OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 97-1515 Decided February 27, 1998 Citations affirmed Judge Stephen J. Simko, Jr.

W. G. Kees Properties, Inc.

Eight construction safety items affirmed

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1998 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1998
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge became a final order of the Commission because no Commissioner directed review (29 U.S.C. § 661(j)). It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

W. G. Kees Properties, Inc. was cited for safety conditions at a construction site. The remaining allegations involved employees working without fall protection on a steep roof and second level, unsecured and insufficiently extended access ladders, and a stairway without required rail protection. OSHA also cited damaged energized temporary cords, lack of hard hats, and lack of protective footwear. The Secretary withdrew item 1 before the hearing. In an E-Z Trial bench decision, the judge affirmed all eight remaining items as serious violations and assessed $1,100 in total penalties.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(11); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(15); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1052(c)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.95(a)
  • Outcome: All eight remaining serious items were affirmed, with total penalties of $1,100.
  • Key point: The order affirmed the cited fall, access, electrical, and personal-protective-equipment violations after one separate item was withdrawn.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                       United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1924 Building - Room 2R90, 100 Alabama Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104

Phone: (404) 562-1640 Fax: (404) 562-1650

Secretary of Labor, :
Complainant, :
:
v. : OSHRC Docket No. 97-1515
:
W. G. Kees Properties, Inc., :
Respondent. :

Appearances:

         Karen E. Mock, Esquire                          John B. Campbell
                 Office of the Solicitor                 William G. Kees
                 Department of Labor                             W. G. Kees Properties, Inc.
                 Atlanta, Georgia                                Alpharetta, Georgia
                          For Complainant                                For Respondent

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

                                      DECISION AND ORDER
         This proceeding arises under §10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29

U.S.C. § 651, et seq (“the Act”) to review a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to §
9(a) of the Act and a proposed assessment of penalty thereon issued pursuant to § 10(a) of the Act.
On July 18,1997,W.G.Kees Properties,Inc. was issued a citation alleging serious violations
of construction standards contained in 29 C.F.R. Part 1926.
Prior to hearing, the Secretary withdrew item 1 of Citation No.1. Items 2 through 5 read as
follows:
Citation No. 1, Item 2a
29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(11): Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides
and edges 6 feet (1.8m) or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by
guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:
a) At the structure, employees working on a roof with eave to ground heights
of greater than 10 feet were not using slide guards (2x6) or equivalent fall
protective devices when installing shingles on a 8x12 pitched roof.

Citation No. 1, Item 2b
29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(15): Each employee on a walking/working surface 6 feet
(1.8m) or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by a guardrail
system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system:

   a) At the structure, wall opening and walking/working surfaces on the second
   level which were 6 feet above the lower level, where employees were exposed
   to fall hazards were not equipped with standard guardrail or other fall
   protective devices.

Citation No. 1, Item 2c
29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)8): Ladders placed on a location where they could be
displaced by workplace activities or traffic, such as in passageways, doorways, or
driveways, were not secured to prevent accidental displacement, nor was a barricade
used to keep the activities or traffic away from the ladder:

   a) At the structure, ladders used by employees to gain access to the roof area
   were not secured against accidental displacement.

Citation No. 1, Item 3a
29 C.F.R. § 1926.1052(c)(1): Stairways having four or more risers or rising more
than 30 inches (76cm), whichever is less, were not equipped with one handrail or one
stairrail system along each unprotected side or edge:

   a) In the structure, a stairway with 15 risers was not equipped with a handrail
   on each unprotected side.

Citation No. 1, Item 3b
29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1): Portable ladders were used for access to an upper
landing surface and the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9m) above the
upper landing surface to which the ladder was used to gain access.

   a) At the structure, ladders used by employees to gain access to the roof area
   did not extend at least 3 feet (.9m) above the surface landing on the roof to
   which the ladder was used to gain access.

Citation No. 1, Item 4

                                       2

29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I): Flexible cords and cables used for temporary wiring
were not protected from damage.

          a) At the structure, electrical power cords placed in the roadway and used to
          supply temporary electrical power for hand tools was not elevated or covered.
          Cords were damaged and energized wires were exposed and accessible to
          contact by employees.

   Citation No. 1, Item 5a
   29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a): Employees were not protected by protective helmets while
   working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or
   from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns.

          a) At the structure, employees working in and around the building at lower
          levels subject to head injuries from falling objects were not required to wear
          hard hats.

   Citation No. 1, Item 5b
   29 C.F.R. § 1926.95(a): Protective equipment, including personal protective
   equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremitites, protective clothing, respiratory
   devices, and protective shields and barriers were not provided, used, or maintained
   in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of
   processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical
   irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the
   function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.

          Protective shoes were not work at the site where the employees were exposed
          to being struck by or impaled by building materials or equipment.

   Respondent filed a timely notice of contest and this matter was assigned for E-Z Trial

proceedings pursuant to Commission Rules 29 C.F.R. § 2200.200 et seq. A hearing was conducted
on December 16,1997, in accordance with Commision Rule 209(f). A decision was issued from the
bench affirming the serious violations as alleged and assessing penalties totalling $1,100.00 as
follows:

               Item No.                                            Penalty
             2a, 2b and 2c                                         $600.00
               3a and 3b                                           $300.00
                   4                                               $100.00


                                             3

Item No. Penalty
5a and 5b $100.00

    Excerpts of relevent transcript pages and paragraphs including findings of fact and conclusions

of law are attached hereto in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 2200.209(f).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

                                           ORDER

    Based upon the foregoing decision, it is ORDERED:
    1.     Items 2a, 2b and 2c; 3a and 3b; 4; and 5a and 5b of Citation No. 1 are affirmed as

serious violations and penalties totalling $1,100.00 are assessed.

                                                   STEPHEN J. SIMKO, JR.
                                                   Judge, OSHRC

Date:

                                              4

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1998, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.