Tire Star, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Tire Star sent three automotive workers to patch the roof of a vacant building that it was renovating for use as a tire and repair facility. OSHA found that the workers used hazardous roofing chemicals without a written hazard communication program, safety data sheets, or chemical training. They also worked near the unprotected edge of a 16-foot-high roof without fall protection or fall-hazard training, and used a ladder that extended less than one foot above the roof access point. The judge rejected Tire Star's claim that the workers were employed by a contractor, finding that Tire Star directed and controlled their work. All six alleged violations were affirmed as serious. The penalties were $250 for the grouped hazard communication items, $1,000 for missing roof fall protection, $500 for missing fall training, and $350 for the ladder violation, totaling $2,100.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(e)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(g)(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(h); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(10); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.503(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1)
• Outcome: Six serious violations affirmed, with penalties totaling $2,100.
• Key point: An employer remains responsible when it assigns its regular workers an unusual roofing task and directs their work, even if it claims a contractor was in charge.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                                          United States of America
             OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                           1924 Building - Room 2R90, 100 Alabama Street, SW
                                       Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104

Secretary of Labor,
Complainant,
v. OSHRC Docket No. 09-0324
Tire Star, Inc.,
Respondent.

Appearances:

      Uche N. Egemonye, Esq., U. S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Atlanta, Georgia
      For Complainant

      Lam Phan and Mai Phan, Pro Se, Chamblee, Georgia
      For Respondent

Before: Administrative Law Judge Nancy J. Spies

                                     DECISION AND ORDER

      Lam (Larry) Phan and Mai Phan, husband and wife, own automobile repair and tire facilities

in Metro-Atlanta, Georgia, one of which is Tire Star, Inc. (Tire Star). Pursuant to a local emphasis
program targeting fall hazards, on November 7, 2008, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) compliance officer Paneshia Watkins inspected a roof worksite at a vacant
building at 2144 Patmell Road in Smyrna, Georgia. As a result of that inspection, on January 9,
2009, the Secretary issued a six-item serious citation to Tire Star. Item 1a alleges a violation of
§ 1910.1200(e)(1) for failing to develop and implement a written hazard communication program;
item 1b alleges a violation of § 1910.1200(g)(8) for failing to maintain material safety data sheets
for hazardous chemicals; item 1c alleges a violation of § 1910.1200(h) for failing to provide
employees with information and training on the hazardous chemicals; item 2 alleges a violation of
§ 1926.501(b)(10) for failing to provide fall protection for employees performing roofing work; item
3 alleges a violation of § 1926.503(a)(1) for failing to train employees on fall hazards; and item 4
alleges a violation of § 1926.1053(b)(1) for utilizing a portable ladder which did not extend 3 feet
above the roof’s access point.
 Tire Star contends it was not the employer of the individuals on the roof and was without
knowledge of the conditions the Secretary cites as violations. The parties presented their evidence
at an August 13, 2009, hearing in Atlanta, Georgia, and they filed post-hearing briefs. As discussed
below, the Secretary established Tire Star was the employer of the exposed employees. She also
proved Tire Star violated the cited standards. The Phans, representing Tire Star, stated their position
clearly, but the evidence they presented was not credible in several respects.
Background
Lam and Mai Phan own businesses throughout Metro-Atlanta.1 On June 4, 2008, Automall
of Atlanta, Inc., owned by the Phans, leased a vacant Smyrna automotive facility (Resp Brief,
Attachment). Tire Star would be the tenant after it completed the renovations.
During the prior year, Howard McGlothin, owner of Construction Design & Builders
(CD&B), a small design and repair company, bid repair work for several of the Phans’ buildings.
In late July 2008, Lam Phan and McGlothin inspected the Symrna building to determine the scope
of renovations. McGlothin advised Phan to completely replace the building’s rubber membrane roof,
but Phan wished to have it patched. On August 25, 2008, Tire Star Properties LLC (also owned by
the Phans) contracted with CD&B to make repairs to the building, especially to the roof (Exh C-4;
Tr. 67, 69). CD&B repaired a part of the roof and a part of the building’s interior. The roof
remained in over-all poor repair, with noticeable water leaks into the interior of the building
(Tr. 71, 84, 107). In late September or early October 2008, McGlothin approached Phan seeking to
be paid for the completed part of the interior work so that CD&B could finance the major roof
repairs. Phan refused to pay more until McGlothin completed the roof. McGlothin and Phan
reached an impasse on payment, and McGlothin considered the contract at an end. CD&B’s last day
at the Symrna building was the day of the disagreement (Tr. 74, 78, 86).
On Friday, November 7, 2008, around 12:30 p.m., Watkins was diving along the highway
when she observed three men on a roof working without fall protection. Watkins entered the parking
lot and approaching the roof, called up asking who was in charge. Hung Le came down from the

1
The Phans separately incorporate their various business facilities. The names of the corporations often include the
words “Tire Star.” Prior to the hearing, it appeared the correct name of respondent was Tire Star, Inc. The name of
the respondent was amended to reflect that understanding (Tr. 5).

                                                     -2­

roof via a portable ladder. In response to questions, Hung Le identified himself and, according to
Watkins, stated he was a “manager” for Tire Star (Tr. 16, 18-19). Hung Le explained the owner of
the business was Larry Phan, who had instructed Le to come to the building to patch the roof. Hung
Le told Watkins his usual work was in the automotive shop in Chamblee, Georgia. Le, who had
worked for Tire Star for 10 years, advised Watkins he had experience roofing while in his native
country (Tr. 61, 100). Watkins also interviewed Tu Le and Danny Oscar, the other individuals on
the roof. They told her that for approximately 2 years they worked in the bays as mechanics at Tire
Star’s Chamblee facility. Since they also had roofing experience, Phan instructed them to help patch
the Symrna roof (Tr. 18, 21-22, 42).
Watkins notified Hung Le of apparent safety and health violations. She unsuccessfully
sought to contact Phan before OSHA issued the citation. After several attempts, OSHA served the
citation, which Tire Star contested (Tr. 30,40, 56).
Discussion
The Employer of the Exposed Employees
The Act covers employers, and under section 3(5) of the OSH Act, “[t]he term ‘employer’
means a person employed in a business affecting commerce who has employees . . .” Although
patching the roof was an unusual activity for Tire Star, those activities fall within a class of activities,
“construction work,” which has been held to affect commerce per se. Eric K. Ho, 20 BNA OSHC
1361, 1364 (Docket No. 98-1645, 2003), aff’d, Chao v. OSHRC & Eric K. Ho (5th Cir. 2005). Even
if the focus is not on the specifically cited activity, but on the activities of the business entity itself,
coverage is established. Tire Star sells tires and repairs and maintains automobiles, which have
moved in commerce and are uniquely a part of interstate commerce. It also uses technological
interstate services such as a computers, telephone, telefax, cellular phone, and postal services for its
operations. The Secretary meets her “modest, if indeed not light” burden to show Tire Star’s
activities “affect commerce.” See Austin Road Co. v. OSHRC, 683 F.2d 905, 907 (5th Cir. 1982).
Of more import here, the parties dispute whether the individuals on the roof were Tire Star
employees. The bare minimum of one single employee is sufficient to invoke coverage under the
OSH Act. Timonthy Victory, 18 BNA OSHC 1023, 1027 (No. 97-3359, 1997). To resolve such
employment issues, the Review Commission applies the common-law agency doctrine set out in

                                                -3­

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-23 (1992). The Secretary points to the
admissions in the workers’ November 7, 2008, interviews that they were employed by Phan and Tire
Star. Tire Star contradicts that evidence.
Credibility Determinations on Employment Status
Phan denies he sent Hung Le, Tu Le, or Danny Oscar to patch the roof. Lam Phan admits
Tire Star employs Hung Le but contends he never knew a Tu Le or Danny Oscar (Tr. 111-112). Tire
Star states Hung Le was at the site to transfer supplies and electronic equipment from its Marietta,
Georgia, store to the vacant Symrna building. The fact the roof leaked badly, with water pooling in
the interior of the building, apparently was not a deterrent. At the hearing Hung Le testified Watkins
misunderstood almost everything he or the other men told her due to language problems. According
to Hung Le, he was on the roof because Tu Le, a man Hung Le had never met, asked him as a
“favor” to carry a heavy bucket of material up a 16 foot ladder to the roof (Tr. 98-99, 103, 107). For
an unexplained reason, Hung Le remained on the roof. Also unexplained was why he and Tu Le
appeared to have roofing material on their hands (Exh. C-3i).
Tire Star speculates Tu Le and Danny Oscar must be employees of CD&B and that
McGlothin became confused and “mixed up” as to the exact dates a CD&B crew worked on the
Smyrna roof (Tr. 125). This is not credible. McGlothin was clear where his crewmembers worked
and who they were. Further, McGlothin knew it was not possible to patch the rubber membrane roof
with an asphalt material and would not have purchased that product (Tr. 77-78). Two vehicles were
parked at the jobsite. The Toyota Camry was Hung Le’s personal car. When Hung Le retrieved his
business card for Watkins, he went to the red pick-up truck, the only other vehicle on site. The
Secretary served Hung Le with a subpoena for the hearing. Watkins’ testimony is credited that when
she asked about Tu Le, Hung Le replied, “Tu Le wasn’t working there anymore,” not that Tu Le
never worked there or that he did not know the name (Tr. 55).
Thus, it is not determinative that neither Tu Le nor Danny Oscar appear on Tire Star’s
Chamblee payroll or that they did not wear a “uniform” shirt while on the roof (Exhs. R-1 & R-2;
Tr. 112). The Phans own several different facilities and its employees transfer between them
(Tr. 105 ). Tire Star appears to use the talents of its employees, even to assign them unconventional
tasks. Hung Le, Tu Le, and Danny Oscar had roofing experience. It appears Hung Le is a versatile

                                             -4­

employee. Tire Star directed Hung Le to perform other non-mechanic’s tasks, such as moving
computers, printers, and like supplies and equipment between stores, or performing carpentry work
for its facility (Tr. 82, 90, 98).
In evaluating credibility, a judge can properly consider whether a witness “exhibited a biased,
hostile, or inflexible bent of mind” Hughes Bros., Inc., 6 BNA 1830,1837 (No. 12523, 1978). In
this judge’s view, Hung Le was chagrined to have provided truthful information to Watkins, which
resulted in harmful consequences for his employer. His demeanor during his testimony was notably
anxious, and at times loud, hostile, and defensive. Watkins performed a careful inspection. The
detail of her testimony, the certitude of her manner, and the sincerity of her demeanor qualify here
as a fully credible witness.
The evidence supports that Tire Star was the employer of the three employees.
Tire Star Violated the Cited Standards
The Secretary bears the burden of proving each element of her case by a preponderance of
the evidence.
In order to establish a violation of the standard, the Secretary must establish: (a) the standard
applies to the condition cited; (b) the terms of the standard were not met; (c) employees had
access to the violative conditions; and (d) the employer either knew of the violative
conditions or could have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., 18 BNA OSHC 2170, 2171 (No. 990257, 2000). Tire Star does not
dispute the applicability of the standards.
Knowledge of the Violations
Tire Star contends it was without knowledge of the violations. The Secretary must establish
Tire Star knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violative
conditions. One way in which the Secretary may establish constructive knowledge is if a
supervisor’s knowledge is properly imputable to the company. E.g., Jersey Steel Erectors, 16 BNA
OSHC 1162, 1164 (No. 90-1307, 1993).
The Secretary asserts Hung Le was such a supervisor. While Tire Star and Hung Le state
Hung Le was no more than a mechanic and estimator, the circumstantial evidence indicates
otherwise. During the inspection, Hung Le advised Watkins he was a manager and he appeared to

                                              -5­

Watkins to be a person in charge. Whenever OSHA attempted to telephone Tire Star seeking a
manager, the compliance officers were referred to Hung Le (Tr. 55, 64).
Even if the knowledge of Hung Le is not imputed to Tire Star, Tire Star still had constructive
knowledge of the violative conditions. Phan, its highest ranking supervisor, instructed the three
employees to patch the roof after CD&B failed in that task. Phan was familiar with the building and
would have observed the fall distance from the roof. Phan purchased the asphalt-based patching
material and could have seen the composition and warnings on the product label (Exh. C-3n; Tr. 38,
117). He also knew Tire Star did not provide information or training concerning the hazardous
chemicals. Phan was aware the employees would have access to the roof through use of a portable
ladder. See Ormet Corp., 14 BNA OSHC 2134, 2137 (Docket No. 85-531, 1991) (employer may
not have known of the specific instance of violative conduct at the time it occurred, but knew how
the work would generally be performed). There is no indication Tire Star had a safety program
which covered such safety issues. This is not to say Tire Star or Phan necessarily knew of the
existence of the OSHA requirements. However, employers are charged with knowledge and are
responsible for compliance with standards, regardless of their actual awareness or understanding.
Cf., e.g., Ed Taylor Constr., 938 F.2d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir, 1991).
Employees Exposed to Violative Conditions
Item 1a, 1b, and 1c – §§ 1910.1200(e)(1), – .1200(g)(8), and – .1200(h)
The Secretary asserts Tire Star violated sections of the hazard communication standard. Tire
Star purchased three buckets2 of asphalt-based “fibered liquid roof (asbestos free) coating” to patch
the Symrna roof. The compound is combustible and contains mineral spirits and petroleum. Among
other dangers, users should avoid prolonged breathing of vapors or ingesting the product (Exh C-3n;
Tr. 34). The hazard communication standard applies to the material. Item 1a alleges a violation of
§ 1910.1200(e)(1)3 for failing to have and to implement a written hazard communication program

2
The photographs show two 5-gallon (not 1-gallon) buckets of the CRS roof repair material in the back of the pick­
up truck (Exh. C-3a,g,m).

3
Section 1910.1200(e)(1) provides:
Employers shall develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard
communication program which at least describes how . . . forms of warning, material safety data
sheets, and employee information and training will be met.

                                                      -6­

related to the hazardous chemicals. Item 1b alleges a violation of § 1910.1200(g)(8)4 for failing to
secure and keep a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the roofing material. Item 1c alleges a
violation of § 1910.1200(h)5 for failing to provide information and training on the hazardous
chemicals.
The employees did not have access to and were not trained to seek the warnings against
prolonged inhalation of vapors or smoking or eating (and thus ingesting) the patching material (C-3;
Tr. 32-33, 37). The health effects of these grouped violations are mitigated since employees worked
out-of-doors, which lessened the potential for breathing the hazardous vapors. Yet, the potential
harm is serious when employees use hazardous chemicals without knowing how they can affect their
health. The violations are grouped and affirmed as a low gravity serious violation.
Items 2 and 3 – §§ 1926.501(b)(10) and 1926.503(a)(1)
The Secretary asserts Tire Star violated § 1926.501(b)(10)6 by failing to provide fall
protection for employees working on a low-sloped roof. (Flat roofs are classified as “low sloped
roofs.”) She also asserts that although employees were exposed to fall hazards, Tire Star did not
train employees to recognize and avoid the hazards in violation of § 1926.503(a)(1).7 Watkins
measured 16 feet from the roof edge to the ground (Exh. C-3e; Tr. 39). Hung Le explained to
Watkins that in his country he could work up to 30 feet above the ground before he needed fall

4
Section1910.1200(g)(8) provides:
The employer shall maintain in the workplace copies of the required material safety data sheets for
each hazardous chemical, and shall ensure that they are readily accessible during each work shift to
employees when they are in their work area(s).

5
Section 1910.1200(h)(1) specifies, in part:
Employers shall provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous
chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment . . . . to cover categories of
hazards (e.g., flammability, carcinogenicity) or specific chemicals.

6
Section 1926.501(b)(10) provides:
Roofing work on low-slope roofs . . . [E]ach employee engaged in roofing activities on low-slope
roofs, with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be
protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or a
combination of [systems] . . . .

7
Section 1926.503(a)(1) provides:
The employer shall provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall
hazards. The program shall enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and shall
train each employee in the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards.

                                                           -7­

protection. Hung Le, Tu Le, and Danny Oscar worked close to and were exposed to falling from the
unprotected edge of the roof. They were afforded no fall protection and received no training on how
to recognize or minimize fall hazards. The violations are affirmed as serious.
Item 4 – § 1926.1053(b)(1)
The Secretary asserts Tire Star violated § 1926.1053(b)(1) because the portable ladder the
employees used to access the roof did not extend 3 feet above the access point to the roof.8 Watkins
measured the distance the portable aluminum ladder projected beyond the access point of the roof
to be as less than 1 foot. The employees used the unsecured ladder to access the roof and carry
equipment and supplies (Exh. C-3f, l; Tr. 44). Employees were exposed to a potential fall of 16 feet
while using a ladder with an insufficient handhold. The violation is affirmed as a serious.
Penalty
The Commission is the final arbiter of penalties in all contested cases. In determining an
appropriate penalty, the Act requires the Commission to consider the size of the employer, any
history of previous violations, the employer’s good faith, and the gravity of the violations. Gravity
is weighed as the principal factor in arriving at the penalty.
Tire Star, Inc., as an individual corporation, is a very small employer. It had not been
previously cited by OSHA. It did not cooperate with the inspection, and its good faith must be
further questioned because it appears to have fabricated testimony.
When Tire Stare directed three employees to patch various areas of a rubber roof, it exposed
them to hazardous chemicals and to a potential 16-foot fall. The three men were experienced, but
roofing was not their usual employment. Even rarely-assigned tasks can result in grave accidents.
Appropriate penalties are assessed of $250.00 for the low gravity violation of the hazard
communication standards; of $1,000.00 for failing to utilize fall protection on the roof; of $500.00
for failing to provide fall protection training; and of $350.00 for failing to ensure the ladder extended
at least 3 feet above the access point.

8
Section 1926.1053(b)(1) provides:
W hen portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder siderails shall
extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface . . . .

                                                        -8­

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), Fed. R. Civ.P.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing decision, it is ORDERED:
1. Items 1a, 1b, and 1c (§§ 1910.1200(e)(1), .1200(g)(8), and .1200(h)) are affirmed and
a penalty of $250.00 is assessed.
2. Item 2 (§ 1926.501(b)(10)) is affirmed a penalty of $1,000.00 is assessed.
3. Item 3 (§ 1926.503(a)(1)) is affirmed and a penalty of $500.00 is assessed.
4. Item 4 (§ 1926.1053(b)(1)) is affirmed and a penalty of $350.00 is assessed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  NANCY J. SPIES
                                                  Judge

Date: November 24, 2009
Atlanta, Georgia

                                            -9­