49 COR 40-8907[¶23,319]
CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704 (f) – The proffered evidence showed the Employer failed to include all provisions for the use of pneumatically-driven nailers in its written Code of Safe Practices. MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(b)(2) – The evidence established that Employer failed to ensure the nail gun was operated in accordance with its manufacturer’s recommendations. TRAINING – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(g) - The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to effectively train employees on the hazards relating to nail gun operations. VIOLATION - SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(a) – The Division established a rebuttable presumption that Citations 2 and 3 were 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 3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS The evidence proffered showed the regulation cited by the Division, and the citation issued by the Division, were both sufficiently clear to give fair notice and to enable Employer to prepare a defense in this appeal. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES - Citation 1 was vacated by the ALJ. Citations 2 and 3 were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated January 9, 2025, Inspection No 1692964 (Sacramento)
Read More...