Ryder Transportation Services

Plain-English summary

Ryder hired an electrical contractor to install circuits, wiring, switches, and other equipment at its vehicle-parts rebuild center. A contractor employee went onto the roof to test exhaust fans, fell through an unguarded skylight, and sustained fatal injuries. OSHA cited Ryder under a general industry rule requiring skylight guards. The Commission found that the contractor's extensive electrical installation substantially altered the facility and was construction work, not maintenance. Because the construction standards governed that work, the Secretary failed to prove that the cited general industry standard applied. The Commission vacated the citation and proposed $5,000 penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(a)(4)
• Outcome: Serious skylight-guarding citation vacated; no penalty assessed.
• Key point: General industry standards did not apply when the cited working conditions arose from a contractor's construction work that substantially altered the facility.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Ryder Transporation Services, Docket No. 10-0551

Walter, J. David
Normal
Walter, J. David
2
0
2018-08-07T15:13:00Z
2018-08-07T15:13:00Z
1
5350
30497
254
71
35776
16.00

false

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

United
States of America

OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20 th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington,
DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No. 10-0551

RYDER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,

Respondent.

ON BRIEFS:

Jennifer R. Levin, Attorney; Charles
F. James, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; Joseph M. Woodward, Associate
Solicitor; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
DC

For
the Complainant

Carla J. Gunnin, Esq.; Constangy,
Brooks & Smith, LLP, Atlanta, GA

For
the Respondent

DECISION

Before: ROGERS, Chairman; ATTWOOD and M ac DOUGALL, Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

Ryder
Transportation Services rebuilds starters and alternators for its vehicles at
the Ryder Rebuild Center in Doraville, Georgia. Ryder hired M.C. Dean, an
electrical contractor, to perform work at the Center. On August 27, 2009, an M.C.
Dean employee working on the roof of the Center fell 26 feet through an
unguarded skylight, sustaining fatal injuries. Following an inspection, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued Ryder a citation under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 651-678, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.23(a)(4), a general industry standard skylight provision. The
Secretary proposed a penalty of $5,000.

Former
Administrative Law Judge Stephen J. Simko, Jr. vacated the citation based on
his conclusion that the Secretary failed to establish Ryder’s knowledge
of the conditions constituting the violation. For the reasons that follow, we
vacate the citation but on different grounds than those relied upon by the judge.

BACKGROUND

At the time
of the accident, M.C. Dean had been working at the Center for nearly three
weeks, energizing equipment that Ryder had transferred to the Center from a
closed Ryder facility and performing other electrical work. M.C. Dean was
tasked with installing new circuits, switches, and other devices to
“bring electricity” to the newly-transferred equipment. The company
was also tasked with installing a new switch to enable the manual operation of
two rooftop exhaust fans that were previously controlled thermostatically. When
the fans did not operate, M.C. Dean’s employee went up to the roof and
traversed a section that had an unguarded corrugated fiberglass skylight, which
was not readily discernible because the skylight blended into the corrugated roof.

In the
citation, the Secretary alleged that by failing to guard the skylight opening
with either “a standard skylight screen or a fixed standard railing on
all exposed sides[,]” Ryder violated 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(a)(4).
On review Ryder renews the threshold argument it made before the
judge, contending that the cited general industry standard does not apply to
the alleged violative condition because M.C. Dean’s work at the Center
was construction work and, therefore, was covered by the construction standards.
The judge had rejected Ryder’s argument, concluding that M.C.
Dean’s work activities constituted maintenance rather than construction
work.

DISCUSSION

It is well
established that OSHA’s construction standards, rather than any
comparable general industry standards, cover activities that constitute
“construction work” under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12. See,
e.g., Jimerson Underground, Inc. , 21 BNA OSHC 1459, 1462, 2004-09 CCH OSHD
¶ 32,800, pp. 52,464-65 (No. 04-0970, 2006) (holding that because the
cited “activities constituted construction work . . . , the general
industry standards do not apply”). Paragraph (b) of this provision
defines “[c]onstruction work” as “work for construction,
alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating.” 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.12(b). The Commission has held that “the construction
standards only apply to actual construction work or to related activities that
are an integral and necessary part of construction work.” B.J. Hughes,
Inc. , 10 BNA OSHC 1545, 1546-47, 1982 CCH OSHD ¶ 25,977, p.
32,579 (No. 76-2165, 1982). Maintenance, on the other hand, involves work
associated with “keeping something in proper condition.” See,
e.g., Gulf States Utils. Co ., 12 BNA OSHC 1544, 1546, 1984-85 CCH
OSHD ¶ 27,422, p. 35,524 (No. 82-867, 1985) (replacement of damaged
porcelain insulators with epoxy insulators was maintenance where “lines
were simply maintained in the same condition they were before the insulators
were damaged” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

We disagree
with the judge’s conclusion that M.C. Dean’s work activities
constituted maintenance. Ryder hired M.C. Dean to perform electrical work,
including electrifying the newly-transferred equipment. Among other tasks, M.C.
Dean: (1) used an aerial lift to run a total of about 200 to 250 feet of metal
conduit and wiring along the Center’s ceiling and walls; (2) added five
new circuits; (3) installed a new 100-amp load center for additional power and
wiring, three new 30-amp three-phase circuits for some test equipment, a new
90-amp two-volt circuit for a spot welder, a 125-three-amp circuit for a new
oven, a new 200-amp switch in the main gear box, and a plug over the office
door in the shipping area; (4) installed a new switch into a concrete wall; (5)
ran metal conduit and wires to energize and manually control the two rooftop
exhaust fans; (6) replaced a damaged 60-amp twin switch “in the main
gear”; (7) disconnected and relocated power for existing ovens; and (8)
demolished an old fan and two heaters in the Center’s ceiling.

M.C.
Dean’s work amounts to a substantial alteration of the Center’s
electrical system and, thus, fits squarely within the definition of
construction work set forth under § 1910.12(b). See Active Oil
Serv., Inc. , 21 BNA OSHC 1184, 1186, 2004-09 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,803,
p. 52,497 (No. 00-0553, 2005) (concluding that building’s
“conversion from oil to gas heat constituted an alteration of [it] and
its surrounding property,” and that cited employer’s removal of
“oil tanks and oil-burning equipment was an integral part of this
alteration” and, therefore, was construction work). M.C. Dean’s work cannot be deemed maintenance because it
involved much more than just keeping the electrical system in proper condition.
See Gulf States Utils. Co ., 12 BNA OSHC at 1546, 1984-85
CCH OSHD at p. 35,524. Because we find that M.C. Dean’s work at the
Center comes within the definition of “[c]onstruction work” for
purposes of Part 1926, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12(b), we conclude
that the Secretary has failed to establish that the cited general industry
standard applies to the working conditions here.

Accordingly,
we vacate Serious Citation 1, Item 1.

SO ORDERED.

/s/                                                        
           Thomasina V.
Rogers

Chairman

/s/ 

Cynthia L. Attwood

Dated: September 29,
2014                                       Commissioner

M ac DOUGALL, Commissioner, concurring:

I join in my colleagues’ decision to vacate the citation. I
agree with the majority’s conclusion that the cited general industry
standard is preempted by this specifically applicable construction standard.
Although the Secretary sought leave before the judge to amend the citation to
allege a violation of a construction standard, 29 C.F.R.
§ 1926.501(b)(4)(i), I agree, as discussed in footnote 4 of the
majority’s opinion, that we should not amend the pleadings to allege a
violation of this construction standard because the Secretary abandoned his
request to amend. Additionally, I would go one step further than the majority.
I would conclude that even if the Secretary had not procedurally abandoned his
request to amend, alternatively, in reviewing the merits, the citation should
still be vacated. I write separately to express my opinion on this issue, which
is raised in the briefing notice and addressed by the parties, as I believe
there is a compelling party and public interest in discussing its merits, and the
majority opinion leaves the parties and members of the regulated public
uncertain as to the law for future cases.

The stated purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the “Act”) is to assure “safe and healthful working
conditions” by, among other things, “authorizing the Secretary of
Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards.” Section
2(b), 29 U.S.C. § 651(b). Since standards are a basic mechanism by which
the purpose of the Act is to be achieved, it is appropriate in determining the
scope of a particular set of standards to consider the nature of the working
conditions sought to be regulated. When an employer is cited for violations
under one of the specific industry standards, rather than the general industry
standards, the Secretary must establish that the workplace falls under that industry’s
standards. The Commission has held that the construction standards apply only
to employers who are actually engaged in construction work or who are engaged
in operations that are an integral and necessary part of the construction work.
Cardinal Indus., Inc. , 12 BNA OSHC 1585, 1586-87, 1984-85 CCH
OSHD ¶ 27,446, p. 35,557 (No. 82-427, 1985), rev’d , 828 F.2d
373 (6th Cir. 1987) (abrogated on other grounds by Martin v. OSHRC , 499
U.S. 144 (1991)); United Geophysical Corp ., 9 BNA OSHC 2117, 2121, 1981
CCH OSHD ¶ 25,579, p. 31,906 (No. 78-6265, 1981), aff’d without
published opinion , 683 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1982); B.J. Hughes, Inc. ,
10 BNA OSHC 1545, 1547, 1982 CCH OSHD ¶ 25,977, p. 32,579 (No. 76-2165,
1982). A citation to Ryder based on a construction standard, even if an amendment
were granted, would have to be vacated as Ryder is neither an employer engaged
in construction work nor one engaged in operations that are an integral and
necessary part of the construction work at issue. Thus, I would find the
construction standards inapplicable to Ryder.

The Secretary’s proposed amendment sought to hold Ryder liable
for failing to ensure that “[e]ach employee on walking/working surfaces
shall be protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6
feet (1.8 m) above lower levels, by personal fall arrest systems, covers, or
guardrail systems erected around such holes.” 29 C.F.R. §
1926.501(b)(4)(i). However, the construction-specific requirements of §
1926.501(b)(4)(i), and the conditions which the standard seeks to address, are
wholly inapplicable to Ryder and its employees. Ryder’s employees did not
walk or work on any surface with any hole or skylight which presented any
hazard, and they did not participate in the construction work performed by M.C.
Dean. Indeed, Ryder employees were prohibited from going on the rooftop where
the skylight in question was located. Ryder’s business took place on the
ground floor of its facility where it is in the business of rebuilding engine
parts.

Ryder is not engaged in construction work by any stretch
of reasonable argument. It is not a general contractor or a construction
professional. It is not an architectural, engineering, or construction
management firm engaged in construction. Ryder lacks experience in any construction trade or any safety
practices attendant to any construction trade. None of Ryder’s employees
were engaged in construction work. Quite to the contrary, Ryder’s
activities were wholly unrelated to the performance or supervision of any
construction work. There is simply no nexus between Ryder’s
work—manufacturing—and the performance of construction work.

Further, notwithstanding the Secretary’s claim, the Secretary
cannot cite Ryder under the construction standards simply by relying upon
OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy (“MEP”) as either a
“creating” or “controlling” employer. The MEP was
created by the Secretary to cite multiple employers at a multi-employer site
without regard to which entity directly employed the exposed individual. See OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124 (Dec. 10, 1999) (discussing
that employers at multiemployer worksite—defined as either creating,
exposing, correcting, or controlling employers—may be cited, whether or
not their own employees are exposed). I share the concerns noted by former
Commissioner Horace A. Thompson, III in his vigorous dissent in Summit II
with regard to the MEP. In sum, like former Commissioner Thompson, I too see
tension between OSHA’s MEP and the Act’s statutory language . My concerns are especially grave under the circumstances here, where
the Secretary attempted to use the MEP as a tool to hold a general industry
employer liable under the construction standards. Despite my misgivings
regarding the MEP, I acknowledge the MEP has been used to impose liability on
employers engaged in construction work. E.g. , Summit II ; Red
Lobster Inns of Am., Inc. , 8 BNA OSHC 1762, 1980 CCH OSHD ¶ 24,636
(No. 76-4754, 1980) (construction standards applicable to restaurant which
engaged in construction work by managing build out of new restaurants). It has
also been used to impose general industry liability upon general industry
employers. E.g. , Harvey Workover Inc. , 7 BNA OSHC 1687, 1688-89,
1979 CCH OSHD ¶ 23,830, pp. 28,908-09 (No. 76-1408, 1979). However, the
Commission has never extended the MEP to apply the construction standards to a
general industry employer like Ryder, which is simply not engaged in any
construction work. Indeed in this instance, Ryder’s employees were not even present
on the rooftop worksite where M.C. Dean was performing the electrical work in
question. As to whether a non-construction employer can be cited under the
construction standards, I answer that question with an emphatic no—such
application would be improper on the basis that it is contrary to the language
of § 1910.12(b) and Commission precedent.

The record does not establish that Ryder took control over M.C.
Dean’s construction work other than simply being a company that
contracted with another to perform a specific job that it did not have the
expertise to perform. In sum, it would be patently unjust to subject Ryder to
liability under the construction standards simply because Ryder, as property
owner, necessarily possessed control over its own property. There is no logical
reason Ryder should have contemplated the requirements of the construction
standards, including § 1926.501(b)(4)(i), much less with respect to
an independent contractor hired to independently perform construction work on
the property. The Secretary should not be permitted to use the MEP to extend
application of the construction standards where they are plainly inapplicable.
If the Secretary were allowed to prosecute this case under OSHA’s MEP,
the specific duty defined by the cited construction standard may be imposed on
employers who merely own the buildings in which they engage in business.

/s/ 

Heather
L. MacDougall

Dated: September 29,
2014                                       Commissioner

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. 10-0551

Ryder Transportation Services,

Respondent.

Appearances:

Jeremy Fisher, Esquire, Atlanta, GA

For
Complainant

Carla J. Gunnin, Esquire, Atlanta, GA

For
Respondent

Before: Administrative Law Judge Stephen
J. Simko, Jr.

DECISION AND ORDER

Ryder
Transportation Services rebuilds starters and alternators for Ryder vehicles at
its facility in Doraville, Georgia. On August 27, 2009, an employee working for
an electrical contractor at the facility fell from the roof through a skylight,
sustaining fatal injuries.

Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance officer Reinaldo White was
assigned to investigate the accident. Based on his inspection, the Secretary
issued a one-item citation to Ryder on February 24, 2010. Item 1 of Citation
No. 1 alleges Ryder committed a serious violation of 29 C. F. R. §
1910.23(a)(4), by failing to guard its facility’s skylights with standard
skylight screens or fixed standard railings. The Secretary proposed a penalty
of $ 5,000.00 for this item. She issued the citation under her multi-employer
citation policy. (The Secretary also issued a citation to M. C. Dean, the
electrical contractor on the site.)

Ryder
timely contested the citation. In its answer, Ryder admitted jurisdiction and
coverage. A hearing was held in this matter on September 30 and October 1,
2010, in Decatur, Georgia. The parties have filed post-hearing briefs. Ryder
contends (1) the cited standard does not apply to the cited condition; (2) its
employees were not exposed to an unsafe condition; (3) M. C. Dean’s
employees were not exposed to unsafe conditions, in accordance with the
Secretary’s multi-employer citation policy; and (4) Ryder had no
knowledge of the violative condition.

Based
on the Secretary’s failure to establish Ryder’s knowledge of the
violative condition, as discussed below, the court vacates Item 1 of Citation
No. 1.

Background

Ryder
owns and operates a facility on Button Gwinnett Drive in Doraville, Georgia,
where it rebuilds, or “remanufactures” starters and alternators for
its vehicles. Ryder was not the original owner of the facility; the company
moved into the existing structure in 1985. The structure was described at the
hearing as a “pretty big warehouse,” but no exact dimensions were
given (Tr. 27). It was suggested the facility may be as large as a football
field, but the only estimate ventured was the building was approximately 100
feet long by 70 feet wide (Tr. 132). Compliance officer Reinaldo White measured
the height of the facility’s ceiling, and found it to be 25.8 feet high.

At
least two fiberglass skylights were installed in the roof. The skylights were
approximately 3 feet wide and 10 to 12 feet long. The skylights were clearly
visible from the inside of the warehouse. They were more difficult to discern
from the roof because they were made in the same corrugated pattern and were of
the same color as the roof. The skylights were not guarded with screens or
railings.

At
the time of the hearing, Ryder employed fourteen full-time and ten part-time
employees at the facility. The general manager was John Kaiser. He supervised
foreman Brooks Bryan, who in turn supervised leadman Jeffrey Thompson.

Ryder
had operated a similar remanufacturing facility in Pennsylvania, which it had
closed some time before August 2009. Ryder moved some of the equipment from the
Pennsylvania location to the Doraville facility. The company hired M. C. Dean,
an electrical contractor, to perform the necessary electrical work to install
the transferred equipment, and to perform other miscellaneous repairs. Ryder
and M. C. Dean had a longstanding relationship, and Kaiser regarded M. C. Dean
as “a reliable contractor” (Tr. 90).

Three
M. C. Dean employees worked at Ryder’s facility in August 2009:
supervisor Boyd Young, journeyman electrician Lewis Quinn, and apprentice
electrician Sam Ditmore. In order to perform some of the electrical work near
the ceiling, M. C. Dean had rented an aerial lift. When M. C. Dean’s
employees first arrived in August, Ryder had gone over a list of repairs and
installations to be completed by M. C. Dean. At some later point, Ryder asked
M. C. Dean to install conduit and a switch for two exhaust fans located in the
ceiling of the facility. The exhaust fans had not worked since Ryder took over
the facility in 1985. After M. C. Dean installed the conduit and switch, the
exhaust fans still did not work. M. C. Dean decided it needed to examine the
exhaust fans to determine why they were not working. The exhaust fans extended
through the ceiling to the outside of the building. M. C. Dean concluded one of
its employees needed to go up on the roof to examine the exhaust fans.

On
August 27, 2009, the three M. C. Dean employees arrived at Ryder’s
facility at approximately 7:00 a. m. Quinn used the aerial lift to perform some
work inside the facility. Around 10:00, Boyd Young and Quinn decided to move
the aerial lift outside the facility and use it to lift Quinn to the roof.
Quinn was the employee chosen to go up because he already was wearing his
safety harness and attached lanyard. After the aerial lift was moved outside,
Quinn entered the basket, tied off to the rails, and used the lift’s
controls to elevate himself to the roof. Quinn unhooked his lanyard and stepped
out onto the roof.

Quinn
was carrying a voltage tester with him, and a two-way radio with which he
communicated with Young. Quinn walked to the first exhaust fan and discovered
it had no motor in it. Quinn radioed this information to Young. Quinn then
walked over to the second exhaust fan, and discovered it too was missing its
motor. Quinn started to return to the aerial lift. After analysis of all
evidence, it is reasonable to infer that, instead of retracing his steps and
passing back by the first exhaust fan he had checked, Quinn set off in a direct
path from the second exhaust fan to the aerial lift. A skylight lay in his
path. Quinn stepped on the skylight and it broke under his weight. Quinn fell
25.8 feet to the concrete floor below, suffering grievous injuries. Ryder and
M. C. Dean employees rushed to his aid. Someone called 911, and an ambulance
eventually arrived and took Quinn to Atlanta Medical Center. Quinn died there
13 days later.

The Citation

The
Secretary has the burden of establishing the employer violated the cited
standard.

To prove a violation of an OSHA standard, the
Secretary must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the cited
standard applies; (2) the employer failed to comply with the terms of the cited
standard; (3) employees had access to the violative condition; and (4) the
cited employer either knew or could have known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence of the violative condition.

JPC Group Inc., 22 BNA
OSHC 1859, 1861 (No. 05-1907, 2009).

Item 1:
Alleged Serious Violation of 29 C. F. R. § 1910.23(a)(4 )

The citation
states:

29 CFR 1910.23(a)(4): Every skylight floor opening and
hole shall be guarded by a standard skylight screen or a fixed standard railing
on all exposed sides.

On or about 9/11/09 an employee was performing electrical voltage testing on some exhaust
fans at Ryder. The employee stepped on a skylight on the roof and fell through
to approximately 25.8 feet and was fatally injured. Ryder Transportation did
not have any skylight screen or standard railing on all exposed sides to
protect the employee.

The
standard at 29 C. F. R. § 1910.23(a)(4) provides:

Every skylight floor opening and hole shall be guarded
by a standard skylight screen or a fixed standard railing on all exposed sides.

(1) Does the
Cited Standard Apply?

The
Secretary chose to cite Ryder under 29 C. F. R. § 1910.23(a)(4), a general
industry standard. That standard applies when employees are engaged in
maintenance activities. In the present case, Ryder contends, M. C. Dean’s
employees were engaged in construction activities. Therefore, it argues, the cited general industry standard does not
apply to the construction work in which the employees were engaged.

The
standard at 29 C. F. R. § 1910.12 defines “construction work”
as work for “construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting
and decoration.” “ Maintenance” is not defined
in the standards. The American Heritage Dictionary (Second Coll. Ed.)
defines “maintenance” as “The work of keeping something in
proper condition.”

Ryder
leadman, Jeffrey Thompson, testified M. C. Dean’s work included: repairing
security lights by the back door by replacing the bulbs, repairing fixtures in
the paint booth, installing a new 100-amp load center, adding five new
circuits, re-securing loose receptacles in the shop walls , repairing a
damaged conduit in the shipping area, installing three new 30-amp circuits for
test equipment, installing a circuit for a spot welder and an oven, relocating
power for the existing oven, installing a new switch in the main gear box,
troubleshooting problems with the air conditioning, and installing a plug over
the office door. The “demolition” work M. C. Dean performed
consisted of removing a fan using a screwdriver and some wirecutters. M. C.
Dean did not transport or install the equipment transferred from the Pennsylvania
facility. Thompson stated that Ryder “had the equipment sitting where we
wanted it, and then we let them run the power to it” (Tr. 160).

Boyd
Young had worked as a foreman for M. C. Dean for three years at the time of the
hearing. Although M. C. Dean has a construction division for its electrical
work, Young and his crew worked in the service division. He characterized M. C.
Dean’s job with Ryder as “[m]iscellaneous electrical repairs and
additions” (Tr. 176). The parties did not enter into a written contract
for the job, but reduced it to a purchase order for “electrical
repairs” (Exh. C-4).

The
record establishes M. C. Dean’s employees were engaged in maintenance,
and not construction, activities. Ryder hired M. C. Dean to keep the existing
electrical system and the transferred equipment in proper condition. The cited
general industry standard applies.

(2) Did Ryder
Fail to Comply with the Terms of the Cited Standard?

It
is undisputed Ryder did not guard the skylights in the roof of its facility
with screens or standard railings.

(3) Did
Employees Have Access to the Violative Condition?

No
Ryder employees were exposed to the unguarded skylights. The last time a Ryder
employee had been on the roof was in 2006, when Thompson had used two
ladders (one to access a mezzanine, and a second to climb to the main roof) to
reach the roof in order to change a belt on an exhaust fan on one of the
lavatories. At that time, Thompson noted there were no screens or
railings guarding the skylights. He stated at the hearing that the skylights
“look like they’re corrugated because they match the tin on the
roof” (Tr. 33).

Ryder
later classified the roof as a restricted area, forbidding its employees to
access it. Ryder safety manager Bill Stewart instructed employees not to go up
on the facility roof or trailer roofs. No one from Ryder informed M. C.
Dean of this directive.

The
Secretary contends that, under her multi-employer citation policy, Ryder
exposed Quinn to the unguarded skylight. The Commission has recently reversed
its previous position, holding the Secretary may cite a non-exposing,
controlling employer under this policy. In Summit Contractors Inc., 23
BNA OSHC 1196, 1205 (No. 05-0839, 2010), the Commission holds:

“[A]n employer who either creates or controls
the cited hazard has a duty under § 5(a)(2) of the Act . . . to protect
not only its own employees, but those of other employees engaged in the common
undertaking.” McDevitt Street Bovis, 19 BNA OSHC at 1109, 2000,
CCH OSHD at p. 48,780 (citation omitted). With respect to controlling employer
liability, ‘an employer may be held responsible for the violations of
other employers ‘where it could reasonably be expected to prevent or
detect and abate the violations due to its supervisory authority and control over
the worksite.” Id. (citation omitted); Grossman Steel, 4
BNA OSHC at 1188, 1975-1976 CCH OSHD at p. 24,791.

The
violation at issue here is the lack of guarding on the skylights. Only Ryder
could take steps to abate this violation. John Kaiser, Ryder’s general
manager, testified he was in charge of maintenance at the facility, and that
Ryder was responsible for the condition of the facility’s roof. The
Secretary has established Ryder was the controlling employer, and thus liable
under the multi-employer citation policy.

Quinn
was on the roof pursuant to his assigned duty of testing the exhaust fans.
Quinn’s tragic death is proof of his exposure to the unguarded skylight.

(4) Did Ryder
Have Actual or Constructive Knowledge of the Violative Condition?

The
Secretary contends Ryder had actual knowledge of the violative condition.
Thompson was aware someone from M. C. Dean was going to go on the roof to check
out the exhaust fans. Foreman Brooks Bryan was not at Ryder’s facility on
August 27, 2009. When Bryan was away, Thompson, as leadman, had supervisory
authority over the site. “[W]hen a supervisory employer has actual or
constructive knowledge of the violative conditions, that knowledge is imputed
to the employer, and the Secretary satisfies [her] burden of proof without
having to demonstrate any inadequacy or defect in the employer’s safety
program.” Dover Elevator Co., 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862,
1993).

Ryder
argues that neither of its employees who testified at the hearing,
Kaiser and Thompson, knew Quinn was going to go up on the roof. This
assertion is not supported by the evidence presented during the hearing. At
several different points during his testimony, Thompson acknowledged he knew
someone from M. C. Dean was going to go up on the roof:

Q. Did [M. C. Dean] tell you that
they were definitely going to go up on the roof?

Thompson: I knew they had to, but
I didn’t know when, you know.

(Tr. 151).

Q. Did [M. C. Dean] talk to you about using an aerial
lift to work on those fans at that time?

Thompson: Well, when we talked about doing the
electrical on them, we said if they didn’t work, we had a ladder that we
could access the roof if they needed it. And he said if they had to access the
roof, they’d use the airlift.

(Tr. 165-166) .

Q. Did you talk to anybody with Ryder in management
about that conversation?

Thompson: No.

Q. So you’re the only one that knew about it?

Thompson: Right.

Q. You didn’t tell them about the policy not to
go up on the roof?

Thompson: No. We just stated that Ryder employees
couldn’t do it.

Q. Okay. So you just figured that somebody else might
do it?

Thompson: Right.

(Tr. 166-167).

Thompson
had actual knowledge an M. C. Dean employee was going to go on the roof, but he
did not have actual knowledge the employee would walk within 6 feet of the
skylights. The Secretary equates knowing an M. C. Dean employee was going to go
on the roof with actual knowledge of a violative condition. Accessing the roof,
however, is not tantamount to exposure to the violative condition of unguarded
skylights. As White conceded, not all skylights need to be guarded. Guarding is
only required when it is anticipated an employee is going to be exposed to the
hazard of falling through the skylight. “At that point in time, if
there’s any type of activity going on right around the skylight ,
then it should be guarded” (Tr. 75, emphasis added).

Thompson
testified it was possible to walk on the roof without coming within 6 feet of
the skylights or the edge of the roof. Although the exact dimensions of the
roof are lacking in the record, it is undisputed an employee could walk on the
roof while avoiding exposure to fall hazards existing at the edge of the roof
as well as around the skylight. Only two skylights, measuring 3 feet by 10 to
12 feet are mentioned in the record. Thompson testified it was possible to
access the exhaust fans without coming within 6 feet of the skylights or the
edge of the roof.

Undoubtedly,
someone should have reminded Quinn that there were skylights in the roof, and
informed him that the skylights were more difficult to see from the roof than
from the ground. Ryder was required, however, to guard the skylights only when
it reasonably anticipated an employee would be within 6 feet of them. Ryder had
neither actual nor constructive knowledge that an employee would be exposed to
the unguarded skylights that were remote from his work area. The Secretary has
failed to establish knowledge of the violative condition. The item is vacated.

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 that Item 1 of Citation No. 1,
alleging a serious violation of 29 C. F. R. § 1910.23(a)(4), is vacated,
and no penalty is assessed.

/s/
STEPHEN J. SIMKO, JR.

Judge

Date:   February 28, 2011