John J. Kirlin, Inc.
Serious scissor-lift guarding citation vacated, one electrical-cord item affirmed at no penalty
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1993 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.
Plain-English summary
John J. Kirlin, Inc. is a plumbing contractor. While it was working on the renovation and construction of the Postal Square retail and office complex in Washington, D.C., OSHA inspected the worksite and issued one serious citation and one other-than-serious citation. The serious citation, with a proposed penalty of $1,125, alleged a machine-guarding violation involving a scissor lift. Administrative Law Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld vacated the serious citation. He held the cited guarding standard, which covers parts that are "reciprocating, rotating or moving," did not fit a scissor lift, whose pinch points exist only while the platform is being raised or lowered, and the Secretary did not prove Kirlin's employees were exposed during those moments (the lift was in use by another contractor at the time). He affirmed one other-than-serious item for a bundle of electrical cords run through a hole in a wall without a bushing or fitting, rejecting the argument that the cords cushioned one another and that the condition was de minimis. Because that item was low gravity, the proposed penalty of $0 was appropriate.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.300(b)(2) (guarding of moving machine parts); § 1926.405(g)(1)(iii)(b) (flexible cords run through holes in walls, ceilings, or floors)
- Outcome: Mixed. The serious machine-guarding citation was vacated; one other-than-serious electrical item was affirmed with no penalty assessed.
- Key point: A machine-guarding standard aimed at rotating or moving parts requires proof of employee exposure while the equipment is operating. Intermittent pinch points that exist only during raising or lowering, with no shown exposure, will not sustain the citation.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUf’ATlONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1825 K STREET NW
. 4TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-l 246
FAX
COM (202) 634-4008
FTS (202, 634-4008
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 92-0469
JOHN J. KIRLIN
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 December 10, 1992. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on January 11, 1993 unless a
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY 2br
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE ,q
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. $
Any such petition should be received by the Executive Secretary on or before T
December 30, 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&se shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Revrew Commission
1825 K St. N.W., Room 401
Washington, D.C. 20006-1246
Petitioning parties shah also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
O-fEiceof the Solicitor, U.S. DO5
f*-
i, 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
havmg questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 634-7950.
FOR THE COMMISSION
Date: December 10, 1992 Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
DOCKET NO. 92-0469
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOf
Room S4004
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Marshall H. Harris, Esq.
Re ‘onal Solicitor
O&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL
14480 Gatewa Build<ng
3535 Market J treet
Philadelphia, PA 19 104
John Brent Clarke, Jr., Esquire
1303 Ballantrae Court
MclAn, VA 22101
Michael H. Schoenfeld
Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety an CKHealth
Review Commission
Room 417/C
1825 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006 1246
00102637519:03
- -- - UNJTEO STATES OF AMERJCA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1825 K STREET N.W.
4TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON DC 20006-1246
FAX:
COM (202) 634-mn
RS 634406
l
l
SECRETARY OF LABOR, ..
..
Complainant, ..
..
v. .. OSHRC Docket No. 924469
..
JOHN J. KIRLIN, INC., ..
..
Respondent. ..
..
.
Appearances:
John M. Strawn, Esq. James Brent Clarke, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor McLean, Virginia
U. S. Department of Labor For Respondent
For Complainant
Before: administrative law Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld
DECISION AND ORDER
Background and Procedural History
This case arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 U.S.C. 8 $
651 - 678 (1970) (“the Act”).
Having had its worksite inspected by a compliance officer of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, John J. Kirlin, Inc., (“Respondent”) was issued one citation
alleging one serious violation and anot her citation alleging three other-than-serious violations
of the Act. A penalty of $1,125 was proposed for the serious violation and a penalty of $0
was proposed for the three other violations. Respondent timely contested. Following the
filing of a complaint and answer and pursuant to a notice of hearing, the parties appeared
for hearing on September 8, 1992. No affected emp oyees sought to assert party status.
Both parties have filed post-hearing briefs. ’
Jurisdiction
Complainant alleges and Respondent does not deny that it is an employer engaged
in the plumbing business. It is undisputed that at the time of this inspection Respondent was
engaged in the renovation and construction of a retail and office complex known as Postal
Square in Washington, D.C. Respondent does not deny that it uses tools, equipment and
supplies which have moved in interstate commerce. I find that Respondent is engaged in
a business affecting interstate commerce.
Based on the above finding, I conclude that Respondent in an employer within the
meaning of 8 3(5) of the Act. * Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties.
Discussion
In regard to the alleged serious violation, the Secretary has failed to demonstrate, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the standard under which Respondent has been 0.cited
is applicable. Thus, the citation is vacated.3
1 Respondent’s post-hearing Motion for Leave to Offer Additional Documents in Evidence
is granted.
- Title 29 U.S.C. 0 652(S).
3 In general, to prove a violation of a standard, the Secretary must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence (1) that the cited standard applies, (2) non-compliance with
the terms of the standard, (3) employee exposure or access to the hazard created by the
non-compliance, and (4) the employer knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could have known of the condition. Antra Pharmaceuticalproducts,Inc., 9 BNA OSHC 2126,
2129 (No. 78-6247, 1981); Dutt-ParEngineered Form Co., 12 BNA OSHC 1949 (NO.7%
2553), rev’d & remanded on othergrowti, 843 F.2d 1135 (8th Cir. 1988), decision on remand
2
The Commission has concluded that the standard cited, 20 C.F.R. 0 1926.300(b)
(1990),’ is “generally applicable to all tools covered by Subpart I (of Title 1926).” Daniel
ConstructionCO., 10 BNA OSHC 1549,1554 (NO. 16265,1982). Respondent raises the issue
of whether the scissors lift was actually or intended to be covered. It relies on the argument
that the ANSI standard referred to in the construction standard does not cover scissors lifts.
More importantly, argues Respondent, ANSI, in subsequent publications specifically dealing
with scissors lifts, made it abundantly clear that predecessor ANSI standards (including the
ANSI standard incorporated by the cited standard) were not considered by ANSI to be
applicable to scissors lifts. (Exhibits B and D)?
A review of the evidence leads to the same conclusion. ANSI would have no other
reason to publish in its forward to its first standard for Self-Propelled Elevating Work
Platforms the following:
On May 19th, 1976, a group of work platform manufacturers
. was invited....to a meeting...to discuss the absence of standards
pertaining to self-propelled, elevating work platforms.6
In addition, discovery revealed that the Compliance Officer initially recommended the
13 BNA OSHC 2147 (1989).
4 The cited standard provides:
(2) Belts, gears, shafts, pulleys, sprockets, spindles, drums, flu
wheels, chains, or other reciprocating, rotating or moving parts
of equipment shall be guarded if such parts are exposed to
contact by employees or othenvise create a hazard. Guarding
shall meet the requirements set forth in American national
Standards Institute, B15.1-1953 (R1958), Safety Code for
Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus.
’ Revisions to its own standards by a private standards setting organization made after the
earlier standards were incorporated into OSHA standards are in no way binding upon
OSHA or the public, nor can such subsequent revisions be automatically incorporated into
the OSHA standards without an opportunity for public notice and comment as required by
the section 6 of the Act.
6 Foreword, ANSI, A92.6-1979, American National Standard for Self-Propelled Elevating
Work Platforms.
3
issuance of a citation alleging a violation of 0 S(a)(l) of the Act, the “general duty clause.”
Her recommendation was overruled by a supervisor who indicated that legal research found
that the cited standard should or could be used. (I%. C) That legal research was not shared
with Respondent or the Administrative Law Judge in this case.
Even assuming the cited standard is applicable, the. Secretary failed to show employee
exposure by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Secretary does not have to prove actual exposure to a hatird, but need show
only that employees had access to an area of potential danger based on reasonable
predictability. The question of exposure is a factual one “to be determined by considering
the zones of danger created by the hazard, employee work activities, their means of ingress-
egress, and their comfort activities.” The question is whether, the employees, within
reasonable predictability, were within the zone of danger created by the violative condition.
Brennan v. Gilles & Catting Inc., 504 F. 2d 1255, 1263 (4th Cir. 1974), Didhdedtill, a Joint-
Venture, 4 BNA OSHC 1489,14909 (No. 3042, 1976); Adams Steel Erection, 12 BNA OSHC
1393, 1399 (No. 84-3586, 1985). But a machine guarding standard such as 29 C.F.R.
9 1910.212(a)(l), requires more than proof that employees could possibly come into contact
with unguarded machinery. The Secretary must show that employees were exposed to the
hazard “as a result of the manner in which the machine functions and the way it is
operated.“) Jefferson Smur/it Cop., 15 BNA OSHC 1419, 1421 (No.89-0553, 1992)
(“Smuflt”). In this case the Secretary’s evidence fails to meet the above test.
The Compliance Officer simplv4 testified that Respondent’s employees were seen
working “within a couple of feet” of the scissor lift. Such evidence. by itself, might show
exposure to a static hazardous condition such as an unguarded floor edge but, as the
Commission noted in Smqfit, exposure under a machine guarding standard is dependent
upon a showing of employee exposure related to a hazard which only exists when the
machine is operating. Indeed, the wording of the cited standard suggests that the parts of
tools which must be guarded are those which are “reciprocating, rotating or moving.” In this
case, there is no evidence that the scissors lift was in fact used or was required to be used
at any time while Respondent’s employees were in the zone of danger created by the pinch
4
points. At the time of the inspection, the lift was in a raised position with an employee of
another contractor on it. (Tr. 16) Indeed, the compliance officer described the hazard to
Respondent’s employees as existing only when the other contractor’s employee “lowered the
lift at the same time (Respondent’s employees) were in close proximity or right at the pinch
point . . . .” (Tr. 18) She acknowledged that pinch points or sheer points exist on the scissor
lift when it is in motion (raising or lowering the platform) (Tr. 16). As opposed to tools and
other equipment (even cranes) which present hazards when actually operating, the scissor
lift presented a hazard only when the work platform was being raised or lowered as part of
the equipment being set-up. It is important to distinguish between hazards created by tools
and equipment when they are operating (as contemplated by the cited standard) and such
intermittent hazards as cited here. In sum, I find that it hasnot been shown that anything
in the nature of the way the scissor lift operated or the way employees of Respondent were
performing their duties that they were either actually exposed, or could reasonably be
anticipated to be exposed to, pinch points which existed only during the times when the lift
was actually raising or lowering the work platform. Accordingly, the citation is vacated.
The only other item at issue is an alleged failure to comply with tk~tandard at 29
C.F.R. 6 1926.405(g)(l)(iii)(b) (1990).’ The Compliance Officer described observing a
group of electrical cords passing through a hole at the base of a dry wail. The cords were
close to or resting on a metal track at the wall’s base. (Tr. 95, CX 6). Respondent does not
claim that the condition did not exist. It maintains, however, that electrical cords in such a
“bundle” resist abrasion or losing their insulation by virtue of the fact that each cord has a
cushioning effect on the others. Respondent would analogize between this cushioning effect
and the bushing or fitting required under the cited standard. In addition, Respondent
’ The initially cited standard, 29 C.F.R. 6 1926.405(g)(2)(v) applies to electrical cords
passing thorough “holes in covers, outlet boxes, or similar enclosures.” At the outset of the
hearing Complainant’s motion to amend this item so as to allege, in the alternative, a
violation of 5 1926.405(g)( l)( iii)( b), covering electrical cords which have been “run through
holes in walls, ceilings, or floors” was denied. The parties, nonetheless, tried and briefed the
case under the latter standard. Inasmuch as the latter standard is more applicable, the
parties tried all issues by consent, and Respondent has not been prejudiced, the denial of
the amendment is reversed.
5
offered evidence as to the thickness of the insulation on its cords. Respondent suggests that
the condition be regarded as de minimk as ati alternative.
The Secretary has made a case for this alleged violation. Her Compliance Officer
testified without rebuttal as to the applicability of the standard, the existence of the non-
complying condition, the knowledge of Respondent and the exposure of its employees to
potential shock hazard. Respondent’s argument as to the effect of having several cords
passing through one hole without a bushing or fitting is rejected. Which of the several cords
would be protected by the others is a matter of mere happenstance. Each of the several
cords passing thorough such a hole had an equal chance of being scraped or cut into by the
floor track. That Respondent’s extension cord was undamaged was a matter of luck not
care. Respondent’s suggestion that the condition be regarded as de miniinis is rejected in
light of the Compliance Officer’s unrebutted testimony that a shock hazard potential existed.
The item is affirmed. The proposed penalty is appropriate in light of the low gravity of this
other-than-serious violation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
All findings of fact necessary for a determination of all relevant issues have been
made above. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
inconsistent with this decision are hereby denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent was, at all times pertinent hereto, an employer within the meaning of
0’ 3(S) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 U. S. C. 0 5 651-678 (1970).
2. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter.
3. Respondent was not in violation of the Act in that it did not fail to comply with the
standard at 29 C.F.R. 0 1926300(b)(2), as alleged.
4. Respondent was in violation of the Act in that it failed to comply with the standard
at 29 C.F.R. 5 1926.405(g)( l)(iii)(b). Th is violation was other-than-serious. A civil penalty
of $0.00 is appropriate.
ORDER
1. Citation 01, issued to Respondent on January 6, 1992, is VACATED.
2. Item 3 of Citation 02, issued to Respondent on January 6, 1992, is AFFIRMED.
No civil penalty is assessed.
J
c/ MICHAEL H. SCHOENI%LD
Judge, OSHRC *
f 0
December 4, 1992
Dated:
Washington, D.C.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.