Joseph Teixeira was killed at the Northern Wind facility in New Bedford, MA, while performing maintenance work inside a large, industrial, ice-making machine.

The machine was activated while Teixeira was inside, and he was caught in the moving parts. An autopsy determined the cause of death was asphyxiation because of chest compression.

OSHA found that the plant lacked procedures to power down and lock out the ice machine before employees entered it.

Northern Wind faces 19 serious and 4 other-than-serious citations. It has 15 days to contest the fines.

Georgia-Pacific fired supervisor Ezra Brady for instructing an employee to use an improper lockout procedure. The plant manager claimed the result was that an energy source wasn’t isolated and employees were at risk. The company said Brady willfully violated company policy.

The company had safety rules in its employee handbook that spelled out lockout requirements.

Brady filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that he’d been fired as a result of racial discrimination. Brady says he was fired for a first offense, while two white employees were only suspended for three days for the same offense.

When the EEOC found reasonable cause that Georgia-Pacific had racially discriminated against him, Brady filed a lawsuit against the company. G-P asked to have the case thrown out.

The court agreed to throw out Brady’s lawsuit because he didn’t prove that his employer gave preferential treatment to another employee under nearly identical circumstances.

In one situation in which a white employee was suspended, the worker was making repairs on a conveyor and reached far enough into it to have required a lock-out. The plant manager said this employee was only suspended for three days because he didn’t put any other employees in danger. The court found this didn’t qualify as a nearly identical circumstance.

In the second case, a manager and two other employees were conducting an inspection. One employee turned off a breaker to a machine. None of the three had a lock for the breaker, and the manager decided one wasn’t needed because he was supervising the situation. That manager also received a three-day suspension. Management said this case was not a willful violation of company policy because the manager thought he was doing the right thing. Once again, the court said this didn’t qualify as a nearly identical circumstance.

The take-home: Companies can enforce policies that call for firing employees for certain safety infractions. They just need to be careful that disciplinary measures are applied equally.

What does your company policy say about penalties for safety violations? Has your company ever fired someone for safety reasons? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Have you ever fired someone for violating a company safety rule? In this case, a company did just that and then found itself in court on a charge of racial discrimination.

Georgia-Pacific fired supervisor Ezra Brady for instructing an employee to use an improper lockout procedure. The plant manager claimed the result was that an energy source wasn’t isolated and employees were at risk. The company said Brady willfully violated company policy.

The company had safety rules in its employee handbook that spelled out lockout requirements.

Brady filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that he’d been fired as a result of racial discrimination. Brady says he was fired for a first offense, while two white employees were only suspended for three days for the same offense.

When the EEOC found reasonable cause that Georgia-Pacific had racially discriminated against him, Brady filed a lawsuit against the company. G-P asked to have the case thrown out.

The court agreed to throw out Brady’s lawsuit because he didn’t prove that his employer gave preferential treatment to another employee under nearly identical circumstances.

In one situation in which a white employee was suspended, the worker was making repairs on a conveyor and reached far enough into it to have required a lock-out. The plant manager said this employee was only suspended for three days because he didn’t put any other employees in danger. The court found this didn’t qualify as a nearly identical circumstance.

In the second case, a manager and two other employees were conducting an inspection. One employee turned off a breaker to a machine. None of the three had a lock for the breaker, and the manager decided one wasn’t needed because he was supervising the situation. That manager also received a three-day suspension. Management said this case was not a willful violation of company policy because the manager thought he was doing the right thing. Once again, the court said this didn’t qualify as a nearly identical circumstance.

The take-home: Companies can enforce policies that call for firing employees for certain safety infractions. They just need to be careful that disciplinary measures are applied equally.

What does your company policy say about penalties for safety violations? Has your company ever fired someone for safety reasons? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

A Kroger grocery store employee is recovering after getting her hand caught in a meat grinder as she cleaned it.

The incident happened at the chain’s store in Wabash, IN.

A Kroger spokesman told WANE-TV that the pharmacist who was on duty and an off-duty EMT who was shopping were able to give the employee immediate care until paramedics arrived.

The injured woman was flown to a nearby hospital for emergency care.

A hospital spokesman says the woman is in fair condition.

Kroger said the employee was relatively new to the company and had completed the training program on the equipment in the meat department.

That’s the case with Phenix Lumber Co. in Phenix City, AL. OSHA has proposed $293,700 in penalties for 36 safety and health violations there.

For failing to correct five violations identified during a previous inspection, OSHA issued fines totaling $202,500. Those citations include failure to obtain audiograms for employees exposed to noise hazards, not implementing specific lockout/tagout procedures and lack of machine guards.

The other fines totaling $91,200 in penalties are for six repeat, seven serious and one other-than-serious violation. These include poor housekeeping of combustible dust, lack of safety signs, and using incorrect electrical and forklift equipment.

The company has 15 days to decide if it wants to contest any of the citations.

Cintas will pay nearly $3 million to OSHA. All of the cases involve citations OSHA issued to Cintas for failing to lock out hazardous energy on industrial laundry equipment while employees were servicing the machines.

On March 6, 2007, Eleazar Torres-Gomez was killed at an Oklahoma Cintas plant when he fell onto an unguarded conveyor and was dragged into a 300-degree industrial dryer. He was already dead from burns when another employee found him 20 minutes later.

Besides paying the fine, Cintas has agreed to a number of other measures under the settlement, including:

• retaining a team of independent experts who will ensure interim safety measures are in place
• hiring additional safety professionals
• conducting more frequent internal safety inspections, and
• providing increased safety training to management and employees.

The union UNITE HERE and two Democratic members of Congress have criticized the settlement for being too lenient on Cintas.

UNITE HERE opposes downgrading the severity of 43 willful violations and the length of time Cintas has to properly guard the kind of machines which caused the death of Torres-Gomez.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) say the settlement amounts to a last-minute pardon of Cintas by OSHA under President Bush’s Republican administration.