New to HR? Templates, tools and development to make you a seasoned pro in no time.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
The health and safety staff of a manufacturing facility certifies the production area as fully compliant with all health and safety regulations. The facility is subsequently contacted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which opens an inspection at the facility. Thereafter an employee reveals that he called OSHA to complain about safety hazards in the production line. The employee then refuses to work until OSHA completes its inspection and certifies that there are no hazards.
Even though safety staff certified that the production area was fully compliant, employees have the right to file a complaint with OSHA when they believe working conditions are unsafe or unhealthful. Accordingly, the employee has engaged in protected activity.
Once the employee reveals that he called OSHA to complain, the employer’s response is simple:
While the employee has a protected right to call OSHA and file a complaint, that does not necessarily mean that the employee may refuse to work on the production line until OSHA completes its inspection. Rather, OSHA only allows an employee to refuse to work based upon an alleged safety hazard when:
If the employer determines that the employee’s refusal to work was not made in good faith or is not reasonable under the circumstances, then the employee’s refusal is not protected.
Here, the situation is complicated by the fact that the employee has complained to OSHA and OSHA is investigating. There is nothing in the Occupational Safety and Health Act that allows an employee to refuse to work pending an OSHA investigation. However, any adverse action during an OSHA investigation will be subject to great scrutiny and will likely prompt a retaliation claim. The employer should revisit the alleged safety hazard with the safety staff and confirm that the process is safe and compliant. Assuming the process is safe and compliant, the employee’s supervisor and/or safety representative should meet with the employee to discuss the employee’s concerns and explain why there is no hazard. If the employee still refuses to work, then the employee’s position has become unreasonable. The employer may consider addressing the issue with OSHA, although OSHA is typically very reluctant to become involved in employment issues. The employer may choose to move the employee to another job and wait for OSHA to complete its inspection. In the event that the employee cannot be moved and must work on the production line, the employer can consider discipline. However, this should only be done as a last resort if the employee is being unreasonable. As always, should the employer go the discipline route, be sure the file is well documented that the employee is not being disciplined for raising safety concerns, but rather for the employee’s unreasonable refusal to work.
When confronted with an employee’s health and safety concerns and/or work refusal, consider the following:
James L. Curtis is a partner in
Seyfarth Shaw’s environmental, safety and toxic torts practice group and co-chair of Seyfarth’s Whistleblower Team and Kevin Fritz is a senior fellow in the labor and employment practice group. They are both based in Chicago.
Republished with permission. © 2014 Seyfarth Shaw. All rights reserved.
SHRM Online Safety & Security page
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Talent Attraction Study: What Matters to the Modern Candidate
Apply by April 13
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies