Meridian Construction and Development, LLC

Plain-English summary

Meridian was the controlling general contractor on a condominium project where subcontractors created electrical, falling-object, and ladder hazards. OSHA found open temporary power boxes, an inadequately insulated cord splice, missing toeboards above a busy breezeway, and a job-made ladder that did not extend above the landing. The conditions were obvious, had existed for weeks, and should have been found by Meridian's onsite superintendents. The number and duration of the hazards also showed that Meridian's inspection program was inadequate. All five serious items were affirmed with total penalties of $2,000.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.405(b)(1)(vii), 1926.405(g)(2)(iii), 1926.501(c), 1926.1053(b)(1), 1926.20(b)(2)
• Outcome: All five serious items were affirmed with total penalties of $2,000.
• Key point: A controlling general contractor's safety program did not avoid liability when routine inspections failed to detect obvious subcontractor hazards for several weeks.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

               UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
   OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Secretary of Labor,
Complainant
v. OSHRC Docket No. 06-0454
Meridian Construction and Development, LLC,
Respondent.

Appearances:

      J. Phillip Giannikas, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, Tennessee
                For Com plainant

      M ark J. B everw yk, Re prese ntative, R isk M anag eme nt Partners, L LC, A lphar etta, G eorg ia
                For Respond ent

Before: Administrative Law Judge Ken S. Welsch

                                         DECISION AND ORDER

      Meridian Construction and Development, LLC (Meridian) is in business as a general

construction contractor. On January 10, 2006, Meridian was in charge of constructing new
residential condominiums in Birmingham, Alabama, when the project was inspected by
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance specialist Phyllis Battle. As
a result of the OSHA inspection, Meridian received a serious citation on February 21, 2006.
Meridian timely contested the citation.
The serious citation alleges violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(b) (item 1) for failing to close
openings around conductors entering temporary power boxes; 29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(g)(2)(iii) (item
2) for failing to retain the insulation or outer sheathing in a splice of an electrical flexible cord; 29
C.F.R. § 1926.501(c) (item 3) for failing to erect toeboards, screens or guardrails systems to prevent
objects from falling from higher levels; 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1) (item 4a) for failing to ensure
the side rails on a portable ladder extended at least 3 feet above the upper landing; and,

                                                           1

29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(2) (item 4b) for failing to conduct frequent and regular inspections of the
worksite by a competent person. The citation proposes a total penalty of $3,500.00
The case is designated for Simplified Proceedings under 29 C.F.R. § 2200.200. The hearing
on June 15, 2006, was held in Birmingham, Alabama. Meridian is represented by Mark Beverwyk
of Risk Management, a safety consultant firm. Jurisdiction and coverage are stipulated (Tr. 5). The
parties filed post hearing statements of position.
Meridian denies the violations and claims the multi-employer worksite defense. Meridian
asserts as a general contractor whom neither created nor had employees exposed to the hazards, it
should not have been cited for the violations because of its active program of training, monitoring,
and disciplining subcontractors’ employees in accordance with OSHA CPL 2-0.124, dated
December 10, 1999.
For the reasons discussed, the serious citation is affirmed and a total penalty of $2,000 is
assessed.
Background
Meridian is in business as a general contractor overseeing construction projects “focused
primarily on the development of upscale, high-density, multi-family units throughout the southeast”
(Exh. C-11; Tr. 140). Meridian employs approximately 50 employees (Tr. 78).
In approximately June 2005, Meridian began work on the Bristol Southside condominium
project in Birmingham, Alabama. Meridian was the general contractor. The Bristol Southside
project consists of new, two 4-story buildings and a refurbished existing parking garage. The project
has 156 condominium units. The project is scheduled to be completed in August 2006. The site
clearing and foundation work was completed and the framing work began in October 2005
(Exhs. C-1, C-2; Tr. 12, 140-141).
To perform the construction work, Meridian contracted various subcontractors. Meridian’s
site superintendent was Lonnie Roberts and his field supervisor was Leonard Ziegler. Roberts and
Ziegler worked at the project and maintained a trailer in the garage area as an office (Exh. C-2;
Tr. 16, 102).
On January 10, 2006, OSHA compliance specialist Battle was driving by the project at
approximately 3:00 p.m., when she observed employees at the edge of the roof without utilizing fall

                                                 2

protection. Pursuant to OSHA’s special emphasis program, Battle parked her automobile and
initiated an OSHA inspection of the project (Tr. 12, 14-15).
At the time of Battle’s inspection, three subcontractors were on site; A. F. Contractors, the
framing contractor1, H. R. VanKirk, the electrical contractor, and H&M Mechanical, the plumbing
contractor (Tr. 18). The three subcontractors were contracted by Meridian (Exhs. R- 2; R-3). During
her inspection, Battle heard employees working and observed evidence of their work on the upper
levels of the project although she did not actually see any employees (Tr. 22, 64, 106-107). There
is no dispute the alleged violative conditions Battle observed were caused either by the framing
subcontractor or by the electrical subcontractor (Tr. 108). Battle considered Meridian as general
contractor, also responsible for the conditions because of its control over the worksite (Tr. 41, 50).
As a result of Battle’s inspection, a serious citation was issued to Meridian. Also, similar
citations were issued to the subcontractors, A. F. Contractors and H. R. VanKirk, depending on the
nature of the violative condition (Tr. 54, 61, 67, 72).
Discussion
Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine
It is undisputed Meridian did not create the alleged violative conditions. Nor, does the record
show Meridian’s two employees on site were exposed to the unsafe conditions. The violations
involving the temporary power boxes and the improper splice were caused by the electrical
contractor, A. F. Contractors. H. R. VanKirk, as framing contractor, was responsible for the lack
of toeboards and inadequate job ladder (Tr. 107-108).
Under the multi-employer worksite doctrine, a general contractor who has control over a
worksite may be liable for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act) even if the
employees exposed to the hazard are solely employees of another employer. A general contractor
is responsible on a construction site to ensure a subcontractor’s compliance with safety standards if
it can be shown the general contractor could reasonably be expected to prevent or detect and abate
the violative condition by reason of its supervisory capacity and control over the worksite.

     1
     Th e em ploye es witho ut fall pro tection were e mplo yed b y the fram ing co ntracto r. No citation w as issued to

Meridian for the lack of fall protection because there was no evidence M eridian was aware of the condition. The
framing contra ctor ha d estab lished a contro lled ac cess zo ne wh ich the e mplo yees vio lated (T r. 95-9 6).

                                                         3

McDevitt Street Bovis, Inc., 19 BNA OSHC 1108, 1111-1112 (No. 97-1918, 2000); Centex-Rooney
Construction Co., 16 BNA OSHC 2127, 2129-2130 (No. 92-0851, 1994).
Meridian does not dispute the application of the multi-employer worksite doctrine. Meridian
claims it complied with OSHA’s Directive CPL 2-0.124 (“Multi-Employer Citation Policy”) issued
by the Secretary on December 10, 1999, by exercising reasonable care to prevent and detect
violations on the site. The Directive describes OSHA’s policy for issuing citations on multi-
employer worksites2.
Meridian’s Control of the Worksite
The issue of whether Meridian had sufficient supervisory authority and control of the
condominium project to prevent or detect and abate the unsafe conditions is not in dispute.
Meridian agrees it was the controlling employer. Meridian acknowledges such control over
subcontractors in its written safety program. In its program, Meridian describes itself as the
“Controlling Employer for their Multi-employer worksites” (Exh. C-11, p.10). The safety program
also identifies its responsibility for the safety of a subcontractor’s employees. Meridian’s safety
program recognizes that “as the General Contractor, we have an overall responsibility to correct
hazards and eliminate exposure of subcontractor workers to unsafe conditions at the site.” Meridian
further states “as the controlling employer, we exercise reasonable care to prevent and detect
violations on their construction sites.”
Reasonable care by Meridian is considered:
Conducting periodic inspections of appropriate frequency for the scale of the
project, number or types of hazards, safety history and safety practices of the
employer it controls, history of non-compliance of the employer it controls

             Implementing an effective system for promptly correcting hazards

             Enforcing the other employer’ (subcontractors) compliance with safety and
             health requirements with an effective, graduated system of enforcement and
             follow-up inspections



    2
      It is noted the Review Comm ission does not consider an OSHA C PL or other internal directives as binding

on the Commission and may only look to them as an aid in resolving interpretations under the Act. The CPL does
not confer procedural or substantive rights on employers and does not have the force and effect of law. Drexel
Chemical Company, 17 BN A OS HC 1 908, 191 0, n. 3 (No. 94-1460 , 1997).

                                                  4

Meridian’s safety policy is also reflected in Meridian’s subcontract agreements (Exhs. R- 2,
R-3 ). Meridian contracted the subcontractors in this case to do the framing and electrical work.
Meridian used American Institute of Architects (AIA) contract form for its agreement with their
subcontractors. To the AIA contract, Meridian attached a “Scope of Work” statement as Exhibit A.
The subcontract agreements which Meridian required its subcontractors to sign in order to
work on its condominium project retained Meridian’s authority and control over the project.
Meridian, not the subcontractors, dictated the terms of the subcontract and what occurred on the
worksite. As a general contractor, Meridian held a unique position on the construction project. The
subcontract agreements provided Meridian multiple methods to enforce subcontractor compliance
with OSHA requirements. Meridian chose the subcontractors for the work, controlled the scheduling
of their work and could exact penalties or ultimately terminate the subcontract if the subcontractor
failed to meet its obligations. Meridian maintained authority to fire a subcontractor for the violation
of OSHA regulations. It retained control over the subcontractor’s actions, as well as authority over
conditions affecting the general safety on the worksite. In addition to requiring subcontractors to
accept responsibility for compliance with OSHA’s safety requirements, its subcontractors were
required to hold Meridian harmless for a failure to comply.
The Review Commission considers it sufficient supervisory authority and control where the
general contractor has specific authority to demand a subcontractor’s compliance with safety
requirements, stop a contractor’s work for failure to observe safety precautions, and remove a
contractor from the work site. McDevitt Street Bovis, Inc., supra. Meridian held this control over
subcontractors in this case.
Meridian’s project superintendent and the assistant superintendent were continually present
on site. Meridian hired the subcontractors. Meridian controlled the sequencing of work and the
quality of work. Meridian retained authority to correct deficiencies in the work of the
subcontractors. Meridian conducted weekly job and safety coordination meetings on site and
subcontractors’ representatives were required to attend. Meridian levied a $250 fine to
subcontractors who failed to attend the weekly meetings.
Meridian is, therefore, found to have sufficient authority and control over the worksite under
the multi-employer worksite doctrine. If the alleged electrical, toeboards, or ladder violations
identified in the citation are supported by the record, Meridian is held responsible as the general

                                              5

contractor if it is shown Meridian should have reasonably been expected to have detected and abated
the unsafe conditions.
The Alleged Violations
The Secretary has the burden of proving a violation.
In order to establish a violation of an occupational safety or health standard,
the Secretary has the burden of proving: (a) the applicability of the cited standard, (b)
the employer’s noncompliance with the standard’s terms, (c) employee access to the
violative conditions, and (d) the employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the
violation (i.e., the employer either knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence
could have known, of the violative conditions).

Atlantic Battery Co., 16 BNA OSHC 2131, 2138 (No. 90-1747, 1994).
Meridian does not dispute the application of the cited electrical, toeboard, ladder and
inspection standards to the worksite. Bristol Southside is a construction project and Part 1926
standards apply to construction activities. Meridian, also, does not specifically dispute the violative
conditions observed by Battle. She was accompanied during the inspection by Meridian’s site
superintendent Roberts. The conditions were immediately abated by the appropriate subcontractor
at the direction and insistence of Meridian (Tr. 98, 110-111).
Although there is no evidence Meridian had actual knowledge of the violative conditions
observed by Battle, the issue is whether it should have known, with reasonable diligence of the
unsafe conditions. An employer who lacks actual knowledge can nevertheless have constructive
knowledge of conditions that could be detected through an inspection of the worksite. An employer
has constructive knowledge of a violation if the employer fails to use reasonable diligence to discern
the presence of the violative condition. Pride Oil Well Serv., 15 BNA OSHC 1809, 1814 (No.
87-692, 1992).
Item 1 - Alleged Violation of §1926.405(b)(1)
The citation alleges conductors in two locations entering temporary electric power boxes
were not protected from abrasion because the openings where the conductors entered the boxes were
not effectively closed. Section 1926.405(b)(1) provides:
Cabinets, boxes, and fittings. (1) Conductors entering boxes, cabinets, or
fittings. Conductors entering boxes, cabinets, or fittings shall be protected
from abrasion, and openings through which conductors enter shall be
effectively closed. Unused openings in cabinets, boxes, and fittings shall also
be effectively closed.

                                                   6

In two locations in the alleyway where employees regularly travel, CO Battle observed two
temporary electric power boxes with openings that were not closed and the conductors were subject
to abrasion (Exhs. C-1, C-3, C-5; Tr. 19, 27, 30-31, 35, 44, 48). The alleyway was located between
the two buildings under construction (Tr. 35, 48). The temporary power boxes were used to provide
electric power throughout the buildings and provide power to such things as lighting, hand tools and
equipment (Exh. R-2; Tr. 27, 30, 47-48).
The conductors in instance (a) which were 240 volts entered an opening in the box which
allowed a significant amount of space and sharp edges (Exh. C-3; Tr. 30). In instance (b), the
insulation and protective outer sheathing had been pulled away from the conductors. The conductors
were 120 volt. The plastic outer sheathing around the conductors did not connect to the bushing
where the conductor leads entered the box and the inner conductor leads were exposed (Exh. C-5;
Tr. 44).
The openings in the electrical boxes were not closed and the cords entering the boxes were
not protected from abrasions by sharp edges around the openings (Exh. C-3, C-5; Tr. 27, 44). Battle
was concerned the insulation around the cords could tear exposing the conductor and energizing the
box (Tr. 31, 44, 49). An employee coming in contact with the box could be electrocuted (Tr. 39-40).
Battle described the electrical boxes as quite obvious, in the open, and clearly visible (Tr. 35,
42, 52). The conditions were in plain view of anyone walking through the alleyway. The unsafe
condition should have been obvious to the superintendents. It was in a “very central location that
was traveled by probably all employees on site” (Tr. 35). Battle also concluded the condition had
existed more than four to six weeks (Tr. 33, 48). This was based upon the length of time the framing
contractor had been on the project because the framing contractor would need electrical power for
the hand tools and equipment used on the project (Tr. 33, 48). Meridian agrees framing began in
November 2005 (Tr. 145).
Although employees were not seen in the area, Meridian does not dispute the boxes were
regularly used to provide electric power to the hand tools and lighting. While on site, Battle could
hear the sound of the power tools being used (Tr. 118-119). Also, Meridian does not dispute the
condition existed at least four weeks and was in a well-traveled location, clearly visible. Meridian

                                              7

had the electric subcontractor immediately abate the conditions. OSHA was still on site (Exhs. C-4,
C-6).
The record reflects that as general contractor, two of Meridian’s supervisors were regularly
present on site and claimed they inspected the site daily for unsafe conditions. However, there is no
showing why such an obvious violative condition was not detected during the four weeks it existed.
Meridian does not dispute its superintendents should have detected and abated the exposed openings
in the two power boxes. As shown during the inspection, Meridian’s authority extended to ensuring
the unsafe conditions was immediately abated by the subcontractor (Tr. 98, 110-111). As general
contractor, Meridian’s violation of §1926.405(b)(1) is established.
Item 2 - Alleged Violation of §1926.405(g)(2)(iii)
The citation alleges a hard service flexible cord had an improper splice. Section
1926.405(g)(2)(iii) provides:
Splices. Flexible cords shall be used only in continuous lengths without
splice or tap. Hard service flexible cords No. 12 or larger may be
repaired if spliced so that the splice retains the insulation, outer sheath
properties, and usage characteristics of the cord being spliced.

    The record establishes that in the alleyway between the two buildings, a hard service flexible

cord, lying on the ground, contained a splice which had exposed conductors. The outer sheathing
had been pulled back and the inner leads were held together by black electrical tape. The black tape
was the only thing “insulating” the places where the copper wires were joined and the inner leads
were visible through the tape (Exh. C-7; Tr. 55). The hard service cord was 240 volts (Tr. 56). The
flexible cord powered the temporary power boxes, discussed previously, and ran from a permanent
installation service box (Tr. 56-57). According to Battle, if the ground became wet, the uninsulated
splice could cause shock, burn or electrocution hazards to anyone walking in the immediate vicinity
(Tr. 59-60).
The alleyway was a regular path used by employees when moving between the buildings.
The cord was lying on the ground “in a very open, plain view location” (Tr. 60, 61). As with the
electrical boxes, Battle concluded the improper splice had existed for four to six weeks (Tr. 58). The
splice was repaired while Battle was still on site by the electrical subcontractor at the direction of
Meridian (Exh. C-8; Tr. 59).

                                              8

As general contractor who controlled the worksite, Meridian’s superintendents were in a
position to detect and abate the improper splice if they performed daily inspections. The unsafe
condition had existed for a long time and was clearly visible. Meridian failed to show its
superintendents exercised reasonable diligence in detecting the improper splice. As general
contractor, Meridian’s violation of §1926.405(g)(2)(iii) is established.
Item 3 - Alleged Violation of §1926.501(c)
The citation alleges toeboards were not erected on the fourth floor above the courtyard
breezeway to prevent objects from falling to the courtyard breezeway. Section 1926.501(c) provides:
Protection from falling objects. When an employee is exposed to falling
objects, the employer shall have each employee wear a hard hat and shall
implement one of the following measures:

       (1) Erect toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems to prevent objects from fall
       from higher levels; or

       (2) Erect a canopy structure and keep potential fall objects far enough from
       the edge of the higher level so that those objects would not go over the edge
       if they were accidentally displaced; or

       (3) Barricade the area to which objects could fall, prohibit employees from
       entering the barricaded area, and keep objects that may fall far enough away
       from the edge of a higher level so that those objects would not go over the
       edge if they were accidentally displaced.

   While CO Battle was walking through the courtyard breezeway, a big roll of tape fell from

the upper level (Exh. C-1; Tr. 22, 63). When she went to the fourth floor, she saw no toeboards
around the edge of the walkway above the courtyard breezeway (Exh. C-9; Tr. 22, 100). An area of
approximately 20 linear feet lacked toeboards (Tr. 22). Battle testified the toeboards would prevent
objects such as tools or materials from falling off the upper level walkway and striking employees
as they pass through the breezeway (Tr. 62-63). Also, there is no showing of a canopy or other
barricade had been installed to prevent objects from falling off the floor (Tr. 65). Although she did
not see employees, Battle noted work taking place on the fourth floor (Tr. 22, 64). She saw tools and
other items strewn around the floor (Tr. 106-107).

                                             9

The courtyard breezeway was a well-traveled area where employees frequently walked on
their way to the various other locations on site (Tr. 63, 66). Battle concluded the lack of toeboards
existed at least four weeks because it was the framing contractor’s responsibility to install the
guardrails (Tr. 64). Meridian did not dispute Battle’s conclusion. The lack of toeboards was obvious
and in plain view of anyone walking on the fourth floor.
As general contractor in control of the worksite, Meridian violated §1926.501(c) in its failure
to detect and abate the lack of toeboards. Meridian failed to show its superintendents exercised
reasonable diligence.
Item 4a - Alleged Violation of §1926.1053(b)(1)
The citation alleges the side rails on an ll-foot job-made ladder did not extend at least 3 feet
above the upper landing. Section 1926.1053(b)(1) provides:
When portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing surface, the
ladder side rails shall extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing
surface to which the ladder is used to gain access; or, when such an extension
is not possible because of the ladder’s length, then the ladder shall be secured
at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such
as a grabrail, shall be provided to assist employees in mounting and
dismounting the ladder. In no case shall the extension be such that ladder
deflection under a load would, by itself, cause the ladder to slip off its
support.

   During her inspection on the first floor, Battle observed an 11-foot job-made wooden ladder

in place to access the second floor in Building A (Exh. C-10; Tr. 23, 68, 101). It was one of two
ladders used by employees to access the second floor (Tr. 70). The ladder’s side rails did not extend
at least 3 feet above the second floor landing. Also, there was no grasping devices which would
allow an employee to dismount the ladder safely once he climbed to the second floor (Tr. 23, 102).
Battle concluded the ladder had been in place at least four weeks because it was designed and
installed by the framing contractor (Tr. 71). Meridian offered no evidence refuting Battle’s
conclusion. The ladder was used to access framing work being done on the upper levels (Tr. 71).
The ladder was in plain view; “it was not hidden from anybody” (Tr. 71). In fact, according to
Battle, superintendent Roberts was familiar with the area and the location of the ladders because “he
carried me through the site” (Tr. 72).

                                             10

As general contractor in control of the worksite, Meridian violated §1926.1053(b)(1) in its
failure to detect and abate the condition. Its superintendents on site were not shown to have
exercised reasonable diligence.
Item 4b - Alleged Violation of §1926.20(b)(2)
The citation alleges frequent and regular inspections of the jobsite and equipment were not
conducted by a competent person. Section 1926.20(b) provides:
Accident prevention responsibilities. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the
employer to initiate and maintain such programs as may be necessary to
comply with this part. (2) Such programs shall provide for frequent and
regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by
competent persons designated by the employers. (Emphasis added).

     Battle concluded Meridian’s superintendents failed to perform regular safety inspections of

the worksite based on her finding the electrical, ladder and toeboard violative conditions (Tr. 73).
Superintendent Roberts told Battle that he was on site daily and was responsible for conducting
walk-throughs of the site (Tr. 73). He said he conducted daily inspections (Tr. 74-75, 86). There
was no written proof of the superintendents’ inspections or evidence as to the extent and scope of
such inspections (Tr. 73). Battle agreed “frequent and regular inspections” of a worksite as large as
Bristol Southside needed to be performed every day or at least every other day (Tr. 73-74).
The record shows the superintendents’ inspections, if performed, were inadequate in
detecting obvious unsafe conditions which had existed for at least four weeks. As demonstrated by
Battle’s short inspection, such conditions were in plain sight and did not require anything but a
cursory walk-through to detect.
According to Meridian, both superintendents had received OSHA’s 30 hour safety
certification course (Tr. 139). Although, not argued by the Secretary, there is some question whether
the superintendents were competent persons as defined by 29 C.F.R. §1926.32(f).3
Meridian agrees the superintendents duties included “to inspect and correct whatever
violations they discovered” (Tr. 139). The fact the supervisors did not detect or correct the problems

     3
       29 C.F.R. §19 26.32(f) defines “competent person” as “one who is capable of identifying existing and

pred ictable haza rds in the surrou nding s or wo rking co ndition s which are un sanitary, ha zard ous, o r dan gero us to
emp loyees , and w ho ha s autho rization to take pro mpt c orre ctive m easur es to elim inate the m.”

                                                           11

with the power boxes, splice, lack of toeboards, and the job-made ladder which had existed for a
long time is evidence of the inadequacy of Meridian’s inspection program on this site.
Because of Meridian’s failure to conduct inspections as contemplated by the standard,
Meridian’s violation of §1926.20(b)(2) is established.
Serious Classification
In order to establish a violation is “serious” under § 17(k) of the Act, the Secretary must
establish there is a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm that could result from
the cited condition and the employer knew or should have known of the violation. Showing the
likelihood of an accident is not required. Spancrete Northeast, Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1020, 1024 (No.
86-521, 1991).
Meridian’s violations of the electrical, toeboard, and ladder standards are properly classified
as serious. As general contractor, Meridian should have detected and abated the unsafe conditions
through its control over its worksite based on the length of time the conditions existed and the
obvious nature of the unsafe conditions which were in plain view. The electrical violations,
improper ladder and lack of toeboards could have caused serious injury or death from electrocution,
head injuries or fall hazards. Also, the failure to detect these unsafe conditions through an
inadequate inspection program could result in serious injury or death to employees.
Penalty Consideration
In determining an appropriate penalty under the Act, consideration of the size of the
employer’s business, history of the employer’s previous violations, the employer’s good faith, and
the gravity of the violation is required. Gravity is the principal factor.
With 50 employees and no history of past serious citations, Meridian is given credit for size
and history (Tr. 78, 97). Meridian is also given credit for good faith (Tr. 78). Battle considered
Meridian’s safety program good (Tr. 98). Meridian provides periodic safety training to
subcontractors’ employees.
A penalty of $500.00 is reasonable for Meridian’s violation of § 1926.405(b)(1) (Item 1).
Meridian was the general contractor and had no employees exposed to the exposed openings in the
power boxes. Also, Meridian did not create the unsafe condition. However, all employees on site

                                              12

were potentially exposed if they plugged into the temporary power box. The unsafe condition should
have been detected and abated by Meridian as part of its control of the worksite.
A penalty of $500.00 is reasonable for Meridian’s violation of § 1926.405(g)(2) (Item 2).
Meridian was the general contractor and had no employees exposed to the improper splice of the
hard service cord. Also, Meridian did not cause the improper splice. However, all employees on
the site were potentially exposed if walking on the flexible hard service cord. The unsafe condition
should have been detected and abated by Meridian as part of its control of the worksite.
A penalty of $500.00 is reasonable for Meridian’s violation of § 1926.501(c) (Item 3).
Meridian was the general contractor and had no employees exposed to the lack of toeboards.
Meridian did not create the unsafe condition. However, all employees on the site were potentially
exposed to being struck by falling materials or tools into the courtyard/breezeway. The unsafe
condition should have been detected and abated by Meridian as part of its control of the worksite.
A grouped penalty of $500.00 is reasonable for Meridian’s violations of § 1926.1053(b)(1)
(Item 4a) and § 1926.20(b)(2) (Item 4b). Meridian was the general contractor and did not create the
unsafe condition involving the inadequate job ladder. However, all employees on the site were
potentially exposed if they used the portable ladder to access the second floor. The unsafe condition
should have been detected and abated by Meridian as part of its control of the worksite. Also, the
number of unsafe conditions observed by Battle during her short walk-through of the worksite shows
Meridian’s inspection program was inadequate. Meridian’s two superintendents on site failed to
conduct proper inspections.

                                             13

FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    The foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance

with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                           ORDER


    Based upon the foregoing decision, it is ORDERED:
    1.      Item 1, serious violation of § 1926.405(b)(1)(vii), is affirmed and a penalty of

$500.00 is assessed;
2. Item 2, serious violation of § 1926.405(g)(2)(iii), is affirmed and a penalty of $500.00
is assessed;
3. Item 3, serious violation of § 1926.501(c), is affirmed and a penalty of $500.00 is
assessed; and
4. Items 4a and 4b, serious violations of § 1926.1053(b)(1) and § 1926.20(b)(2), are
affirmed and a grouped penalty of $500.00 is assessed.

                                                   \S\ Ken S. Welsch
                                                   KEN S. WELSCH
                                                   Judge

Date: July 31, 2006

                                              14