SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v.
HEATON ERECTING, INC.,
Respondent.
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-452
ORDER
The Commission grants the Secretary's motion to withdraw his citation and complaint
alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(e)(10). The Commission affirms the Judge's
disposition of the remaining citation in this case alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. §
1926.451(e)(4).
FOR THE COMMISSION
Ray H Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Dated: March 5. 1987
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v.
HEATON ERECTING, INC.
Respondent.
OSHRC Docket No. 84- 452
DECISION
Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman; RADER and WALL, Commissioners.
BY THE COMMISSION:
This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission under 29 U.S.C.
§ 661(j), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
§651-678 ("the Act"). The Commission is an adjudicatory agency, independent of
the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It was
established to resolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by the
Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatory functions. See section 10(c) of the
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c).
The issue before the Commission is whether Administrative Law Judge Joe D. Sparks erred in
vacating a citation item alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R.§ 1926.451(e)(10). The standard
states in part:
§ 1926.45I Scaffolding
(e) Manually propelled mobile scaffolds.
(10) Guardrails made of lumber, not less than 2x4 inches (or other material providing
equivalent protection). approximately 42 inches high, with a midrail, of 1x6 inch lumber
(or other material providing equivalent protection), and toeboards, shall be installed at
all open sides and ends on all scaffolds more than 10 feet above the ground or floor.
The Secretary maintained that the standard was violated because the distance from the
unguarded scaffold to the ground was over 40 feet. Based on the Commission's decision in
Schwarz-Jordan, Inc., 11 OSAHRC 37/A2, 11 BNA OSHC 2145, 1984 CCH OSHD (P) 26,989, rev'd,
777 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1985),[[1]] the judge vacated the item, noting that the scaffold
stood only 50-70 inches above its base and that the standard requires guardrails only when
the scaffold stands more than 10 feet above its base.
Because the judge held the standard to have been inapplicable, he did not make findings on
a dispute over the Infeasibility of guardrails that was litigated by the parties. Since
the judge issued his decision, the Commission has substantially altered the requirements
of the former defense of impossibility. In Dun-Par Engineered Form Co., No. 79-2553 (July
30, 1986), the Commission changed the primary element of the defense to
"Infeasibility" and shifted the burden of persuasion to the Secretary on the
issue of feasible alternative protective measures.
We believe that the resolution of the factual dispute over the feasibility of guardrails
would substantially facilitate our review of this case. We note, however, that disposition
of this may require credibility determinations, which should be resolved by the judge.
Moreover, because the parties were not aware of their respective burdens of proof at the
time of the hearing, they should have the opportunity to adduce additional evidence and
argument on the infeasibility defense. We therefore remand this case to Judge Sparks for
the taking of evidence and argument on the infeasibility defense. The judge shall also
enter findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with our decision in Dun-Par on
the issue. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction of the case pending receipt of these
additions to the record.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the judge for further proceedings consistent with
this decision. [[2/]]
FOR THE COMMISSION
Ray H. Darling, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Dated: JUL 31 1986
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant.
v.
HEATON ERECTING, INC.,
Respondent.
OSHRC Docket No. 84-452
APPEARANCES:
Daniel A. Caldwell, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, Atlanta,
Georgia, on behalf of complainant.
Carol Heaton, Safety Engineer, Heaten Erecting, Inc., Forest Park, Georgia, on behalf of
respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
SPARKS. Judge: An investigation of a fatal falling accident resulted in a serious citation
being issued to Heaton Erecting, Inc., which charged it with violations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act ("Act") in connection with the use of a
manually- propelled mobile scaffold. Item 1(a) alleged respondent violated 29 C.F.R.
§1926.451(e)(10) 1/ by failing to equip the scaffold with standard guardrails and item
1(b) charged that 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(e)(4) 2/ was violated in that the scaffold was not
tightly planked the full width of the scaffold.
Respondent contends that the standards did not apply under the circumstances of this case,
the scaffold was not a serious fall hazard and the work could not have been performed from
a tightly planked scaffold and would have created a greater hazard.
I.
GUARDRAILS
Respondent concedes that the mobile scaffold did not have guardrails but contends that the
devices were not required as the height of the scaffold was less than ten feet from the
floor. The scaffold was on the fourth floor near the outer perimeter of the building. Mr.
John Ferrell stood on a plank of the scaffold while welding steel angles or braces to the
outside edge of the building to which precast concrete panels would be attached. While
working Mr. Ferrell wore a safety belt which he tied to an overhead beam although he was
not tied-off while mounting or dismounting the scaffold.
The essential facts are not disputed. The distance from the scaffold to the ground below
was more than 40 feet. The scaffold itself was 50 to 70 inches high.
The standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(e)(10) requires guardrails on "all open sides
and ends on all scaffolds more than 10 feet above the ground or floor. . . " The
Secretary contends the phrase refers to the potential fall distance. The Review Commission
recently addressed the question; however, and held that the phrase "above the ground
or floor" means the distance between the scaffold platform and the base of the
scaffold. Schwarz-Jordan, Inc., OSAHRC , 11 BNA OSHC 2145, 1984 CCH OSHD (p) 26,989 (No.
81-2738, July 20, 1984).
In this case, the height of the scaffold was 70 inches and the distance between the
scaffold platform and the base of the scaffold was 50 inches (Tr. 43. 64). Commission
Judges are bound by decisions of the Review Commission. Item 1(a) must be vacated.
II.
PLATFORM PLANKING
It is not disputed that the scaffold platform was not "tightly planked for the full
width of the scaffold except for necessary entrance opening" 29 C.F.R. §
1926.451(e)(4). The compliance officer testified that the tight planking of the platform
was necessary to prevent falls (Tr. 40-41). The compliance officer explained that the
solid planking should have been at the "topmost" part of the scaffold supported
by the third horizontal rail (Tr. 42). As used by respondent on the day of the accident,
the scaffold had one plank on the second rail and one plank on the third level (Ex.
C-1(c)). The employee apparently stood on the lower plank and used the higher plank to
rest his tools and equipment (Tr. 86).
Respondent contends that a tightly planked scaffold would create a greater hazard and
would make work almost impossible. The welding was performed at a height of about six to
eight feet (Tr. 13). Art Copeland, an ironworker, explained the problems of working from
such a platform as follows (Tr. 85-86):
For one thing, if you deck it over all the way across on the top floor, wells every time I
get up on it, I have to approximately bend over. I'd have to bend over approximately down
to this range right here [indicating] which is involved tremendous back ache after eight
hours. That's stress. Could cause me to topple over the side.
Like in this case here. John Ferrell was a pretty tall man, and I'm a tall man -- if you
deck this scaffold here all the way across, I couldn't work on it because my head hits the
ceiling. The head hits everything up there and I was too high above the connections.
Structural connection like that you have to apply a vertical weld, which means you need to
be level with it, or under it so you can go up with it. And If you're over it it's hard to
do.
Copeland's testimony was candid and logical, One can easily see considerable difficulty
standing on a platform nearly 70 inches (5 feet,10 inches) high and attempting to weld
items only six to eight feet high or about at ankle to knee height.
Heaton raises several affirmative defenses Including the "impossibility of
performance" and "greater hazard" defenses. The Review Commission stated
the necessary elements of those defenses in Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 80 OSAHRC 125/A2.
9 BNA OSHC 1144,. 1981 CCH OSHD (P) 25,069 (No. 77-1091, 1980), as follows (1981 CCH OSHD
p. 30,976):
In order to establish one of the impossibility defenses, the employer must prove that (1)
compliance with the requirements of the cited standard either could be functionally
impossible or would preclude performance of required work, and (2) alternative means of
employee protection are unavailable. M. J. Lee Construction Co., 79 OSAHRC 12/A2. 7 BNA
OSHC 1140, 1979 CCH OSHD (p) 23.330 (No. 15094, 1979). In order to sustain a greater
hazard defenses, the employer must show that (1) compliance with the cited standard would
diminish rather than enhance employee safety. (2) alternative means of protecting the
employees are unavailable, and (3) a variance application under section 6(d) of the Act,
29 U. S. C. § 665(d). would be inappropriate. H. S. Holtze Construction Co.. 79 OSAHRC
82/A2v 7 BNA OSHC l753, 1979 CCH OSHD (P) 23,925 (No. 16059, 1979)9 rev'd in part on other
grounds. No. 79-1957 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 1980).
Here the evidence is convincing that respondent's welders would not be able to perform
their work from a tightly planked platform on the "topmost" tier of the scaffold
as described by the compliance officer because of the severe bending necessary to work at
the required level. Ironworker Copeland's testimony that the danger of losing one's
balance and falling is greater while working in that position is also convincing (Tr.85,
86, 95, 110-111). The Secretary did not offer evidence In rebuttal. As an alternate means
of protection, welders used safety belts while working from the scaffold. There is no
suggestion that such protection was inadequate. There is no indication that Heaton
requested a variance so its defense of greater hazard must fall. Respondent, however,
established its affirmative defense of impossibility of performance of required work. Item
1(b) must also be vacated.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent, Heaton Erecting, Inc., primarily engages in steel erection but also
performs precast concrete erection (Tr. 10).
2. Respondent is subject to the Act and the regulations issued thereunder (Tr. 5, 10).
3. In April 1984, respondent, was engaged in the erection of precast concrete panels as a
subcontractor at the construction site of an office building located at 1265 Peachtree
Street, Atlanta, Georgia (Tr. 11).
4. On April 2, 1984, Mr. John Ferrell fell approximately 40 feet to his death (Tr. 15, 81,
88, 99, 104).
5. On the day of the accident, John Ferrell was welding angles or braces to the outside
edge of the building to which precast panels were attached (Ex. C-1(c); Tr. 12-13, 15, 25,
80, 94, 105-106, 114).
6. The angles were attached to the building about six to eight feet above the floor level
at the outside of the building. He used a manually-propelled mobile scaffold to reach the
height necessary to perform his work (Tr. 13-14, 29, 31).
7. The scaffold did not have guardrails on the sides (Ex. C-1; Tr. 29, 30, 34, 79-80, 98,
117-118).
8. Ferrell was wearing a safety belt and, while working from the scaffold, was able to
tie-off securely; but, while mounting and dismounting the scaffold, he was not tied off
(Tr. 26, 30, 32, 58-59, 30, 62, 93, 109, 112).
9. It would have been impossible to have performed the required welding work while
standing on tightly planked topmost level of the scaffold because of the severe bending
which would have been required. Such work position would also present an increased danger
of falling.
10. The employee worked from the scaffold consisting of one plank approximately 18 inches
wide (Ex. C-1(c); Tr. 40-42, 46).
11. The top of the scaffold was approximately 70 inches from floor. The working deck to
the floor was approximately 50 inches (Tr. 43, 64, 68).
12. A fall from the scaffold to the floor would not result In death or serious Injury (Tr.
64).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Review Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.
2. Respondent did not violate the standards at 29 C.F.R.§ 1926.451(e)(10) and 29 C.F.R.
§ 1926.451(e)(4) as alleged.
ORDER
Items 1(a) and 1(b) of the citation are vacated and the complaint dismissed.
Dated this 10th day of December, 1984.
JOE D. SPARKS
Judge
HEATON ERECTING, INC.,
Applicant,
v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Respondent.
OSHRC Docket No. 84-452
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
The applicant, Heaton Erecting. Inc., petitioned for an award of attorney's fees and
related costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504.
After negotiations, the parties have filed a stipulation and joint motion. It is ORDERED:
1. The agreement is approved and the stipulations and representations of the agreement are
incorporated into this order.
2. The Secretary shall pay to respondent the sum of $7,203.68 in full and final
satisfaction of all fees and costs under the EAJA.
3. This proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.
Dated this 31st day of July, 1987
JOE D. SPARKS
Judge
FOOTNOTES:
[[1]]The Commission's decision in Schwarz-Jordan was subsequently overruled by the Fifth
Circuit in Brock v. Schwarz-Jordan, Inc., 777 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1985).
[[2]] Commissioner Rader agrees with the majority that this case should be remanded for a
dermination whether guardrails were infeasible. If the Secretary seeks to allege and prove
that Heaton should have used alternative protection measures in accorance with the
Commission decision in Dun-Par Engineered Form Co., No. 82-929, the Commissioner Rader
would limit the alternative measures sought to be imposed consistent with his accurate
opinion in Dun-Par.
[[1/]] Section 1926.451(e)(10) of 29 C.F.R. provides:
Guardrails made of lumber, not less than 2 x 4 inches (or other material providing
equivalent protection), approximately 42 inches high, with a midrail of I x 6 inch lumber
(or other material providing equivalent protection), and toeboards, shall be installed at
all open sides and ends on all scaffolds more than 10 feet above the ground or floor.
Toeboards shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height. Wire mesh shall be installed in
accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
[[2/]] Section 1926.451(e)(4) of 29 C.F.R. states:
Platforms shall be tighly planked for the full width of the scaffold except for necessary
entrance opening. Platforms shall be secured in place.