Does company have to let union rep monitor OSHA inspection?
February 23, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: Chemical safety, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, OSHA news, What do you think?, inspections
Federal law requires companies to allow a union representative to accompany an OSHA compliance officer on a facility inspection. But in a recent case involving Honeywell, there’s an added factor:
Union workers have been locked out since June 28, 2010.
At Honeywell’s Metropolis, IL, plant, a hydrofluoric acid leak occurred on Dec. 22, 2010. The plant is the only one in the U.S. where uranium is refined for nuclear power plants.
OSHA wants to inspect the tank farm area where the leak occurred.
On Feb. 8, 2011, Honeywell refused to allow a union representative to accompany an OSHA officer on an inspection.
OSHA obtained a warrant from a federal judge to allow the inspection with the union rep. But Honeywell once again refused to allow the union worker to participate in the inspection.
Next step: OSHA will seek a contempt citation against Honeywell.
Honeywell says it’s studying the warrant but notes that no union employees were working at the time of the leak. For that reason, Honeywell says there’s no reason for the union rep to be allowed on the inspection.
The company says workers who were there at the time of the leak will be allowed to participate in the inspection.
Should the union representative be allowed to go on the OSHA inspection? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: acid leak, Honeywell, OSHA inspection, union rep, warrant
Loading ...
February 25th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Obviously Honeywell is hiding something
March 1st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
I doubt Honeywell is hiding anything. The union on the otherhand would definately want it to appear so, therefore their unwillingness to back down from being a part of the inspection. Since there were NO union employees on site at the time of the incident, there is no legal basis for a union rep to be there, he can only be a hinderence.
If the union were really about protecting workers, they would stand down on this so as to either get an inspector in on the site FAST or prove their accusation that Honeywell is hiding something (assuming that Honeywell still tries to stop the inspection).
March 1st, 2011 at 1:20 pm
The union has no player in the game. Accompanying the inspector will solve nothing nor prove anything. The representative is more than likely not knowledgeable in the area of Safety and will just be a distraction. If Honeywell has something to hide the inspector will find it. The inspector can interview anyone he/she feels during this audit.
March 1st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
No, he does not have to be there. He just wants to see who is working.
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 am
In an attempt to be reasonable it is understandable that IF there were union workers affected that would give the union rperesentative the right to observe the inspection. That is the ONLY thing that gives him the right under the law, and since that is clearly not the case the union representative should ABSOLUTELY be excluded.
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
This should not be an issue of Management versus Union.
It seems there was a failure in the inspection process or monitoring equipment to detect the leak.
The leak is the symptom of a failed containment system if there ever was one in place. If the leak consists of radioactive material that is harmful to the employees then the Union and Management should be a collaboration to protect everyone.
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I agree with Bne wholeheartedly. The fact is that the question was Should the union representative be allowed to go on the OSHA inspection?
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Sorry about the typo BEN
March 3rd, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Another version of the old saying “it’s not about the money” which always means it IS about the money. In this case “it’s not about the Union”… Of course its about the Union. They’ve been locked out. They were not working at the time or in the area. Why in the world would any sane reasonable party want to include a disinterested person be involved? Sorry, forgot. The government is involved….
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Okay, will play the dialog game. Why was the union locked out?
Was the leak there prior to the lock out? As stated the leak took place later or was discovered on a specific announced date. Was the area unused and unispected for a period of downtime with no active monitoring surveillance.
And then why was the Union rejected Federal Law right of accompanyment?
Was something during down time altered in the plant area of the leak not sanction as work performed by union workers?
Are the “workers” that management will allow to accompany the inspector members of the union or have investigative training?
May 10th, 2011 at 7:45 am
The leak absolutely needs to be investigated. The Union is not working so really they should not have any right to participate in the inspection. Problem is that the current administration and Head of Department of Labor and OSHA are all union supporters. Obviously that is overshadowing the problem at Honeywell. What a shame.
May 17th, 2011 at 11:14 am
No-once the inspection is closed, the file is public record-case closed.