Granite-Groves, A Joint Venture

Plain-English summary

Granite-Groves employees used a hazardous material hoist for two days before the company stopped its operation. The company argued that its foreman's knowledge should not be imputed and that shutting down the hoist satisfied its duty. The Commission upheld the judge's rejection of those arguments because Granite-Groves did not show that the foreman had received adequate safety training and the later shutdown did not protect employees who had already been exposed. It affirmed the general duty clause violation. The stipulated $700 penalty was also affirmed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)
• Outcome: The general duty clause violation and $700 penalty were affirmed.
• Key point: A supervisor's knowledge remains attributable to the employer without proof of adequate supervisory safety training, and later correction does not erase earlier exposure.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 76-1796

GRANITE-GROVES, A JOINT VENTURE

OSHRC Docket No. 76-1796

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

August 31, 1978

�
[*1]
�

Before CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Kenneth Hellman, Coordinator for D.C. Litigation, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

H. M. Heilbron, Jr., Project Manager, Granite-Groves, A Joint Venture, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

A decision of Administrative Law Judge William E. Brennan is before the Commission for review pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. n1 The Judge affirmed a citation alleging that Respondent violated Section 5(a)(1) of the Act. n2 Respondent takes exception to his decision, arguing that the Judge improperly found it failed to take all necessary steps to discover and prevent the alleged violation.
�
Respondent asserts that the knowledge of a foreman that employees used a hazardous material hoist should not be imputed to Respondent.
�
The Judge properly rejected this argument because Respondent failed to show it gave adequate safety training to its foreman within the meaning of Ocean Electric Corp., 75 OSAHRC 6/C14, 3 BNA OSHC 1705, 1975-76 CCH OSHD P20,167 (No. 5811, 1975). n3 Respondent also contends that it had complied with the Act [*2]
�
by suspending operation of the hoist.
�
The Judge properly rejected this contention, noting that Respondent's employees had used the hoist for two days prior to the shutdown.
�
Clearly, the remedial action taken by Respondent failed to protect those employees that had been exposed to the hazards arising from their use of the hoist.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 29 U.S.C. �
�
651 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "the Act."

n2 29 U.S.C. �
�
654(a)(1).
�
The section provides the following:

Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.

n3 Decision on appeal withdrawn and rehearing granted, No. 76-1060, 4th Cir., Oct. 26, 1977.
�
See also Brennan v. Butler Lime & Cement Co., 502 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir. 1975); Alder Electric Co., 77 OSAHRC 49/C8, 5 BNA OSHC 1303, 1977-78 CCH OSHD P21,748 (No. 13573, 1977).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Judge assessed a penalty of $700, which the parties stipulated [*3]
�
was reasonable and appropriate if a violation was found, and which he concluded was appropriate in light of the factors set forth in section 17(j) of the Act.

We have reviewed the record and the arguments presented, and conclude that the Judge properly decided the case for the reasons he assigned.
�
Accordingly, the Judge's decision is affirmed.
�
SO ORDERED.
�