Safety professionals know that bypassing guards on equipment or splicing wires together for a makeshift extension cord are definite hazards that could lead to employee injuries.
However, these kinds of blatant safety violations still happen. Sometimes it isn’t the workers who are taking these shortcuts, but instead a management team who values production over safety.
Two recent decisions by judges for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) illustrate some extreme examples of this situation.
In both cases, the judges affirmed OSHA citations against the employers, finding that there was ample evidence that the hazards existed and that management was either fully aware of, or even behind, the violations.
Manager disabled safety device on machine
The first case, Secretary of Labor v. Donghee Alabama LLC, involved a manufacturer that made gas tanks for vehicles.
Various machines were used in both manufacturing and testing these tanks. Two machines in particular were the focus of a 2019 OSHA inspection that was prompted by employee complaints. The machines were:
- two helium test machines, which injected finished tanks with helium and measured the levels that escaped to detect any leaks present in the tanks, and
- the pad check machine, which sensed whether rubber pads were properly attached to the finished and tested gas tanks.
The inspector assigned to investigate the employee complaints at the Donghee Alabama facility found that electronic guards on both of these machines were either in disrepair or had been purposefully bypassed.
On the helium test machines, there were manufacturer-installed light curtains consisting of a transmitter and receiver which emitted invisible light between them. If something disrupted the light, such as an employee’s hand, the machine would automatically stop mid-cycle.
Both of the helium test machines had light curtains that were either inoperative or only partially operative. Employees told the inspector that both machines were like that for months prior to the OSHA inspection. They also explained that they’d complained to management about the malfunctioning safety devices but were told that there wasn’t enough money in the budget to fix them. Management also told the employees to continue to use the machines despite the faulty safety devices.
However, when the inspector pointed out the faulty light curtains to management, the safety devices on both machines were promptly repaired.
The pad check machine came equipped with a laser safety scanner as a safety device. Similar to the light curtains on the helium test machines, the laser safety scanner created a perimeter of invisible light. If something disrupted the perimeter to enter an unsafe area, the machine would immediately shut off.
The inspector found that the laser safety scanner was inoperable and had been for years, according to employees. Again, the employees were told to operate the equipment despite the failed safety device. During the investigation, the inspector learned that a maintenance manager disabled the laser safety scanner because it was creating too many false alarms and was hindering production.
In court, the judge found there was ample evidence supporting OSHA’s case against the company, resulting in a fine of $135,019.
Owner refused to buy safe tools, equipment
The second case, Secretary of Labor v. RJCL Corporation doing business as RNV Construction, involved a company with two different worksites in Saipan, North Marina Islands, a U.S. commonwealth that falls under federal OSHA’s jurisdiction.
OSHA inspections were conducted by one inspector at both worksites under a regional emphasis program focused on construction projects.
At one worksite, the inspector found multiple violations, including:
- unguarded fluorescent lights suspended from metal wires
- spliced wires being used to power work lights
- makeshift extension cords made up of two spliced wires connected by an electrical receptacle box that was lacking a protective cover
- unguarded fluorescent lights mounted to poles, and
- electrical wires inserted directly into an electrical receptacle box because there was no plug end on the cord.
At the other worksite, a citation was filed for scaffolding that wasn’t fully planked, leaving gaps that workers could fall through.
What was the reason the employees gave for all of these violations? The company’s owner and management didn’t want to spend the money for equipment like extension cords and guarded work lights. Management’s refusal to spend money on safe equipment left the workers to their own devices to figure out how to proceed on getting the job done.
In court, the employer’s arguments failed to outweigh OSHA’s evidence that the violations were committed with the company’s full knowledge leading to an $18,648 fine.
One way to get this type of employer onboard with safety
As a safety professional, how are you supposed to deal with an employer who puts profits before worker safety?
First of all, there’s no easy way to do this. There was a brief mention in the Donghee Alabama case of a safety manager who clashed with management over the unsafe equipment and disabled safety device.
One possible way to get through to an employer like the two from these OSHA cases is to speak the language they seem to understand best: money.
Show them how much OSHA fines can cost them for production shortcuts that lead to violations.
If they don’t care about their employees’ health and wellbeing, maybe they’ll care about the cost of workers’ compensation. Or, if that fails, mention the expense of constantly recruiting and training people to replace those who are too injured, frustrated or frightened to continue working for them.
