Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, a Southern California landscaping company, is in hot water with Cal/OSHA over alleged heat illness violations, which the agency says is a first-of-its-kind case.

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health has long required driverless tractors to have an operator stationed in the vehicles. Now it says it is rescinding its opposition. Here’s why and what it envisions for possible regulatory reform.

New rules for residential construction on fall protection take effect this July. They're expected to be a major headache for the industry. However, does the new Fed-OSHA administration provide a reason for optimism for those seeking to retain the current safety rules? Here's the latest in this long-running framing saga.

A fatal incident in a deep trench and two deadly falls have resulted in Cal/OSHA action. Here’s what happened and what the agency is proposing.

Cal/OSHA and other state agencies have made a concerted effort to stop the spread of bird flu in the state's animal agriculture industry. Now, a progressive labor group is attacking CAL/OSHA while also attempting to create resentment between employers and employees, claiming many employers are prioritizing animals over humans. What will the Standards Board do?

Here are the latest fatal workplace incidents from around California in recent weeks.

Fatalities and serious injuries from falling gates has been under the radar, but a persistent problem, both in the workplace and for the general public. Now Cal/OSHA intends to better regulate this hazard. Here’s how initial Standards Board discussions went with stakeholders.

The Department of Industrial Relations is granting $6 million to community-based organizations in the Los Angeles area. They says it is to help those involved with the cleanup and recovery from the recent wildfires.

Another bill to address silicosis in the engineered stone industry is getting its first hearing soon, with key amendments. Here's what the bill is about and what happens next.

“Egregious” and “enterprise-wide” violations are coming to Cal/OSHA. In the latest move, the agency has revised its proposal in response to comments from stakeholders. Read about the chang-es and how you can weigh in on them in this week’s Cal-OSHA Reporter.

49 COR 40-8923 [¶23,326R]

Digest of COSHAB’s Amended Decision After Remand from Superior Court dated February 24, 2025, Inspection No. 1235643.

49 COR 40-8923 [¶23,327R]

INJURY ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(5)
The Board affirmed the ALJs Decision which determined Employer’s IIPP was not implemented.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(4) and (a)(6)
The Board affirmed the ALJs Decision which found Employer did not implement its IIPP to effectively identify and evaluate workplace hazards; and that Employer failed to appropriately act to correct the exposure hazard.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
The citations were affirmed by the Board.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated February 25, 2025, Inspection No. 1499137.

49 COR 40-8919 [¶23,324R]

MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT – GUARDED BY LOCATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4002(a) –
The evidence established that the roll sizer was guarded by its frame and location.

HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c) –
There was no factual dispute that the roll sizer was not stopped at the time the employee reached into it during cleaning operations.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE –
The Board found that Employer established all five elements of the IEAD.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated February 6, 2025, Inspection No. 1238985.

49 COR 40-8921 [¶23,325]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP –

Labor Code §§6303(b), 6304.1(a) –
A preponderance of the evidence established that an employer-employee relationship existed between Appellant and the workers at the site.

Labor Code §2750.5 –
An injured worker, who did not have a contractor’s license, was deemed an employee of Employer, rather than an independent contractor.

Labor Code §2775 –
Employer did not establish all three elements of the ABC test by a preponderance of the evidence.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 5, 2025,  Inspection No 1580564 (Sun Valley)

49 COR 40-8915 [¶23,322]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) and §3203(a)(6) –
The proffered evidence showed the Employer failed to implement and maintain an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program in terms of correcting unsafe conditions.

 SCAFFOLDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1621(b) –
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to ensure that standard toeboards were provided on all open sides and ends of railed scaffolding where employees were required to work under or pass under the scaffolding.

 SAFE USE OF LADDERS –
Title. 8, California Code of Regulations, §3276(e)(15) –
The Division established Employer failed to ensure that an employee that used a ladder to gain access to a scaffold platform did so without carrying a plaster hose, which prevented the safe use of the ladder.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE –
Employer failed to establish the third and fifth elements and, therefore, did not met its burden of proof with regard to the affirmative defense of the IEAD.

 VIOLATION – SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION
Labor Code §6432(a) –
The Division established a rebuttable presumption that Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious.

 ACCIDENT-RELATED CHARACTERIZATION –
The evidence established a causal nexus between the violation and the serious injury sufficient to sustain the accident-related character of Citation 2.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The penalty for Citation 1, Item 1 was deemed duplicative and vacated by the ALJ.  The penalties for Citation 1, Item 2 and Citation 2 were assessed as proposed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated January 10, 2025, Inspection No 1549611 (Napa)

 

49 COR 40-8918 [¶23,323R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Labor Code §6614(a) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated February 6, 2025, Inspection No. 1701088.

49 COR 40-8913 [¶23,321R]

MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §354(b)
The Board held that those seeking party status do not have to prove through an evidentiary showing that they are an affected employee in order to be granted party status.

 MOTION TO COMPEL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §372.6
The Board determined that the motion to compel regarding the amended request and the appropriateness of those requests was not yet before the ALJ or the Board. Amending the requests, rendered the original requests moot.

LABOR CODE §2775 –
The Appeals Board applies the ABC test to determine whether a person is an employee or independent contractor, and whether a hiring entity is an employer.

BUS. & PROF. CODE §7451 –
The Board determined that where the facts demonstrate that all four specified conditions in §7451 have been satisfied, thus classifying a person as an “independent contractor, there is room for harmonization of the two statutes by treating Bus. and Prof. Code §7451 as an exception to, rather than a repeal of, Labor Code §2775.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated January 24, 2025, Inspection No. 1594663.

49 COR 40-8911 [¶23,320R]

THIRD PARTY STATUS and AFFECTED EMPLOYEES-
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§354, 347(c) –
The Appeals Board granted the ACLU’s request for leave to file its amicus brief, denied the Employer’s motion to strike the TPAs’ Response to the Second Briefing Order or Request to Submit a Reply, and reversed the ALJ’s Order denying party status to the TPAs.

ORDER – INTERLOCUTORY
Labor Code §6614  –
The Order denying the Motion for Party Status  was interlocutory in nature, because it was not a final order. Thus, the Board concluded that both petitions for reconsideration were timely.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated January 10, 2025, Inspection No. 1609228.