Maskell-Robbins, Inc.
Pipe-loading hazard violation affirmed
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1993, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Maskell-Robbins distributed polyethylene pipe and reloaded truckloads of large pipe at its Houston yard. During the work, an employee climbed onto loaded pipe, and shifting pipe fell from the truck, struck him, and caused his death. The Commission affirmed a serious general duty clause violation because the pipe-distribution industry recognized the danger of employees standing on slippery, unstable pipe loads. Instructing employees not to climb onto pipe loads was a feasible way to reduce the hazard. The employer's misconduct defense failed because the yard manager regularly climbed onto pipe loads and had not instructed the employee about that hazard. The Commission affirmed the $2,500 penalty.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)
- Outcome: The serious general duty clause violation was affirmed, and a $2,500 penalty was assessed.
- Key point: An employer could not establish unpreventable employee misconduct when its supervisor followed the same hazardous practice and had not trained the employee to avoid it.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
OCCUPATIONAL SAF~~;E~~E~~~~~c~~“,EW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre 1
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
FAX:
COM (202) 6064050
ffs (202) 6oG5050
..
SECRETARY OF LABOR, ..
..
Complainant, ..
..
.
V. . OSHRC Docket No. 91-2189
..
MASKELL-ROBBINS, INC., ..
.. .
Respondent. :
.
DECISION
Before: FOULKE, Chairman, and MONTOYA, Commissioner.
BY THE COMMISSION:
Following the investigation of a fatality, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (“OSHA”) issued to Maskell-Robbins, Inc. (“MRI”) an amended citation
alleging a serious violation of section S(a)(l) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the “Act”), 29 U.S.C. 0 654(a)(l), because an employee “climbed, crawled and/or
walked on unstable pipe which shifted and fell on him.” Review Commission Administrative
Law Judge Louis G. LaVecchia affirmed the citation and assessed the $2,500 penalty
proposed by the Secretary of Labor. MRI petitioned for review and the Secretary filed his
opposition to that petition; review was granted. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
judge.
MRI’s business is distributing polyethylene plastic pipe manufactured by another
company, Phillips Driscopipe, Inc. (“PDI”). On May 22, 1991, MRI’s Houston office
ordered a quantity of 40.foot-long, 18.inch-diameter pipe weighing about 1,430 pounds per
2
pipe from PDI’s South Carolina plant for a third company. When that company refused to
accept three truckloads of the pipe because of the way it was loaded, the manager of MRI’s
Houston office told the company to direct the trucks to MRI’s Houston yard for reloading.
.
William Karsten, MRI’s Houston yard manager, was in charge of unloading and
reloading the trucks. He had the assistance of employee Armando Villareal. The reloading
involved using forklifts to remove two pieces of pipe at a time down to the bottom layer of
pipe in each truck. The bottom layer was then lifted up from each truck bed and three 8-
foot-long, 2-inch by 4-inch boards were spaced under it. Pipe was then reloaded with
another forklift capable of lifting the pipe over the four steel stanchion posts positioned
along each side of each truck bed to keep the pipe from rolling off the trucks. The pipe was
reloaded two pieces at a time in three additional layers with three more 8-foot-long boards
placed between the second and third layers. Pipe pieces were not banded together, but the
two bottom layers were tied down and some of the stanchions were tied together. .
Eighteen pieces of pipe were reloaded on each of the first two trucks and Karsten
and Villareal reloaded sixteen pieces of pipe onto the third truck. Karsten positioned the
forklift to place the last two pieces of pipe onto the third truck. He picked up that load and
lifted it up but then noticed that the load of pipe had shifted on the blades of the forklift.
Karsten shouted and signaled to Villareal to adjust the pipe on the forklift’s blades. Karsten
next saw Villareal on top of the pipe that had already been loaded onto the truck bed, in
front of the forklift load of two pieces of pipe that needed adjusting. Karsten shouted at
Villareal to move away from the front of the forklift load and to go to the cab end of the
truck. Villareal did so and was bending down to jump off the truck by way of a rail on the
front of the truck trailer when the pipe broke loose and bent the steel stanchions running
along the far side of the truck bed. Three pieces of pipe and Villareal fell off the far side
of the truck; Villareal was struck by a pipe and killed.
The judge found that the Secretary proved the elements of a section 5(a)(l) violation:
(1) the employer failed to render its workplace free of a hazard, (2) the employer or the
industry recognized the hazard, (3) the hazard caused or was likely to cause death or serious
physical harm, and (4) there was a feasible means to reduce or eliminate the hazard. Baroid
Div. of N.L. btdus., Ilzc. v. OSHRC, 660 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. 1981); National Realty and
3
Corm. Co. v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Industrial Glass, 15 BNA OSHC
1594, 1992 CCH OSHD fl 29,655 (No. 88-348, 1992). He relied primarily on the testimony
of witnesses Dean Mangan, a quality assurance specialist with PDI, and Melvin Belisle, an
employee of Fife Industrial Pipe (“Fife”), a distributor for PDI like MRI, for his conclusion
that “it is clear the industry recognizes the hazard of pipe shifting and falling during
loading.” Mangan testified that his company had a work rule prohibiting employees from
getting on loads of pipe because the “product is slick. It is easy to slip off.” Belisle testified
that Fife employees are not permitted to walk on full pipe loads because polyethylene pipes
are “very slippery” and “very difficult” to stand on by virtue of their tubular shape, and that
an employee standing on a load could cause a pipe to move or could fall off and injure
himself. The judge found that the hazard, which resulted in the death of the employee in
this case, could have been prevented by instructing the employee not to get up on the pipe.
The judge denied MRI’s claim that the violation resulted from unpreventable
employee misconduct, concluding that the deceased employee was inadequately instructed
in the hazards of loading pipe. The judge noted that warehouse manager/forklift operator
Karsten testified that he regularly got up on pipe loads, that he had not instructed Villareal
about the hazard of getting up on loads of pipe and that both he and Villareal had gotten
up on pipe on the day of the fatality.
MRI does not address the cited hazard in its petition for review. Instead, it addresses
a related, but not cited hazard, that of ‘!running in front of the loaded forklift.” With regard
to this hazard, the company alleges that it established that the deceased’s action was
“absolutely unexpected, without reason, and contrary to his training and actual work ’
experience.” It argues that the deceased handled pipe on an almost daily basis “following
his training and instructions, and the policy of Respondent, never to get in front of a live
load on a forklift.” It claims that the action which led to the employee’s death was an
aberration that took place in a matter of a few seconds. MRI advised the Commission by
letter that it would not file a brief on review and would rely on the argument contained in
its petition for review.
The Secretary, noting MRI’s preference for having the case decided in terms of the
forklift hazard, argues that the .evidence supports the judge’s findings that warehouse
4
manager/forklift operator Karsten never claimed that he told the deceased not to go on top
of stacked pipe and that working on top of loads of pipe was a regular practice of Karsten
and something that he permitted other employees to do. The Secretary contends that a
determination of the precise cause of the fatal accident is not critical and that a hazard was
presented and the general duty clause violated, whenever either Karsten or the deceased
went up on the stacked pipe, whether or not a forklift was nearby or an accident occurred.
The Secretary relies on Bethlehem Steel Cop. v. OSHRC, 607 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir. 1979);
UWliamsEnterp., Inc. 9 13 BNA OSHC 1249, 1252-53, 1986-87 CCH OSHD !I 27,893,
p. 36,585 (No. 85-355, 1987); Concrete Constr. Cop., 4 BNA OSHC 1133, 1135, 1975-76
CCH OSHD ll 20,610, p. 24,664 (No. 2490, 1976).
Discussion
This case was directed for review to determine if the administrative law judge erred
in affirming a violation of section 5(a)(l). MRI objects to the judge’s affirmance of a
violation, but does not offer a defense to the allegations in the Secretary’s amended citation.
Rather, MRI addresses an uncited hazard. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that
the judge’s finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Order
Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s action in affirming the contested citation alleging
MRI’s violation of section 5(a)(l). After a consideration of the penalty factors set forth in
section 17(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 5666(j), we conclude that the penalty of $2,500 assessed
by the judge is appropriate.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.
Chairman
Velma Montoya
Commissioner
Dated: October 27, 1993
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419
PHONE: FAX:
COM (202) 60645100 COM (202) 60&5050
Frs (202) 60&5100 RS (202) 6064050
.
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. Docket No. 91.2189
MASKELL-ROBBINS, INC.,
.
.
Respondent. .
..
NOTICE OF COMMISSION DECISION
The attached decision by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission was issued on
October 27,1993. ANY PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED WHO WISHES
TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF THIS DECISION MUST FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS
DECISION. See Section 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 5 660.
FOR THE COMMISSION
October 27, 1993
Date
Executive Secretary
Docket No. 91-2189
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
James E. White, Esq.
Regional Solicitor
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Suite 501
525 S. Griffin Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Clem K. Best, Jr., Esq.
1800 West Loop South, Suite 1580
Houston, TX 77027
Louis G. LaVecchia
Administrative Law Judge
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
Federal Building, Room 7Bll
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242-0791 .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1825 K STREET NW
4TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON. DC 20006-1246
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
V. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 91-2189
MASKELL-ROBBINS, INC
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on November 2, 1992. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on December 2, 1992 unless a-
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.’ ’
Any such petition should be received by the Executive Secretary on or before
November 23, 1992 in order to permit sufficient time for its review. See
Commission Rule 91, 29 C.F.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1825 K St. N.W., Room 401
Washington, D.C. 20006-1246
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Litigation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOL
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then -the Counsel for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
having questions about review rights may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 634-7950.
.
FOR THE COMMISSION
Date: November 2, 1992 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 91-2189 -
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOY
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
James E. White, Esq.
Re ional Solicitor
Of&e of the Solicitor U S. DOL
525 Griffin Square Bldg.,‘Suite 501
Griffin & Youn Streets
Dallas, TX 752 82
Clem K. Best, Jr., Es .
1800 West Loo Souta , Suite 1580
Houston, TX 7;P027
Louis G. LaVecchia
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an f Health
Review Commissron
Federal Building, Room 7Bll
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242 0791
00107556300:06
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALT?-! XVIEW COMMISSION
ROOM 7811,FEDERAL BUl~3!t\jG
1100 COMMERCE
DALLAS, TEXAS 75242-079:
PHONE: FAX:
\ COM (214) 767-5271 COM (214) 767~2355
FTS 729-5271 Frs 729 -03s
..
SECRETARY OF LABOR, ..
.
Complainant, ..
.. .
v. .. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 91-2189
MASKELL-ROBBINS, INC.,
Respondent.
APPEARANCES:
Robert A Fitz, Esquire Clem K. Best, Jr., Esquire
Dallas, Texas Houston, Texas
For the Complainant. For the Respondent.
Before: Administrative Law Judge Louis G. LaVecchia
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding brought before the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to section 10 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 8 651 et seq. (“the Act”).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected Respondent’s pipe
yard in Houston, Texas, after a tragic accident on June 6, 1991, which caused the death of
an employee; as a result, Respondent was issued a serious citation alleging a violation of
section 5(a)(l) of the Act? Respondent contested the citation, and a hearing was held on
February 26, 1992. A background of the facts of this case is set out below, followed by a
discussion of the alleged violation.
‘The citation, which initially alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R. 8 1910.132(a), was amended in the Secretarv’s
4
complaint to allege a section 5(a)(l) violation.
2
Background
Maskell-Robbins, with offices in eight cities in the United States, is in the business
of distributing polyethylene plastic pipe manufactured by Phillips Driscopipe, Inc.
(“Phillips”). On May 22, 1991, Maskell-Robbins’ Houston office prepared a purchase order
for a quantity of 40.foot-long 18-inch-diameter pipe, which weighs about 1,430 pounds a
piece, to be shipped from Phillips’ South Carolina plant to S & B Engineers (“S & B”) at
a warehouse in Pasadena, Texas. On June $1991, S & B refused to accept three truckloads
of the pipe because it was “loose loaded” rather than “strip loaded.” Neil Balsam, the
manager of Maskell-Robbins’ Houston office, told S & B to have the trucks go to the
Houston yard the next day, where his company would reload the trucks. (Tr. 9-11; 16; 25-37;
42-44; 51; 117; C-2).
William Karsten, the Houston yard manager, was in charge of reloading the trucks
with the help of Armando Villareal, who had worked at the yard since April 1991. The
reloading, which was the same for each truck, involved removing two pieces of pipe at a time
with forklifts down to the bottom layer.* The bottom layer was lifted up and &foot-long
2-inch by 4-inch boards were placed under it in three places; the pipe was then reloaded two
pieces at a time in three more layers with three more &foot-long boards placed between the
second and third layers. The ends of the boards were not blocked and the pipe pieces were
not banded together, but the two bottom layers were tied down and some of the stanchions
were tied together. Eighteen pieces of pipe were reloaded on each of the first two trucks,
the excess being stacked in the yard. (Tr. 40; 44; 47-53; 62-63; 85-86; 90-93; C-4-6).
After finishing the first two trucks, Karsten and Villareal reloaded sixteen pieces of
pipe on the third truck. Karsten positioned the forklift to place the last two pipes on the
truck, lifted the load, and, noticing it had shifted, shouted and signaled to Villareal to adjust
the pipe on the forks. Karsten next saw Villareal on top of the pipe on the truck in front
of the load. Karsten shouted at him to not stand in front of the load and to go back to the
‘Karsten and Villareal operated two forklifts to unload the pipe. One was a forklift Maskell-Robbins already
had available at the yard, and the other was a rented forklift with the 15foot lifting capability needed to get
the pipes over the four stanchions along both sides of the trucks. Only the rented forklift was used to reload
the pipe. (Tr. 52; 61-62; 117-18).
3
cab end of the truck. Villareal did so and was bending down to step onto a rail when a pipe
from the truck and the load fell, which resulted in Villareal falling and- being struck by the
pipe. (Tr. 53-60; 63; 67; 8586; 89-91; C-4-7).
Memorandum Opinion
The citation, as amended, alleges Respondent violated section 5(a)(l), the general
duty clause, because “it did not furnish to each of its emp 1oyees employment and a place
of employment which were free from a recognized hazard that caused death to one of its
employees.” The citation further alleges that an employee ‘ climbed, crawled and/or walked
on unstable pipe which shifted and fell on him,” and that “Respondent could have
- . . .
eliminated or materially reduced this hazard by instructing and trammg tnis employee not
.* l 1
to climb, crawl and/or walk on unstable pipe.”
To establish a 5(a)(l) violation, the Secretary must show (1) the employer failed to
render its workplace free of a hazard, (2) the employer or the industry recognized the
hazard, (3) the hazard caused or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm, and (4)
there was a feasible means to reduce or eliminate the hazard. Baroid Div. of ALL. Indus.,
Inc. v. OSHRC, 660 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. l981); National Realty and Constr. Co., Inc. v.
OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Indus. Glass, 15 BNA OSHC 1594, 1992 CCH
OSHD ll 29,655 (88-348, 1992). The evidence in this regard follows.
Dean Mangan, a quality assurance specialist with Phillips, is in charge of the
company’s packaging task force. He testified that Phillips offers loose and strip loading for
customer convenience. He identified C-l as excerpts from Phillips’ packaging manual, and
described loose and strip loading for the subject pipe. In loose loading, which
accommodates twenty-seven pieces, four steel stakes are installed on either side of the truck
bed; the pipe is loaded in alternating layers of five and four pieces, and every pair of stakes
is tied together with rope every two layers to retain the load. Strip loading accommodates
twenty pieces and no stakes are used; instead, four 4-inch by 4-inch lengths of wood are
placed across the bed, and the pipe, banded in pairs, is placed on the wood. This process
is repeated three more times with the lengths of wood, which are blocked on the ends, being
placed on every layer. Mangan noted Phillips loads pipe with forklifts, and that the company
4
has work rules prohibiting employees from getting in front of forklift loads or on top of loads
of pipe because the pipes are slick and it is easy to slip. (Tr. 9-18; 23-25; C-3).
Melvin Belisle is employed by Fife Industrial Pipe (“Fife”), a distributor for Phillips
similar to Maskell-Robbins. Belisle testified he has been in the pipe business since 1975, and
that the standard in the industry is to loose or strip load pipes. He said he had never seen
the upright supports on truck beds tied together, and that the first two layers could be
banded together or not in loose loading. He also said the lengths of wood used to strip load
the subject pipe are placed every other layer, that the wood can be blocked or not, and that
the pipes are not banded together before being loaded. (Tr. 97-108).
Belisle further testified that Fife loads pipe in accordance with industry practice, with
a forklift and with a helper to assist the operator. He said pipe is aligned by the helper
manipulating the pipe on one end or the other, that it is not hazardous as long as the helper
does not get in front of the load, and that aligning the pipe at the middle is difficult and
unsafe. Belisle noted Fife employees are not allowed to get in front of forklift loads or walk
on full loads. He pointed out the pipes are slippery and difficult to stand on, and that an
employee on a load could slip or cause a pipe to move. (Tr. 99-105; 108-11).
Neil Balsam, who has been with Maskell-Robbins since 1985 and has 22 years
experience in the pipe business, testified he had heard of pipes falling from trucks but knew
of no prior instances at Maskell-Robbins or with other distributors. William Karsten, who
has been the Houston yard manager for three years, testified he instructed the employees
he supervised to align pipes on the ends and to never get in front of a loaded forklift. He
identified R-l as an outline he had prepared of the training he gave employees. (Tr. 47-48;
54; 60; 64-65; 73-82; 112-14).
While it would appear, based on the foregoing, that there is a difference of opinion
in the industry in regard to the requirements for loose and strip loading, it is clear the
industry recognizes the hazard of pipe shifting and falling during loading. Respondent
asserts, however, that the loaded pipe in this case was not unstable and did not shift.
Respondent further asserts that the citation does not fit the facts of this case because the
accident was caused by the forklift load falling on the already-loaded pipe.
5
C-4 and C-5 show that the two top layers of pipe were supported by nothing more
than the stanchions, and Belisle, Respondent’s own witness, testified an employee standing
on pipe could cause it to move. Moreover, R-l, the outline of instructions Karsten
prepared, cautions about watching for shifting pipe during and after loading. Finally,
Karsten himself testified the pipe “broke loose” and fell from the truck, and nowhere stated
that the forklift load fell on the loaded pipe. (Tr. 59-60; 85-86). It is not unreasonable to
conclude, therefore, that the pipe could have shifted, broken the stanchions, and caused the
forklift load to also fall. Regardless, even if the forklift load caused the accident, this hazard
was clearly recognized based on the industry’s knowledge of the dangers of loading pipe.
Further, the hazard is within the scope of the citation, particularly since its consequences
could have been prevented by the same means, to wit, instructing Villareal to not get up on
the pipe. Accordingly, the Secretary has established a section 5(a)(l) violation, unless
Respondent is able to demonstrate one of the affirmative defenses recognized
I. by the
Commission.
Respondent contends the accident was due to unpreventable employee misconduct.
To prevail in this affirmative defense, an employer must show it both established and
adequately communicated work rules designed to prevent the violation, and that it took steps
to detect violations and enforced its rules when violations were discovered. Jensen Constr.
Co., 7 BNA OSHC 1477, 1479, 1979 CCH OSHD lI 23,664, p. 28,695 (No. 76-1538, 1979).
The evidence in this regard follows. *
Karsten testified that Villareal was the only employee under his supervision in June
1991, and that he instructed him to align pipes on the ends and to never get in front of a ’
loaded forklift. Karsten said he and Villareal moved pipe with a forklift every day, and that
Villareal assisted with loading or unloading trucks about five times. Karsten also said the
yard normally handles only half loads, and that he and Villareal had not worked with a full
load before the accident. (Tr. 48-49; 54-55; 62-65; 73-77).
Karsten further testified he had no doubt Villareal understood his instructions on the
day of the accident, and that he did not know why he got up on the pipe in front of the
forklift. Karsten noted he did not tell Villareal to work at the end of the pipe or to not get
in front of the load that day, but . that he did tell him to get up on the front of the truck
6
trailer. Karsten also noted he and Villareal had been on top of the pipes to tie down the
first two layers and place the boards,’ and indicated this was his normal practice. Karsten
said he had instructed Villareal verbally and with hand signals on the several other occasions
he had aligned pipe, and that he had never seen him get in front of a forklift load before.
Karsten also said Villareal spoke fluent English and learned quickly, and that there had been
no prior problems with his understanding instructions. (Tr. 50; 54; 60-61; 64-68; 82-88; 91).
Based on the foregoing, the violation in this case was not the result of unpreventable
employee misconduct. Villareal had worked for Maskell-Robbins, at most, for nine weeks
at the time of the accident. He had loaded or unloaded only five trucks, had never worked
with a full load, and had only aligned pipe several times.3 In spite of the recognized hazard
of getting up on loads of pipes, Karsten had never instructed Villareal in this regard; in fact,
both employees got up on the pipes on the day of the accident and Karsten indicated this
was his regular practice. Moreover, although Karsten had previously told Villareal to align
pipes on the ends and to not get in front of forklift loads, he did not repeat these
instructions when he directed Villareal to adjust the pipe on June 6. On the basis of the
record, it can only be concluded that Villareal was inadequately instructed in the hazards of
loading pipe, and that Respondent has not demonstrated unpreventable employee
misconduct. The citation is therefore affirmed, and the proposed penalty of $2,500.00 is
assessed.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent, Maskell-Robbins, Inc., is engaged in a business affecting commerce
and has employees within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act. The Commission has
jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of the proceeding.
2. Respondent was in serious . violation of section 5(a)(l) of the Act.
3Thereis no evidence to support Respondent’s assertion that Villareal had “repeatedly” aligned pipe, and none
to show that he did so on June 6 before the accident.
7
Order
On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
ORDERED that:
1. Item 1 of serious citation number 1 is AFFIRMED, and a penalty of $2,500.00 is
assessed.
Administrative Law Judge
Date: ibGT’26 1992
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 1993. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.