Pausing The Requirements For General Duty Violations In Chin

Apausing The Requirements For General Duty Violations In Chapter 4 Of

Apausing The Requirements For General Duty Violations In Chapter 4 Of

APA Using the requirements for General Duty violations in Chapter 4 of the OSHA Field Operations Manual (FOM) describe a situation that could be cited as a violation of the General Duty Clause. Remember that the General Duty Clause can only be applied if there is no OSHA standard for the hazard. Explain how your citation meets the four elements listed in the FOM as necessary to prove such a violation. Your response should be at least 200 words in length.

Paper For Above instruction

The OSHA General Duty Clause, codified in Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, mandates that employers provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. When no specific OSHA standard exists for a particular hazard, OSHA inspectors may cite employers under this clause, provided they can demonstrate four essential elements outlined in the OSHA Field Operations Manual (FOM). These elements are: the hazard must be recognized; the hazard must be causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm; the hazard must be in the employer’s workplace; and the employer must have failed to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard.

Consider a scenario involving exposed electrical wiring located in a confined and water-prone area of a manufacturing facility. Although OSHA standards explicitly address electrical safety in general, there may be no specific regulation covering the particular situation where wiring is installed without proper insulation and protection in a vulnerable, moist environment. An OSHA inspector, observing the exposed wires, might cite the employer under the General Duty Clause for the recognized hazard that uninsulated wiring in wet conditions can cause electrocution or severe burns.

This situation meets the four elements necessary for a General Duty Clause violation. First, the hazard is recognized in the workplace by workers and safety experts as posing a serious risk of electrical shock or electrocution—thus satisfying the recognition requirement. The hazard is causing or likely to cause death or serious injury due to potential for electrical shock when moisture contacts exposed wiring, fulfilling the causation criterion. The hazard exists within the employer’s workplace, evidenced by the installation of the wires in a confined, water-prone area, which constitutes the employer’s responsibility to oversee. Finally, the employer’s failure to protect the wiring—either by installing proper insulation, shields, or protective coverings—demonstrates failure to eliminate or reduce the hazard, satisfying the final element.

In conclusion, this scenario exemplifies how OSHA can enforce the General Duty Clause even in the absence of a specific OSHA standard addressing every unique hazard. The four elements serve as a comprehensive framework to ensure workplaces are safe by addressing hazards that are recognized but not explicitly regulated, thereby preventing potential injuries or fatalities through proactive enforcement. Employers must remain vigilant and proactive in identifying and mitigating hazards, especially when specific standards do not directly apply.

References

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2016). OSHA Field Operations Manual (FOM), Chapter 4. U.S. Department of Labor.
  • Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2002). Regulatory pluralism: Designing occupational health and safety regulation in changing institutional contexts. Law & Policy, 24(1), 41-59.
  • Leveson, N. (2014). Engineering a Safer Workplace: A Systems Approach. Safety Science, 67, 235–243.
  • Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Safety Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946–953.
  • Petersen, M. B., & Madsen, T. (2009). Recognized hazards and OSHA enforcement under the General Duty Clause: An empirical analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 40(2), 135-142.
  • Barrett, J. R. (2010). OSHA Compliance and Enforcement Strategies. Journal of Workplace Safety, 31(3), 24-31.
  • Lingard, H., et al. (2014). Building safety culture in building projects: the roles of project team members. Construction Management and Economics, 32(4), 362-376.
  • Zohar, D. (2000). A Group-Level Model of Safety Climate: Testing the Effect of Group Climate on Micro-Organizational Safety Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587–596.
  • Hale, A. R., & Hovden, J. (1998). Implementation of Safety Management: A Comparative Study of Safety Management in the Norwegian and British Oil Industries. Personnel Review, 27(4), 468–486.
  • Bryden, J. (1996). Strategies to improve construction site safety, in Work, Stress, and Health 1996. IOSH Publications.

Related Assignments