Injured during training: Does company have to pay OSHA fine?
January 24, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, new court decision, OSHA news, Safety training, What do you think?, Who Got Fined and Why?
PDF An employee is injured while using a new machine during training. The training didn’t exactly mimic how employees would operate the machine in “real life.” Did that argument get the company off the hook for an OSHA fine?
Turner Industries Group had been training employees on the use of a new pipe-cutting machine for two weeks. A representative from the machine’s manufacturer was conducting the training.
Workers accessed the machine’s points of operation to take measurements and make adjustments. One of the points of operation had a guard. The other did not.
During training, an employee was working at the unguarded point. The worker was taking measurements when the trainer unexpectedly started the machine.
The machine’s spinning bevels caused severe injuries to the employee’s hand.
OSHA issued one serious citation against Turner for failing to provide a guarding device for both operational access points on the pipe-cutting machine. The fine: $2,625.
On appeal, an administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the citation but reduced the penalty to $1,000.
Turner appealed a second time to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), which upheld the citation and reduced fine.
The company then took the case to a U.S. appeals court.
The court noted that, at the OSHRC hearing, a Turner supervisor testified that, during training, three people were operating the machine: a Turner employee at each access point and the trainer at the control panel.
The supervisor contended that having more than one person operate the machine was unique to the training. During normal working conditions, the machine would be operated by only one person. The supervisor claimed that having only one operator would substantially cut down or negate the possibility that the machine would be running when an employee accesses an operation point.
However, Turner’s own Job Safety Analysis indicated that under normal working conditions, Turner expected two people to be operating the machine together.
The appeals court said, contrary to Turner’s argument, a hazard did exist. The citation and fine were upheld.
(Turner Industries Group v. OSHRC, U.S. Circuit Crt. 5, No. 10-60348, 1/14/2011. You can download a PDF of the court’s decision here.)
What do you think of Turner’s argument and the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: injured during training, machine guard, OSHA fine, Safety training, Turner Industries
Loading ...
January 25th, 2011 at 8:49 am
This sounds like the fault lies in the fact that there is no guard at the access point where the employee was injurred. Secondly, the person conducting the training should have loudly announced that he was energizing the machines and to get out of the way. So, no, Turner should not have been cited, however they should have been made to put a guard on the access point and the trainer needs to be re-trained on the procedure of clearing the machine before enrgizing.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Did Turner select the wrong argument in its defense? It seems to me that this was a new machine to the company which is why the rep from the manufacturer was on hand to conduct the training. It is difficult to be held liable when the company first acknowledges the need for training on a piece of equipment and then has a rep from the manufacturer on hand for the training. I believe the manufacturer should have been issued the citation rather than Turner.
From what I read, that did not appear to be Turner’s argument.
January 27th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Company/employer is required to protect the workplace. Trainee should not have been injured! Not sure what argument would get them off the hook! A COSHA that cited them is correct per standard and requirement. Mercy would be good-we need safety but not our business’s to move overseas!
January 27th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
How is an employer supposed to protect a worker when they are in the process of learning about a machine? The company hired a trainer from the manufacturer to train the employees on the safe use of the machine.
Rich, seriously, if you know absolutely nothing about a Gomaco Curb and Gutter machine, how are you going to instruct me into it’s safety requirements? The only thing you can really do is hire a rep from the manufacturer to come down and provide training. Once the company and the workers are trained then they can be made aware of the hazard.
I’m not certain what industry you work in, but I believe the OSHA requirement is that the company must be aware of the hazard.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:54 am
I believe if the guard device was put in place before the training, this may not have happened. Also the lockout tag out should have been in operation, and any good trainer should have mentioned this is happening and checked to make sure everyone is clear. This person got hurt from someone not following procedure. The citation holds.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:50 pm
It’s interesting, by your own words you set fault with the trainer. The trainer is a representative of the manufacturer, works for the manufacturer and receives a salary from the manufacturer. The trainer should receive the citation and by that I mean the company the trainer works for. The citation is invalid, wrong company was cited.