R. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION CO. v. OSHRC

R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC

R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC

1. Legal Issue

This proceeding arises under Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. Section 651-678; hereafter called “Act”). R. Williams Construction Company (Williams), at all times relevant to this action maintained the place of business at Chumash Casino Project, Santa Ynez, California, where it was engaged in sewer construction (Tr. 271). The Commission has held that construction is in the class of activity which as the whole affects interstate commerce (www.openjurist.org). Williams is, therefore, the employer engaged in the business affecting commerce and is subject to requirements of Act.

On September 19, 2002, the Williams employee, Jose Aguiniga, was killed in the trench cave-in at Williams' Santa Ynez worksite (Tr. 14). After being notified of fatality, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) initiated the inspection. As the result of that inspection, Williams was issued citations alleging violations of Act. By filing the timely notice of contest Williams brought this proceeding before Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission).

On January 28-29, 2004, the hearing was held in Santa Barbara, California. The parties have submitted briefs on citations, as amended, and this matter is ready for disposition (www.cases.justia.com).

2. Violation of OSH Act

Williams failed to instruct its employees in proper safety measures and made no effort to ensure that employees not enter trench on day of collapse. The ALJ findings, and reasonable inferences drawn from them, easily satisfy substantial-evidence standard. Consequently, ALJ's decision affirming citations is affirmed. The Company furthermore violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(the)(1) for failing to protect employees from cave-ins: Williams had reason to know that its employees would enter trench on day of cave-in and had actual knowledge that two of its employees entered trench prior to cave-in (www.caselaw.findlaw.com). It is unavailing for Williams to argue that employees must take greater care to avoid placing themselves in harm's way or that management can “expect the employee . . . not [to] intentionally place himself in danger.” Such the claim misconstrues purpose of OSHA safety standards.

The evidence establishes that Williams failed to provide any training in trenching hazards to at least two employees who worked in subject trench, Adan Palomar and Joseph Goforth. OSHA Compliance Officer (CO) Daniel Mooney, testified that Kevin Peterson, the excavator operator with Williams, told him that he had received no training in trenching hazards (Tr. 206-07). Williams did not supply ...