Amalgamated Sugar Company

Plain-English summary

Amalgamated Sugar Company operated an Idaho station that received sugar beets from private growers after harvest, then cleaned, conveyed, and stored them for sugar production. The company argued that its station was an agricultural operation exempt from the cited general-industry rules. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin R. Loye focused on the employees' specific tasks and found that they had no role in growing or harvesting the crop. Once delivered and purchased, the beet warehousing operation had no closer connection to farming than any other wholesale purchaser of agricultural products. The judge held that the general-industry standards applied. Under the parties' stipulation, four items were affirmed with penalties of $1,800, $2,500, $500, and $2,500, totaling $7,300.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.147(c)(4)(i), 1910.132(b)(1), 1910.333(b)(2)(i), and 1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(A).
• Outcome: Affirmed. All four stipulated general-industry items were affirmed with $7,300 in total penalties.
• Key point: Post-harvest receiving, cleaning, and warehousing by the crop purchaser was not an agricultural operation when the cited employees performed no growing or harvesting work.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                         UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL        SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                           One Lafayette Centre
                     1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
                        Washington, DC 200364419

SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 94-0096
AMALGMATED SUGAR COMPANY
Respondent.

                 NOTICE OF DOCKETING
           OF ADMINISTRATIVE MW JUDGE’S DECISION
 The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was

docketed with the Commission on April 13, 1995. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on May 15, 1995 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 etition should be received by the Executive Secretary on or before
May 4, 1985 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
Revrew Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419

Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOYL
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC. 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) 6065400.

                                   FOR THE COMMISSION

Date: April 13, 1995
DOCKET NO. 94-0096
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

. Robert Friel, Es .
Assoc. Re ‘onal %elicitor
Office of fi: e Solicitor, U.S. DOL
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 945
Seattle, WA 98101

Richard C. Boardman, Es .
Penland, Munther & Boar?Iman
PO Box 199
Boise, ID 83701

Benjamin R. Lo e
Administrative i!Lw Jud e
Occupational Safety an tf Health
Review Commission
Room 250
1244 North S eer Boulevard
Denver, CO ir0204 3582

00107232019: 10
.

                                           UNITED   8TNEs   OF   AMmcA
.


               OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                                           1211N. Spew Soulwad                      .
                                                  Room 250                     r-




                                         Denvtw, Colomdo 802044!B2




    SECRETARY OF LABOR,

                                  Complainant,
                                                                           .

          v.                                                             &ZIRC DOCKET
                                                                         NO. 944096 - .
    AMXGAMATED            SUGAR COMPANY,

                                  Respondent.
                                                                 I
          APPEARANCES:
                   For the Complainant:

                          Cathy L Barnes, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
                           U.S. Departmentof Labor, Seattle, WA

                   For the Respondent:

                          Richard
                                \ C Boardman;Esq., Boise, ID



                                      DECISION AND ORDER
    Loye, Judge:
           This proceeding arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
    U.S.C., Section 651, et. seq, hereafter referred to as the Act).
           Respondent, Amalgamated Sugar Company (Amalgamated), at all times relevant to
    this action maintained a worksite at Highway 19, Receiving Station 66 Doles, Caldwell Idaho,
    where it was engaged in receiving and warehousing sugar beets. Amalgamated admits it is
                                                                                        --

an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce and is subject to the requirements
of the Act.
In December 1993 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
conducted an inspection of Amalgamated’s Caldwell worksite. As a result of the inspection,
Amalgamated was issued citations, together with proposed penalties, alleging violations of
the Act. By filing a timeIy notice of contest Respondent brought this proceeding before the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission).
The parties stipulate that the sole matter at issue in this case is whether the general
industry standards at 29 C.F.R. $1910 et sq. are applicable to Amalgamated% operation.
The parties agree that should the 51910 standards be found applicable, the cited violations
shall be affirmed as amended, and the agreed upon penalties be assessed (‘I?. S-6).
On January 10, 1995, a hearing was held in Boise, Idaho on the matter remaining at
issue. The parties have waived or submitted briefs and this matter is ready for disposition.
ISSUE
Amalgamated maintains that it is engaged primarily in agriculture operations at its
Caldwell receiving station, and that those operations are regulated by OSHA’s industry
specific standards for agriculture found at 29 C.F.R. 51928 et seq, Respondent argues that
51928.21(b) exempts agricultural employers from the operation of the general industry
standards at #1910 et seq.
FACTS
Amalgamated’s primary business is the production of sugar, beet pulp and molasses
from sugar beets (Tr. 49). Amalgamated also maintains an l
agricultural department’ which
functions as a liaison between the company and the private growers who sell their crops to
Amalgamated (Tr. 28). The agricultural liaison negotiates the amount of acreage to be
planted, type of seed, and delivery schedule with the growers; Amalgamated’s Yield men”
provide consulting services after planting (Tr. 27-34). Amalgamated’s crop receiving
stations are designated part of the agriculture department (Tr. 444).
During the harvesting season, Amalgamated receives the growers’ beet crops at its
outlying stations (Tr. 34). The growers provide their own trucking (Tr. 35), and the beets
remain the property of the growers until they are weighed and dumped at the receiving

                                          2

stations (Tr. 42). Once Amalgamated takes possession, the beets are cleaned and moved
into storage by a conveyor system (Tr. 19-21, 39-40).
Employees at the caldwell receiving station are all either operators of equipment
(tractors, front-end loaders, beet pile@, scalehouse operators or maintenance personnel (Tr.
17-20). None are involved in the growing or harvesting of beets (Tr. 77). Receiving station
personnel are assigned as needed; following the harvest they return to Amalgamated’s shop
for the winter, where they perform repair and maintenance duties (Tr. 21, 40).
Amalgamated was cited for failing to develop energy control procedures for use when
servicing beet pilers, and for f&g to develop and implement safe working practices for use
when servicing electrical equipment.
Discussion
For purposes of dete rmining whether an operation is agricultural for purposes of
coverage, the Commission must:
.examine the specific task that exposed the worker to the alleged noncomplying
&&ion for which the employer was cited and decide whether the task is part of,
or integrally related to, an agricultural operation.

Datragh Company, 9 BNA OSHC 1205,198OCCH OSHD W,O66 (Nos. 77.2555,77-3074,
77-3075,198O). In Dawagh, the Commission noted that the particular task performed by the
cited employer, the delivery of feed, was necessary to the raising of the agricultural product
in that case, chickens. They also took into account the fact that the work done by the cited
employer was actually performed on an agricultural establishment, or farm, where chickens
owned by the cited employer were raised by contract poultry farmers.
In this case the noncomplying condition involved maintenance performed on
equipment used in the warehousing of sugar beets purchased by Respondent’s refinery
subsequent to the beets’ harvest and delivery by the beet farmers. The receiving station
personnel had no connection to the production or harvesting of the beetcrop whatsoever.
The nexus between the beet grower and Amalgamated’s beet warehousing operation is no
closer than that between a grower/farmer and any other wholesale purchaser of agricultural
products. That connection is too attewtz&xI1,to meet the 5ntegral ,re!!atic~~~test set forth ’
.’
in Damagh.’
The undersigned finds that Amalgamated’s re&ving facility is not an agricuhural
operation for purposes of coverage, and that the generalkdustry c standards are appkable
to that operation.
L
Findings of Fact and .--
Conclusions of Law”
---I--.-- ’ , ’”
AU findings of fact and conclusions of law relevant and rwessary to a dete,rrr&&&on
’
of the contested issues have been found spedally and qqxxir in the de~kkx~ a&~&~. &GE? ’
Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules ofCivil P~CMXZ&XK
a.. . dj . . .

                                         Order

1. Serious citation 1, item 1, alleging violation of §1910.147(c)(4)(i) is AFFIRMED, and a
   penalty of $1,800.00 is ASSESSED.

2. Serious citation 1, item 2, alleging violation of §1910.132(b)(1) is AFFIRMED, and a
   penalty of $2,500.00 is ASSESSED.

3. Citation 1, item 3, alleging violation of §1910.333(b)(2)(i) is AFFIRMED as an “other
   than serious” violation, and a penalty of $500.00 is ASSESSED.

4. Serious citation 1, item 4, alleging violation of §1910.333(b)(2)(iii)(A) is AFFIRMED, and
   a penalty of $2,500.00 is ASSESSED.

Benjamin R. Loye
Judge, OSHRC

Dated: April 7, 1995

1 Both parties rely in part on the Standard Industrial Classification Manual published by the
Office of Management and Budget. This judge finds that document inapposite, in that it addresses
only the employer’s primary business, which Amalgamated admits is sugar refining. Whether a
specific task is an agricultural operation is determined solely by the criteria set forth in Darragh.