The June 2007 issue of Occupational Hazards magazine reports on an OSHRC decision that invalidates a 1976 ruling that general contractors are responsible for supervising OSHA compliance of their subcontractors.
The opening paragraph of the article states:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decision, in a case involving home builder Summit Contractors, held that citing a general contractor solely because it is a so-called “controlling employer” is inconsistent with 29 CFR 1910.12(a), a regulation that governs the application of OSHA’s construction standards in 29 CFR Part 1926. That regulation states, in part, that “Each employer shall protect … each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with” Part 1926 (emphasis added). The commission held that issuing a citation to a so-called “controlling employer” whose own employees were not exposed to an alleged violation was inconsistent with the phrase “his employees.”
This decision removes the need for general contractors to "patrol" work sites conducting safety inspections covering areas in which the general contractor's employees are not involved. While the general contractor is still responsible for the safety of their own employees, they are no longer responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees. There are some exceptions to this, however. For example OSHA standards in Part 1926 have their own multi-employer requirements related to steel erection in Subpart R.
I recommend reading the entire article, which is titled: End of the Line or a Chance for a Fresh Start?
The opening paragraph of the article states:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decision, in a case involving home builder Summit Contractors, held that citing a general contractor solely because it is a so-called “controlling employer” is inconsistent with 29 CFR 1910.12(a), a regulation that governs the application of OSHA’s construction standards in 29 CFR Part 1926. That regulation states, in part, that “Each employer shall protect … each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with” Part 1926 (emphasis added). The commission held that issuing a citation to a so-called “controlling employer” whose own employees were not exposed to an alleged violation was inconsistent with the phrase “his employees.”
This decision removes the need for general contractors to "patrol" work sites conducting safety inspections covering areas in which the general contractor's employees are not involved. While the general contractor is still responsible for the safety of their own employees, they are no longer responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees. There are some exceptions to this, however. For example OSHA standards in Part 1926 have their own multi-employer requirements related to steel erection in Subpart R.
I recommend reading the entire article, which is titled: End of the Line or a Chance for a Fresh Start?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home