Utility Contractor Company

As you are aware, the decision by the Court of the Barton v. Rona case (2012 ONSC 3809) recognized that although Mr. Barton’s misconduct was serious, his specific acts of misconduct were not severe enough to warrant his dismissal. The Court felt that in this situation, a stern warning to him never again to permit a safety violation by an employee would have been sufficient (p.13, para. 55). This was particularly the case, based on your investigation you have performed on April 24, 2009, given that nothing in his excellent work record and no prior infractions suggested that he would not be amenable to such discipline (p.10, para. 40) or that he would repeat such misconduct in the future (p.9, para. 38). Given that the Court could not find that his misconduct met the threshold of striking at the heart of the employment relationship (p.14, para. 55), it concluded that Rona had breached Mr. Barton’s employment contract, and Mr. Barton was entitled to damages as a result (p.14, para. 56).

In addition, Williams violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k) (1) for failing to designate a “competent person” with sufficient training and knowledge to identify and correct existing and predictable hazards (www.dol.gov). No supervisor at the Company was familiar with the basic standards applicable to the worksite or otherwise “capable of identifying and correcting existing and predictable hazards in their surroundings.” The court disagreed that the Company discharged its OSHA duties merely by relying on the general work experience of Dzamba and J.P. Williams or “common sense.”

1. What were the legal issues in this case? This case is based around the laws and regulations of OSHA. OSHA is an Occupational Safety and Health Act that has been put into place to ensure the safety of employees while on the job. These regulations are put into place to help reduce the number of on the job injuries and death. In this case, Williams Construction was put under investigation after a trench collapse, which resulted in the death of one employee and a serious injury in another. After the investigation

Throughout history, there has been a multitude of events that have helped shape the Occupational Safety and Health doctrines that we have today. Some events have had small impacts, and others have totally reshaped how an entire industry operates. Although there are many incidents that we can talk about, we are going to focus on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Within this subject, we will talk about the specific events that happened, what safety standards existed and what standards were penned because of the incident, and how the existing safety standards keep a similar tragedy from happening in the current era. With all of this information, we will have a better picture of how the world of Occupational Safety and Health evolves throughout

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), often referred to as the "OSH Act," was enacted in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon. Its purpose is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for men and women (EPA, 2006). The Act is administered and enforced at the national level by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a division of the US Department of Labor. The application of the OSH Act in the current employment climate will be discussed as it applies to a variety of industries; considerations that are most applicable to the specific type of industry will be discussed initially, and those that are equally important regardless of the type of business will complete the section. Finally, this paper will discuss how the

It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.

The claimant had stated before she started at Yamaha Motor Inc. she did not report her injuries to the Human Resources Department or her supervisor when hired on 9-5-12. She stated if she did, it might have compromised her chances in gaining employment with theYamaha Motors Corporation

In 1970 OSHA was designed to set in place guidelines to organize and regulate practices to reduce the injuries and accidents in the work place. These guidelines are there to both protect the worker and the employer. If the health care worker follows these important guidelines and is injured, the employer is responsible. However, if the injury or accident is a result to the worker’s negligence or disrespect to the procedure and guidelines, then the worker is at fault.

Mr. Ortiz states that the claimant did not provide a history of being injured at work and never indicated to him that he had injuries associated with the injuries associated with the claim. He said the claimant never exhibited any physical complications when he performed his job. He stated, “I never saw nothing wrong with him.”

The court concluded they made a mistake in not ruling that the issue of personal injury must be determined under the Workers ' Compensation Act. The disposition on this issue eliminated the need to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence and other arguments relating to the amount of damages for personal injury and the fairness of the trial on that aspect of the case. It is somewhat unclear how Kerr-McGee determined that the federal regulation of nuclear energy prevents application of the workers ' compensation law for injuries on the job. The existence here of significant damage to Silkwood 's personal property in her apartment required the court to consider additional issues recognized in the appeal. In conclusion, the Workers ' Compensation Act applies only to

I was not taught any health and safety at my workplace until I asked however I would have asked earlier in the week but my immediate supervisor was on vacation. I called my immediate supervisor Dahlia Nicholson on Wednesday October 18, 2017 to go over some health and safety information at 2:00pm as I was informed by Michael Day, my other supervisor that Dahlia would be back on this day. I met Dahlia at her office where we had a brief conversation about health and safety and what to do when I am injured at the workplace. In addition Dahlia gave me some tips and instructions on what to do when I spot out a hazard in the workplace. For instance, if I see a telephone or any wire lying around I am not to approach it and then I must inform one of

OSHA argued the H2S monitors that employees wore was not an adequate warning of potentially hazardous chemicals. OSHA performed this investigation when a worker died while working inside a rail car. The defendant, Austin Industrial, argued it was not given fair notice of their rail car cleaning process being in violation of OSHA standards. Austin Industrial also argued the evidence against them was insufficient. The judge ruled against Austin Industrial fining them 10,800 dollars. The judge determined the H2S monitors worn by employees was not adequate protection.

Contractor Safety provided support during OSHA’s investigation of a contractor who fell from a scaffold inside the Unit 3 boiler at Comanche by ensuring the safety of the compliance officers while at the site and that proper protocols were followed. OSHA spent several days investigating the incident which included worker interviews, documenting incident scene, and air sampling.

On Saturday 10-24-15, a Pankow Carpenter Apprentice was working on a scissor lift with a sledge hammer, breaking tack welds from sheet metal to framing members. During his follow through with the sledge hammer, his hand struck the framing member, where there was a jagged edge that was created from removal of the sheet metal. This caused a laceration to his right, middle finger. Onsite Health and Safety provided first aid, and the employee was sent back to work with no restrictions.

Situation: 2.1- A Spanish speaking custodian named Mr. Magana was new and shown by Mr. LaColle, the supply vendor how to use the powerful chemicals. Since he did not speak Spanish, Mr. LaColle, demonstrated with a series of gestures how to use it without using gloves. Magana after being shown, tried to use it on his shift and was hurt by the chemical. As a result, OSHA fined the facility for a MSDS violation.