Health agency regulation of workplace safety
Health Agency Regulation of Workplace Safety: Overview
The primary federal agency responsible for workplace safety is OSHA, established under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). OSHA’s mission is to ensure safe and healthful working conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.
Key Functions of OSHA:
Setting safety standards for industries and workplaces.
Inspections and enforcement through citations and penalties.
Rulemaking to address emerging workplace hazards.
Providing guidance and assistance to employers and employees.
Important Case Law Shaping OSHA and Workplace Safety Regulation
Case 1: Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene Case) (1980)
Facts: OSHA established a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for benzene, a carcinogen, aiming to reduce worker exposure.
Issue: Whether OSHA’s regulation met the statutory requirement to demonstrate a significant risk and the feasibility of the standard.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that OSHA must demonstrate significant risk before regulating and that feasibility alone is insufficient.
Significance: This case set a high evidentiary bar for OSHA, requiring proof that exposure poses a significant health risk before regulation and balancing feasibility.
Case 2: Secretary of Labor v. OSHRC (Harding Glass Co.) (1990)
Facts: OSHA cited Harding Glass for failing to comply with a safety standard related to machine guarding.
Issue: Whether the citation was valid and supported by evidence.
Decision: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) upheld the citation.
Significance: This case underscores OSHA’s authority to enforce detailed safety standards and the importance of employer compliance to prevent workplace hazards.
Case 3: General Electric Co. v. OSHRC (1983)
Facts: OSHA cited General Electric for violations regarding exposure to asbestos.
Issue: Whether OSHA properly applied standards and whether the exposure posed a hazard.
Decision: The court deferred to OSHA’s expertise in determining the hazard and enforcement action.
Significance: Affirmed judicial deference to OSHA’s scientific expertise in assessing workplace hazards.
Case 4: Chamber of Commerce v. OSHA (2012)
Facts: OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to regulate exposure to beryllium, a toxic metal.
Issue: Whether OSHA exceeded its statutory authority with the ETS.
Decision: The court upheld OSHA’s use of ETS under the conditions that there is a grave danger.
Significance: Confirmed OSHA’s authority to act swiftly in emergencies to protect workers from serious risks.
Case 5: NRDC v. OSHA (2021) — COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Case
Facts: OSHA issued a COVID-19 emergency temporary standard requiring large employers to mandate vaccines or testing.
Issue: Whether OSHA had statutory authority to issue such a broad mandate.
Decision: The Supreme Court stayed (blocked) the enforcement of the vaccine-or-test mandate.
Significance: Raised important questions about the scope of OSHA’s authority in public health emergencies, balancing worker safety with limits on agency power.
Case 6: Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc. (1978)
Facts: OSHA inspectors sought to conduct an unannounced inspection without a warrant.
Issue: Whether OSHA has the right to conduct warrantless workplace inspections.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that OSHA inspectors need an administrative warrant or employer consent.
Significance: Established Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches in the workplace, balancing enforcement with privacy rights.
Summary: Key Principles from These Cases
OSHA must base regulations on significant risk and feasibility (Benzene Case).
Courts generally give deference to OSHA’s expertise in assessing hazards (GE v. OSHRC).
OSHA has the power to act quickly in emergencies (Chamber of Commerce v. OSHA).
The scope of OSHA’s authority, especially in public health crises, is not unlimited and subject to judicial review (NRDC v. OSHA).
OSHA must respect constitutional rights, such as requiring warrants for inspections (Marshall v. Barlow’s).
Enforcement cases demonstrate OSHA’s ability to impose penalties for non-compliance to maintain workplace safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments