The Summit Case and its Impact on Employers
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that in the case of Elaine Chao v. Summit Contractors, OSHA regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) “is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to employers for violations when their own employees are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations.” Therefore, according to the ruling, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) “abused its discretion in determining that the controlling employer citation policy conflicted with the regulation.”
This U.S. Court of Appeals ruling – that OSHA can issue citations to a “controlling” employer on a job site for violations even though that employer’s workers are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations – could have significant impact on many employers across the country.
Here’s a little history of the case: Summit Contractors Inc. was the general contractor for the construction of a college dormitory in Little Rock, Ark. Summit subcontracted the exterior brick masonry work to All Phase Construction Inc. In June 2003, an OSHA compliance officer observed All Phase employees working on scaffolds over 10 feet above the ground without fall protection or guardrails in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g)(1)(vii).
Although none of Summit’s employees were exposed to any hazard created by the scaffold violation, OSHA cited Summit for the violation based on the “controlling employer” aspect of OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy. The Court of Appeals ruling upholds OSHA’s actions.
I have spoken to many safety managers over the years who claim that their employer requires contractors to adhere to safety policies that are just as strict as those of the employer. Many employees at those companies have told me in confidence that they have seen contractor employees working in an unsafe manner with no repercussions. With this ruling, that might change.
What do you think?





June 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
By holding “controlling” employers accountable, this should make them more observant of what their subcontractors are doing, thus making for a safer workplace. In my opinion though the subcontractors fines should be double or triple that of the “controlling” employers. Too many times employers cut corners even on safety for the sake of profit.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
This violation is a direct implication of the need for all “controlling employers” to implement into their corporate policies and training plan ‘subcontractor safety ‘ in order to avoid non-compliance issues as denoted here. The host employer must have all of the established programs and policies for their work sites. It is up to the subcontractors to abide by them, however host employer to enforce them. In this case Summit should have conducted training and reviewed all operations prior to start, to establish whether or not their plan of action had sufficient safeguards in place and if not enforce corrective action. Who’s responsible if a friend comes over your house and breaks his arm after diving in the pool? The owner of the house is…
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment:
Register Here or Log in Here.
Advertisement
Categories
Calendar
Archives
Your Account
Subscribe