49 COR 40-8711 [¶23,256]
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509 (a) – The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to establish that Employer failed to effectively enforce its IIPP to the extent that the supervisor failed to adhere to Employer’s own safety policies. Cleaning, Servicing and Adjusting Operations – Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(a) - The evidence proffered by the Division was sufficient to establish the applicability of §3314(a) and further, that actual unexpected energization or start-up was not required for §3314(a) to apply. The evidence proffered by the Division established that Employer violated §3314(c) by failing to stop or de-energize or prevent inadvertent movement or release of stored energy during a cleaning or adjusting operation. INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE (IEAD) - Employer established three elements of the IEAD, demonstrating that the employee was experienced in the job performed, that it had a well-designed safety program and that it had a policy of sanctions which it enforced. Because all five elements of the IEAD had to be proved, the defense failed. NEWBERY DEFENSE – The evidence showed the violation was foreseeable. Employer failed to exercise supervision adequate to ensure safety. Employer's efforts to ensure employee compliance with its safety rules were insufficient. Employer did not meet its burden. SERIOUS VIOLATION - REBUTTAL OF CLASSIFICATION Labor Code §6432(c) – Failure to take all the steps a reasonable and responsible employer in like circumstances should be expected to take, before the violation occurred, supported a finding that Employer did not rebut the Serious classification. ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES Citation 1 and Citation 3 were affirmed, including a classification of Serious for Citation 3, and an adjusted penalty of $950 was assessed.Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated July 21, 2023, Inspection No. 1420923 (Davis, CA)
Read More...