BusinessBrief_4_28_24

.docx

School

Terra Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

702

Subject

Business

Date

May 7, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by orwiga on coursehero.com

To: Kim Campbell Professor, HRM - 702 Franklin University From: Abbigail Winchell Subject: Business Brief Date: 4/28/2024 Business Brief Introduction The R. Williams Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) case involves a trench construction project that resulted in an employee death and a seriously injured employee. Two employees, Jose Aguiniga and Adam Palomar, were working on this project and were responsible for cleaning the water pumps in the trench. The trench was rather significant, had steep walls, and only one proper entry and exit. Aguiniga and Palomar could clean the pumps outside the trench but were not trained that way. However, they were taught to clean them from inside the trench. A shoring system supported one of the trench walls but was removed later. Unfortunately, the day when Aguiniga and Palomar entered the trench, the wall collapsed upon their exit, killing Aguiniga and injuring Palomar. There are various OSHA Act violations in this case, as well as arguments surrounding employer and employee liability (Walsh, 2019). Case Review and Result The main legal issue, in this case, was that Williams Construction Company did not take proper steps to ensure a safe working environment for the employees, resulting in one employee being deceased and another being seriously injured. Williams was ultimately found guilty of violating the OSH Act and was forced to pay a fine for these citations. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) is a federal law that keeps employees safe by requiring employers to ensure the workplace eliminates or lessens hazards that may or may not be life-threatening. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) creates and manages safety standards to ensure consistent safety practices regardless of employer or industry (Walsh, 2019). Williams failed to follow four standard safety practices for the construction industry and trench building. First, it was proven through witness testimony that Williams did not provide any training or instruction on recognizing and avoiding unsafe trench hazards to employees working in the trench. Second, the supervisors lacked training or knowledge about identifying and correcting these safety hazards. A competent person must be specifically trained to identify workplace hazards for the trench project, and no supervisor could perform competent daily inspections or analyses of working conditions. The supervisor’s work experience was utilized instead of any OSHA training. Third, the employees were found to be working farther down in the trench than they should have, diminishing their ability to reach a safe point. It is required that any person working in a trench should not have to travel more than 25 feet to reach safety. Lastly, the trenches were about 10 feet deep, with a vertical wall from the bottom about 5 feet before sloping. A hydraulic jack system was supporting the trench wall, and it had been removed
before the wall collapsed. Through the OSH Act, excavated walls must be sloped if not supported at all times to protect employees from cave-ins (Walsh, 2019). Williams made arguing statements in the company's defense throughout the hearing. One statement argued that employees must avoid harm’s way and be aware of their risks in specific environments. The OSH Act states that the employer’s primary responsibility is to ensure a safe working environment, regardless of the employee’s actions. The act also states that employees must comply with the rules and regulations set forth by the OSHA Act through actions and conduct. Regardless of the employee’s actions, the employer will always be liable for any incident or injury. Employers must consistently evaluate risks and implement safety protocols to meet the OSH Act regulation requirements (Walsh, 2019). The outcome of finding Williams Construction Company negligent for the death of an employee and a seriously injured employee resulted in a $22,000 fine. The cost of the fine for the lost life would seem unjust or insufficient. OSHA is not a federally governed organization. Therefore, they cannot impose more severe criminal penalties. A maximum penalty of one year in jail and $70,000 per fine, if deemed willful or severe, could be sufficient. Unfortunately, due to the violation being downgraded from willful to serious resulted in a lesser charge. In this case, the history of the previous incident was considered before the penalty amount was confirmed. The severity of the employee injury should hold a higher stake when a citation is imposed instead of relying heavily on the employer and the potential recurrence of the incident (Walsh, 2019). Conclusion The OSHA Act safety standards are required and are a primary responsibility of the employer. Employers must train, inform, evaluate, correct, and prevent safety incidents from occurring in the workplace. If Williams had taken the time to properly train his supervisors and employees around appropriate OSHA Safety regulations, this incident could have been prevented.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help