Details

Parent Category: Safety Info Posts

Category: OSHA Compliance Posts

Published: 05 May 2017

This is a very good case on machine guarding (1910.212) application.  Employees routinely reached under a set of doors that were interlocked to clear a jam.  One day and employee reached too far and lost his finger tip.  OSHA cited 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) and the commission upheld it.  The reason why this case is so solid for us to use is that the company put forth the very popular machine guarding argument... "that is how we received the machine, so if the guarding is deficient, it's not our fault".  Both OSHA and OSHRC disagreed on a number of fronts, including "employee misconduct defense".  This case also shows the lengths that employees will go to circumvent safety systems and how it is MANAGEMENT's RESPONSIBILITY to identify these unsafe behaviors and take action.

In August of 2016, OSHA initiated an inspection of a workplace after receiving a complaint alleging an employee had suffered an injury the previous month while operating a machine at the company’s facility. The inspection was conducted by a Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) and he concluded the machine on which the employee had been injured was not properly guarded and the Secretary issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty to the company alleging a serious violation of the machine guarding standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii). The Secretary proposed a penalty of $4988.00 for the citation.

Membership Content