The US Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is responsible for ensuring the reliability of occupational safety issues related to citations contesting. In particular, when the cases of occupational safety violations ruled under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are claimed to be non-viable or faulty, they might be contested by OSHRC on request. Since OSHRC is an independent body, it undertakes investigations to reconsider the opportunities for organizational defense in its attempt to vacate the citation (Sapper, 2020). The process entails filing a case within an indicated period of time, during which the OSHRC professionals conduct their investigation and might either vacate or reinforce the citation.
While OSHRC’s function, as perceived by employers, is the validation of the infeasibility of compliance when debating the OSCHA ruling. However, as stated by Sapper (2020), “infeasibility does not permit the employer to do nothing; it must still protect employees as much as it feasibly can” (p. 31). Therefore, the role of this agency is to ensure the consistency of employee protection in the workplace while preserving the lawfulness of regulatory procedures. The case addressed in this paper demonstrates the process of OSHRC’s citation consenting.
The case under review in this paper is Aerospace Testing Alliance OSHRC Docket No. 16-1167. Aerospace Testing Alliance (ATA) is an organization that operates in the aerospace engineering field. The case entails an accident at an ATA facility, where an employee cut off the tip of his finger while cutting a small piece of metal. The organization was initially fined a $6,300 penalty due to the identified violation that stated that the employee was “exposed to crushing/amputation hazards when guarding was not provided on the hold-down pistons” (Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission [OSHRC], 2020, p. 2). However, OSHRC reverted the judge and canceled the citation due to the non-compliance of the employee with the standards of the operation and the failure of the judge to acknowledge this failure.
Indeed, the guard did not work to protect the employee because the worker intentionally took off the glove and exposed his hand to the hazard. The employee “removed one of the gloves and circumvented the guard surrounding the hold-down piston by placing his finger underneath the guard and piston and on top of the piece he was cutting” (OSHRC, 2020, p. 2). The Commission investigated the reasons for the judge’s citation and found that the judge did not identify the wrongdoing of the employee when he circumvented the guard, which led to the initial citation of ATA and the penalty. Thus, the final decision of the OSHRC was to vacate the citation and reverse the judgment.
I agree with such a decision since it has been clearly and with reliance on proper evidence proven that the organization was not responsible for the employee’s exposure to the hazard. The Commission thoroughly referred to the standards and organizational protocols when validating its decision, where it was identified and testified by peers of the employee that he was at fault for the injury. Thus, OSHRC’s decision is reliable and relevant, given the company’s proper protection efforts in place. Overall, such a decision demonstrates that the protection of employee safety in the workplace should be expanded and improved continuously, while organizations should be encouraged to engage in thorough investigations of the cases.
References
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. (2020). Aerospace Testing Alliance OSHRC Docket No. 16-1167. Web.
Sapper, A. G. (2020). Advantages of knowing the law: Top misconceptions about OSHA enforcement. Professional Safety, 65(12), 28-31.