Rodriquez Cornice Construction Co., and its successors

Plain-English summary

Rodriquez Cornice contested OSHA's citation but did not appear for the scheduled hearing. OSHA's compliance officer testified that employees installing cornice worked about 21 feet above the ground without guardrails or personal fall arrest systems and had not received scaffold training. The officer also identified inadequate jobsite inspections, an unprotected stairway, and a ladder that did not extend far enough above its landing. Based on the uncontradicted testimony and photographs, the judge affirmed all five citation items and $7,500 in penalties.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.20(b)(2), 1926.451(g)(1)(vii), 1926.454(a), 1926.1052(c)(1)(ii), and 1926.1053(b)(1)
• Outcome: Five construction-safety items affirmed; $7,500 total penalty assessed.
• Key point: When an employer does not appear, unrebutted inspection testimony and photographs can establish jobsite inspection, fall protection, training, stairway, and ladder violations.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                               |

SECRETARY OF LABOR, |
Complainant, |
|
v. |
| OSHRC DOCKET
RODRIGUEZ CORNICE CONSTRUCTION CO. | NO. 00-1943
and its successors, |
Respondent. |
|

APPEARANCES:

                    Susan M eyercord , Esq., Office o f the Solicitor, U .S. Depa rtment of Lab or,
                      Dallas, Texas

Before: Administrative Law Judge Sidney J. Goldstein

                                    DECISION AND ORDER


      After a compliance officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected

a worksite of the Rodriguez Cornice Construction Company, that Agency issued it a citation for the
alleged violations of safety regulations adopted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970. The Respondent disagreed with the citation and filed a notice of contest. Thereafter a
complaint and answer were filed with this Commission, and a hearing was scheduled for April 2,
2001, in Dallas, Texas. At the time and place of the hearing the Complainant appeared prepared for
trial. However, neither the Respondent nor a representative on its behalf appeared at the proceedings
or requested a postponement thereof.

      At the hearing the compliance officer testified that he inspected a workplace of the

Respondent on June 6, 2000, and observed its employees exposed to a fall hazard of approximately
21 feet to the ground below without guardrails or personal fall arrest systems. According to its
employees, they did not receive frequent and regular inspections in violation of the regulation at 29
CFR §1926.20(b)(2) which requires that the employer shall provide for frequent and regular
inspections of jobsites by a competent person.
Citation 1, items 2a and 2b charged, and the inspector observed, that Respondent’s employees
working from pump jack scaffold and/or job-made scaffold more than 10 feet above ground were
not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems. The
inspector considered this to be a violation of the regulation at 29 CFR §1926.451(g)(1)(vii) which
provides that each employee shall be protected by the use of personal fall arrest systems or guardrail
systems meeting specified requirements.
With respect to item 3 of Citation 1, the compliance officer testified that untrained employees
installing trim (cornice) working approximately 21 feet above ground were not trained in violation
of the regulation at 29 CFR §1926.454(a). This regulationrequires that theemployer shall have each
employee who performs work while on a scaffold be trained by a person qualified in the subject
matter to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffolding being used. Employees
informed the officer that they received no training in this regard.
With regard to Citation 1, item 4, the compliance officer testified that he observed an
employer’s stairway with four or more risers unprotected in violation of the regulation at 29 CFR
§1926.1052(c)(1)(ii) which requires that stairways with four or more risers shall be equipped with
a stair rail system along each unprotected side or edge.
Finally, in Citation 1, item 5, the inspector noted that a Respondent’s ladder did not extend
at least three feet above an upper landing surface as required by the regulation at 29 CFR
§1926.1053(b)(1) which provides that when portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing
surface, the ladder side rails shall extend at least three feet above the upper landing surface to which
the ladder is used to gain access.
In his testimony the compliance officer also explained how the penalties were compiled in
consonance with the statute.
On the basis of the uncontradicted testimony of the compliance officer and the photographs
which verified his remarks, I find that the Respondent was in violation of Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
Citation No. 1. The citation, including recommended penalties of $7,500,00, is AFFIRMED.

                                                             /s/
                                                           Sidney J. Goldstein
                                                           Judge, OSHRC

Dated: July 2, 2001

                                               2