co. ,
Inc. , 22
BNA OSHC
1553, 1569
(No.
94-1979,
2009).

It
is
not
necessary
to
find
evil
or
malicious
motive
to
find
a
violation
willful.

K a s p a r
W i r e
W o r k s ,
I n c . ,
18
BNA
OSHC
2178,
2181
(No.
90-2775,
2000)
aff'd , 268 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Plain indifference
to
employee
safety
is present when the employer possesses a state of mind such that if it had been
informed
of the standard it
would not
have cared.

Valdak Corp . ,
17 BNA OSHC 1135, 1136 (No. 93-0239, 1995)
aff ’ d , 73 F.3d 1466
(8th
Cir. 1996).

Speedy
Rooter
owned
a
trench
box.

(Tr.
242,
250;
CX-14A,
CX-14C).

Ms.
Crone
knew
a
trench
box
or
other
cave-in
protection
was
needed
when
an
excavation
was
over
5
feet
in
depth.

(Tr.
183).

Ms.
Crone
had
been
in
business
for
14
years
and
delivered
trench
boxes
to
previous
worksites.

(Tr.
242;
CX-14C).

Yet,
Ms.
Crone
made
no
attempt
to
provide
a
protective
trench
system
at
the
Canal
Road
worksite.

Further,
Ms.
Crone
had
a
heightened
awareness
trench
protection
was
needed
at
the
Canal
Road
worksite.
She
knew
the
trench
would
be
over
five
feet
in
depth
when
she
called
to
have
the
utilities
marked
and
applied
for
a
permit
from
the
Dover
Borough.

(Tr.
177;
CX-12,
CX-13).

Ms.
Crone
delivered
the
backhoe
to
the
worksite
and
visited
the
worksite
during
the
rainstorm
that
delayed
the
project.

(Tr.
186,
235).

Ms.
Crone
demonstrated
plain
indifference
to
the
safety
of
Mr. Ricketts
and
Mr. Bryant.

Ms.
Crone
knew
the
trench
would
be
five
to
six
feet
in
depth,
Ms.
Crone
knew
that
cave-in
protection
was
needed
over
five
feet,
Ms.
Crone
delivered
the
backhoe
to
the
worksite
to
dig
the
trench,
and
Ms.
Crone
knew
either
Mr. Ricketts
or
Mr. Bryant
would
be
in
the
trench
to
make
the
pipe
connection.

Despite
this
awareness,
Ms.
Crone
made
no
effort
to
protect
employees
from
a
cave-in
hazard.

Ms.
Crone’s
actions
demonstrate
a
plain
indifference
to
employee
safety.

S e e
Arc a dian
C orp ., 20 BNA OSHC 2001, 2019
(No. 93-06 28, 2004 ) (fi n d ing wi ll fu lne ss where employer's approach to
employee safety was
reckle ss ) .

Ms.
Crone
knew
an
employee
would
be
working
in
the
trench
excavation
and
she
did
not
implement
any
safety
measures
to
protect
employees
from
cave-in
hazards.

I
f i n d
t h e
w i l l f u l
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
i s
e s t a b l i s h e d .

Penalty

The
maximum
penalty
for
a
willful
violation
was
$124,709.

The penalty
was
adjusted
at
a
moderate
gravity
based
on
a
high
severity
and
lesser
probability.

(CX-9,
p.
0037). The size adjustment
of
80%
reduced
the
penalty to
$21,378. I d . I find the
penalty adjustments
are appropriate
for the
violation.

FINDINGS O F
FA C T
AN D CO NC LUSION S OF
L A W

The foregoing
decision constitutes
the findings of
fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.

ORDER

Based upon the
foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of
law,
it is
OR DERED
that:

1.
Citation
1,
Item 1, alleging
a Serious
violation
of 29 C.F.R. §
1926.21(b)(2), is
AFFIRMED
and a
penalty
of
$2,672 is assessed.

2.
Citation 1, Item
2, alleging
a Serious violation of 29
C.F.R.
§ 1926.651(j)(2), is
AFFIRMED
and a
penalty
of
$2,672 is assessed.

3.
Citation 1, Item
3,
alleging a
Serious violation of 29
C.F.R. § 1926.651(k)(1), is
AFFIRMED
and
a
penalty of
$2,672 is
assessed.

4.
Citation
2, Item
1, alleging a
Willful
violation of
29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1), is
AFFIRMED
and
a
penalty of
$21,378
is assessed.

/s/   

Keith
E.
Bell

Judge,
OSHRC

Dated:

November 19, 2019

Washington, D.C.

"

1
Respondent
asserte d
the a f firmat ive defe nse o f employee
m iscond uct . (Tr. 2 60). Howev er , this
defense was not pur sued
during the hearing or in t he p ost-hearing b r ief . T h e
defense
is dee med
abandoned.
Se e
G eo r gia -Pac ific
Corp. , 15 BNA OSHC
1127, 1130 (No. 89-2713, 1991).

2
T h e
f o l l o w i n g
f a c t s
a n d
a n a l y s i s
a r e
b a s e d
u p o n
f a c t s
f o u n d
t o
b e
c r e d i b l e
a n d
s u p p o r t e d
by
t h e
t o t a l i t y
o f
the
e v i d e n c e .

A s
a
g e n e r a l
n o t e ,
I find
the maj ority
o f
M s .
C r o n e ’ s
t e s t i m o n y
a n d
a s s e r t i o n s
to be
s e l f - s e r v i n g
i n
n a t u r e
a n d
u n s u p p o r t e d .

3
The p arties
agreed
and stipulated that
Res p o ndent was an employer engaged in bus iness affe ctin g commerce
a nd th at the
Commission has
jurisdiction
over
the matt er. (Tr.
2 59 - 6 0 ) .

4
Mr. R i c ketts wa s interview ed by
CO
Dailey o n Oct ober
13, 2016 ,
e i g h t
d a ys afte r
the
in sp ecti on
was opened . (Ex. CX-14 A ) .
H i s
statement
in
respo nse to
the CO ’ s i nterview
q uestion s
w as
doc u m ent ed
and then read
b ack
to Mr.
R ick e t ts . (T r.
134-35 ). Mr . Ri ck etts s i gned the writt e n st atemen t
i n the presenc e of
t he CO. Id. Mr.
R icke tt s
did not
testify
an d
could no t be
foun d
f or service of
t h e subpo ena to appear
at
the heari ng . (T r.
133 -34 ).

5
O n e - Call
i s
the
Penn sy l v ani a Und ergro u n d U tility L i n e
Prote ction
Req ues t
ser vice. ( CX -13).

6
F i s h e l
w a s
s i x
f e e t
t a l l
a n d
s a w
e y e - t o - e y e
w i t h
M r .
R i c k e t t s .

( T r .
8 1 - 8 2 ) .

7
Recor d
exh ibits will
be ref ere nce d as
RX
for Resp ondent,
C X for Secr e tar y,
an d JX f or joint
ex hibits.

8
T he
Act
d ef ines
an e m ploye r
as a “pers on e ngaged in
a
business affecting comm erce w ho
h as employees.” 29 U.S.C.
§ 652(5).
Pers on
m e an s “one
or m or e
indivi du a l s ,
partnershi ps, as s oc iations,
c orp orat ions,
busine ss trusts,
legal r epresentatives,
or a n y o rga n iz ed
grou p o f persons . ” 29
U. S.C.
§   652 (4).

9
Ms. Cr one a sserted
that
any purchase
for addi tiona l supplies , such as plywo od,
w a s
a
c ost fo r
Mr. R i cketts and
not
Speedy Ro oter. Ms . Cr one
c laimed that
Mr.
Ricketts provid ed a bid fo r
a
job, which included
supplies ;
s h e
t hen
simply
m a rked up
the bid
with a
profit margi n for
Speedy Rooter . ( Tr. 237). I
find thi s asserti on is not c redibl e . T h e re is
n othing in t h e record that suggests
Mr.
Ricketts
evaluated
a project ’ s
cost
or pr esented
a bid
to Speedy R oote r. Fu r th er,
Ms. Crone ackn owled ge d
tha t in 2016 Speedy Root e r’ s
total
payme nt to
Mr.
Ricketts
was $15,000
for 15 -20 excavat ion
jobs .

( Tr. 2 38). This total
i ncom e
ind icates that
Mr.
Ricketts
was rece iving wa ges
only and
was no t
receiving
pay ment base d on
a bid that in clu ded the
co st of
s upplies .

10
Ms . Crone claimed that s he did not re-a ssign anyone
f rom
the
Ca nal
R oa d
worksite
to anot her
work site . (Tr. 212) . She claimed th ey
o nly sto p ped work at the Canal Road worksit e due to rain.

(Tr.
21 2) . Ms . Cro ne’s cl aim is not
credible. Bo th
Mr.
Fishel
and
Mr. Bryant
stat ed
that Ricketts and
Bryant would b e called
away to
other Sp eed y Roote r jo bs d uring
the Canal
R oad project.

(Tr. 39,
65,
247; CX-14A).

Generally,
M s.
Cron e’s te stimony is
given l ittle
weight
because
of
her
s elf-interest
a s Sp eedy Rooter ’s owner .

Further , Ms. Crone testif ie d tha t Mr. Fishel
sued Speedy Rooter in sm a ll
cla ims court
and
Speedy Roo t er
coun tersued . ( Tr. 214). A ccord in g to Ms. Crone,
Speedy Ro oter
was
or dere d
to
pay $2,0 00 to
Mr.
Fishe l. (T r. 214). I fi nd t hat Ms.
Crone’s
testim ony
wa s
affected by the defensi ve position of Speedy Rooter in the instan t
OS HA
mat ter and th e separate
m atter w ith M r . Fis hel .

11
I n
her
testimony ,
Ms. C rone clai med
the
ladder at
the w or ks it e be l onged to
Rick etts; no
evidence was presented
to support thi s assertion.
(Tr. 202).

I n he r
Oc tober
7 , 201 6
sig n ed
interview stat eme nt, Ms.
Crone
sta ted
the
A-f ram e
ladder
and
extension ladder
we re owned
by
Speed y Rooter.

(Tr . 2 41-42; CX -14C).

I
give
h er signed
statement ,
wh ich was closer in time
to the event
and prior to r e cei pt o f th e
OSHA
ci ta tion,
greater weight .

12
Th e 10 99 for
Jerry
Ricke tts
mis s pelle d
his
l ast name a s
“ Ri c hetts ” .
The 1099 for
Austin Bryant
misspelled
hi s
last n ame as
“ B ran t ”
and
had no
tax ident ification nu mber .

(Tr.
5 1-52 ; CX- 17). Mr. B ryan t
testified
that h e
never
provided
his s ocial
security
n u mber
to Ms . Crone . (T r. 51-5 2).

13
M s .
C r o n e
c l a i m e d
t h a t
S p e e d y
R o o t e r
s e n t
a
1 0 9 9
t o
M r .
R i c k e t t s
f o r
the
2 0 1 5
t a x
y e a r
b u t
p r o v i d e d
n o
document ation
t o
s u p p o r t
t h i s
c l a i m .

( T r .
2 0 3 ,
2 0 5 ) .

14
Ms. Cron e testified that s he
did not have agreements for every sub cont ra ctor. (Tr. 220).

15
Th e only
a ttempt
to
authenticat e
the
sign ature
was Ms. Crone ’ s
testimo ny
that
she
was prese nt w h e n Mr. Ricket ts s igned the tw o
do cuments
in 2015 . (Tr. 198 -200 ).

16
R espondent ’ s post-h eari ng
brie f was
limi ted to the sole a rgument
tha t Ricke tts
and Brya nt
were not
e mp loyee s of
Sp eedy
Root e r. R esp ondent prese nted
no ar g uments
to r ebut the
Sec ret ary ’ s
pr i ma facie
c ase
f or the fo ur
all eged vi olations. R e spon dent ’ s positi on on
th e
citation
items
is g lea ned fro m
M s. Crone ’ s
hea ring
testim ony
and
her
in tervi ew wi th the
C O.

17
When as ked if Mr. R ic k etts h a d any
excavati on trainin g, M s . Crone
t e s t i f ied ,
“I
kn ew
he d idn ’ t ha v e any
OSH A traini ng wh en tha t ca me up in
c onversat ion. But h e di d have
plu mbin g and
some
coll ege tra in ing. ” ( T r . 181-82 ).

18
O SH A
es ta blished
n e w pe n alt y
ma ximums
e f f ective
Au gust 1 ,
2016 ,
for
violat ions
occu r ring
afte r Nov emb er 2,
2 0 15 ,
purs u ant to
th e
Infl at i on A dj ust ment
Ac t o f 2015, Pub. Law
114-7 4
§ 701, 129
Stat . 5 5 9 - 602 (2015).

81 F ed.
R eg. 434 30 (J uly
1,
2016).

The
v i o l a t io n in
th e in st a n t c a se oc cur red
a fte r
Novem be r
2, 2015 , and
the penalty
was
asse ss ed
after
A ugus t
1, 2 016 ,
bu t
on
or
before
January 13 ,
2017,
th us t he
st atut o r y
maximum
of $ 12,471
applie s to seri o us violations and
$12 4 , 709
to willful violations.

Id.

19
W hen
ask ed
w hy she
b elie ved M r. Ri cke tts
w a s
a
compe t ent p e rs on for
the
C anal Road
wo r ks ite,
M s. Cro n e
respo nded :
“ So,
n o t hav ing
ot her OS HA vio lations or
o ther ,
any ,
citati o ns
from
a ny
other munici p al ity
leads
me
to b elieve i f he ’ s performin g
th e job fo r
4 0 or 50
di g
sit es
a nd y ou ha ve no
vio lat ions
o r
no
p rob lem s, the n
he ’ s a
comp etent
pe rs on to make d e c isions
on
the sit e . ” (T r.
217 ).