This Month Only! >> $20 off and a FREE SHRM tote with your membership and code TOTE2018!
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
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.
Q: “OSHA cited my company because an employee was found not wearing certain personal protective equipment (PPE). There is no dispute the employee was not wearing the PPE, or whether the PPE was required, but the employee was violating our strict PPE policy. Do we have any defenses?”
A: Depending on the circumstances, you may have several defenses, including: (1) lack of employer knowledge; and (2) unpreventable (or unforeseeable) employee misconduct.
To establish any violation of a specific standard (whether it is characterized as “willful” or “other than serious”), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence:
The final requirement, that the employer had knowledge of the condition for which it was cited, can be established by OSHA proving either that: (1) the employer had actual, direct knowledge of the violation; or (2) with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the employer should have known of the violative condition.
The “employer knowledge” defense is closely related to the “employee misconduct” defense, but there are two key differences between them. First, whereas it is OSHA’s burden to prove that the employer had knowledge of a violation, the employee misconduct defense is an affirmative defense, which means the employer bears the burden of proof. Second, employer knowledge is a single element defense—the employer either had knowledge (actual or constructive knowledge) or it did not. The employee misconduct defense has several elements, all of which must apply for the employer to prevail.
As set forth in OSHA’s Field Operations Manual, to prevail on the affirmative defense of “Unpreventable Employee Misconduct—Isolated Incident,” the employer must show that it:
In the case presented in this FAQ, the employer would have sufficient evidence to prove the employee misconduct defense if it can demonstrate that:
Documentation is the key to all of these elements. In OSHA’s mind, if it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.
In most cases employers are able to produce a procedure and some training records, but often struggle to present written evidence that they are actively supervising their employees to ensure compliance with safety policies, and struggle even more to demonstrate that they enforce violations through discipline. As such, an employer’s policies should be written and readily accessible. Employers should also maintain written records of training, including dated sign-in sheets, training agendas, test/quizzes, document audits and audit findings, and issue written discipline (even document it when you issue a verbal warning).
One final note: if the employee in this scenario is a management representative, there is a corresponding “Unpreventable Supervisory Misconduct” defense, but the threshold employers must meet to prevail on this defense is much higher, because the knowledge of supervisory employees is generally imputed to the employer.
Eric J. Conn is a member of the Labor and Employment practice at Epstein, Becker, Green’s Washington, D.C., office. He is the head of the firm’s national OSHA Practice Group and leads the firm’s efforts to provide occupational safety and health services to its clients.
Republished with permission. © 2012 Epstein, Becker, Green.
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
HR Education in a City Near You
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies