OSHA Complainant vs. E.C. Concrete Inc. Case

OSHA

Complainant vs. E.C. Concrete Inc.

Case Facts

ECC is a commercial constructions contractor within the Florida region. The company has been conducting business in the Florida regions since 1992. The company employs a small group of approximately 40 employees. Its primary competitive advantage is its expertise within the multi-story commercial concrete work. ECC is the only company in the northeast Florida region that provides concrete work on multi-story buildings.

On January 15, 2012 ECC was hired to expand the Omni Amelia Island Plantation Resort within Fernandina Beach, Florida. The primary role of ECC was to provide concrete forming, pumping, placing, and finishing of 5 buildings. The project was scheduled to be take a year to complete, and in February 2013, work was concluded.

Prior to completion, an incident involving ECC staff occurred on August 1, 2012. According to records, an ECC staff member, with the assistance of a crane, placed approximately 12; 17-foot long shoring beams on the top of a scaffold. The beams rested on the 7th floor, with each weighting approximately 60 pounds. During the lift, the crane became entangled with the scaffold causing aluminum beams to fall, injuring two ECC employees on the first floor.

Due to the accident, an OSHA representative conducted an inspection of the accident site on August 1, 2012. The representative arrived at approximately 10AM to conduct his investigation. As a result of his investigations, OSHA issued numerous citations were issued to ECC for violations of working standards. Citations were issued for failing to protect employees exposed to a fall hazard with a fall protection system. In addition, citations were given for exposing employees to falls hazards throughout the working environment. Citations totaled $14,280.00

Case Issues

The ECC contented that many of the OSHA violations did not occur. ECC also argued that many of the proposed solutions desired to make the work environment safer, would actually hinder safety performance. Presented below is the reasoning and applicable laws argued by both parties regarding the incident. Each compliant concludes with the court's decision and comments regarding the matter.

According to OSHA guidelines and applicable laws, the ECC was required to protect employees from tripping in or stepping into or through holes. Upon his investigation, the OSHA representative found on the 7th floor 12 inches wide, 20 inches and 8 inches deep. The hole according to ECC was used to place items into. The ECC also contended that the hole was within an area marked off with yellow warning tape. As a result of this contention, a violation was not established.

The OSHA representative also cited the ECC with failing to protect employees exposed to falling objects. The applicable law states that barricades should be in use in areas in which objects could potentially fall. In addition, contractors are required to keep objects far away from an edge in which they may fall. ECC stated that the beams in question did not merely fall over the edge but was propelled over the 7th floor onto the 1st floor. Therefore, ECC contented that they could not have known with reasonable diligence that the beams posed a falling hazard. In addition the ECC stated that the beams weight approximately 400 pounds each which provides a very stable mechanism. As such, the ECC contented that the fact the accident occurred did not show that the company failed to exercise reasonable diligence. The accident occurred by a series of unlikely events such as hoisting the beam, the entanglement of the crane, and the lifting of the entire scaffold. Finally, the ECC provided the evidence of such as occurrence, has never occurred on record. Therefore, it should not be expected that a scaffold can tip over.

To further prove their claim, the ECC elicited comments from a licensed professional engineer. The engineer, with extensive experience in designing and inspecting shoring systems, performed calculations based on the shoring plans including material weights, crane specifications and measurements The expert engineer asserted that under foreseeable conditions, there was no employee exposure to a hazard of falling objects posed by ECC's shoring system on the 7 the floor.

The OSHA represented further stated that an ECC employee was using a lifeline that didn't protect the employee from a cut or abrasion. The applicable law under this circumstance is simple, stating, "Lifelines shall be protected against being cut or abraded." The OSHA stated that he witnessed an ECC employee using a lifeline constructed of galvanized steel rope, which in his opinion, did not protect from cuts and abrasions. ECC as with the other violates, disagreed with the assessment. ECC stated that the rope was approximately 6 feet at its closest point to the concrete perimeter. In addition, the galvanized steel rope was identified by a professional engineer as abrasive resistant. The licensed professional engineer testified that he had used identical steel rope on his projects for fall protection. He conducted a simulation test that mimicked the conditions present on August 1, 2012, by rubbing the steel rope across a concrete edge 500 times without damaging the steel rope, only the concrete. Finally, ECC stated that although the OSHA representative witnessed the employee on the rope, he made no attempt to analyze or inspect the rope to actually determine if the lifeline was subject to cuts and abrasions. As a result a violation was not established.