OSHA needs to develop better methods and procedures to address worker complaints and referrals, according to a federal watchdog.
The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) commissioned a third-party audit of OSHA which found the agency didn’t “consistently ensure complaints and referrals were adequately addressed nor regularly enforce hazard abatement timelines.”
Inspections from complains and referrals made up a little more than 40% of OSHA’s total inspections for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. A complainant expressed concern that OSHA may not be adequately considering the statements of complainants and witnesses when responding to complaints and referrals, which led to the audit.
Audit reviewed 100 random complaint, referral cases
Independent certified public accounting firm The Lopez Group conducted the audit for the fiscal years in question, further finding that OSHA:
- doesn’t consistently involve complainants or witnesses in the investigation process
- has no policy requiring inspectors to interview or involve complainants after a complaint is filed
- didn’t provide reasoning as to why it didn’t conduct an inspection for 11 out of 30 sampled cases where a complaint or referral met its criteria for conducting an inspection, and
- didn’t regularly ensure safety and health violations from complaints and referrals were corrected in a timely manner.
Lopez reviewed 100 random complaint and referral cases opened and closed between fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Seventy-six were initiated from a complaint with 70 resulting in an inspection.
The audit states that OSHA lacks:
- a methodology to determine when complainants and witnesses should be interviewed and the appropriate amount of their involvement
- a process for documenting supervisory reviews and decision approvals within case files, and
- controls to ensure enforcement of abatement deadlines for employers.
These shortcomings may have led to incomplete inspections and worker exposure to hazards for an extended period of time, according to the audit.
Changes to Field Operations Manual recommended
The audit recommends that OSHA:
- modify its Field Operations Manual (FOM) to include a policy for mandatory interviews of complainants and witnesses and provide training to inspectors on the updated requirements
- update the FOM to require documented case file review and approvals by supervisors and provide training for inspectors to ensure completed documentation of significant decisions and actions, and
- establish controls and provide training of FOM abatement certification and documentation requirements and create a monitoring process that’s reviewed and approved by a supervisor.
OSHA takes issue with small sample size, disagrees with findings
OSHA disagreed with the audit’s findings and recommendations. The agency took issue with the small sample size of cases used in the audit and a lack of information on The Lopez Group’s methods and criteria, which it says will make it difficult to conduct follow-up audits of its own.
In its response, OSHA stated that:
- inspectors must have the discretion to determine what interviews are necessary
- 10 of the 11 cases that the audit points to as lacking justification for not conducting an inspection were non-formal complaints or referrals, and
- the audit confuses the date of abatement documentation with the date abatement occurred.
However, the agency did agree that it can improve its documentation, customer service and training.
