Grayhawk of America, Inc.

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Grayhawk of America for four serious construction safety violations involving head protection, eye and face protection, unprotected deck edges, and unguarded floor openings. The employer received notice of the hearing but did not appear or request a postponement. The compliance officer testified that employees worked without hard hats while setting walls, used pneumatic nail guns without eye or face protection, worked about ten feet above a lower level without fall protection, and worked near openings with fall distances up to fourteen feet. Judge Sidney J. Goldstein found that the Secretary proved all four violations. He affirmed the citation items and assessed penalties totaling $3,525.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.100(a), 1926.102(a)(1), 1926.501(b)(1), and 1926.501(b)(4)(i).
• Outcome: Four serious violations affirmed, with $3,525 in total penalties.
• Key point: The Secretary's unrebutted evidence established missing personal protective equipment and fall protection after the employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,

                          v.                                OSHRC Docket No. 98-1379

GRAYHAWK OF AMERICA, INC.,

                     Respondent.

APPEARANCES:

      For the Complainant:
               Kim Prichard Flores, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Kansas City, Missouri.

Before: Administrative Law Judge Sidney J. Goldstein

                                        DECISION AND ORDER


      In this action the Secretary of Labor seeks to affirm a serious citation issued to Grayhawk of

America, Inc. by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the alleged violation of
four safety regulations relating to the construction industry. The matter arose after a compliance
officer for the Administration inspected a worksite of this employer, concluded that it was in violation
of the regulations, and recommended that the citation be issued. The company disagreed with this
determination and filed a notice of contest. Pursuant to Commission’s Rules, the Chief Judge
designated this case to be conducted under E-Z trial rules.
 The citation charged that the Respondent violated safety regulations in that (1) employees were
not protected by helmets while working where there was a danger of head injury; (2) employees did
not use eye and face protective equipment when machines or operations presented the possibility of
eye or face injury; (3) employees working on a surface six feet or more above a lower floor were not
protected from falling by the use of a guardrail, safety net, or personal fall arrest systems; and (4)
employees on a working surface were not protected from falling through holes, including skylights
more than six feet above lower levels by personal fall arrest systems, covers, or guardrails erected
around such holes.
A hearing was scheduled for January 5, 1999, and notices of hearing were mailed to the
Complainant and the Respondent. At the time and place scheduled for hearing the Complainant
appeared prepared for trial. The Respondent neither appeared not requested a postponement of the
proceedings.
At the hearing the compliance officer who investigated the worksite testified that he saw
employees setting walls on the deck of the building and were exposed to injury from the walls falling
on them without the benefit of hard hats. With respect to item 2 of the citation he saw two employees
using pneumatic nail guns without eye and face protection. He was concerned that nails coming out
of the guns with strong force could cause injury to the eye or face if misdirected. He also said that
item 3 of the citation was violated in that employees were working approximately ten feet above a
lower level without guardrails or a safety net system. Finally, employees were working around
unguarded floor openings, including stairwells, future stairwells, and an elevator shaft. Employees
in these instances were subject to a fall of up to fourteen feet.
Thus, the Respondent violated the regulations found at 29 C.F.R. §1926.100(a);
§1926.102(a)(1); §1926.501(b)(1), and §1926.501(b)(4)(i).
In each instance employees were subject to severe injury or death, and for that reason the
violations were listed as "Serious." The penalties recommended were consistent with the requirements
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

                                               2

Inasmuch as the Complainant proved that the Respondent was in violation of the regulations
indicated, and since the Respondent did not attend the hearing or request a postponement of the
matter:
Citation 1, item 1, 29 C.F.R. §1926.100(a) is AFFIRMED with a penalty of $225.00.
Citation 1, item 2, 29 C.F.R. §1926.102(a)(1) is AFFIRMED with a penalty of $300.00.
Citation 1, item 3, 29 C.F.R. §1926.501(b)(1) is AFFIRMED with a penalty of $1,500.00.
Citation 1, item 4, 29 C.F.R. §1926.501(b)(4)(i) is AFFIRMED with a penalty of $1,500.00.

                                                                Sidney J. Goldstein
                                                                Judge, OSHRC

Dated:

                                              3