The ball has dropped, the confetti has been swept out of Times Square, and 2018 is in the books. It’s time to look back and take stock of what we learned from and about OSHA over the past year. More importantly, it is time to look ahead to what we can expect from OSHA as we transition to the out years of President Trump’s first term. This webinar will review OSHA enforcement, rulemaking, and other developments from 2018, and will discuss the Top 5 OSHA Issues employers should monitor and prepare for in the New Year.
We are now two years into the Trump Administration, and we have seen a mixed bag of changes in the OSHA enforcement and regulatory landscape. We have watched some late Obama-era OSHA rules get repealed by the Congressional Review Act or delayed and amended through deregulatory rulemaking. We have seen some efforts to boost up the VPP Program and other cooperative programs—the sorts of policy shifts at OSHA many expect in a transition to a republican administration. However, we have also been surprised by OSHA increasing the number of inspections, setting records for the number of $100K+ enforcement actions, and continuing to issue hard hitting press releases. And most surprising of all, OSHA still does not have a Senate-approved Assistant Secretary—the longest ever wait for a permanent OSHA Administrator.
As we move into the out years of Pres. Trump’s first term, we expect more reshuffling of OSHA’s enforcement priorities and policies, and more surprises, so it is critical to stay abreast of OSHA developments. This complimentary 2019 OSHA Webinar Series, presented by the OSHA-specialist attorneys in Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group, is designed to give employers insight into changes and developments at OSHA during this unpredictable time.
To register for an individual webinar, click the registration link in the program descriptions below. To register for the entire 2019 Series, click here to send an email request, and we will get you registered. If you missed any of our OSHA programs, here is a link to our webinar archive.
Tuesday, January 15th
Tuesday, July 23rd
Tuesday, February 12th
Tuesday, August 13th
Tuesday, March 19th
Tuesday, September 24th
Tuesday, April 16th
Tuesday, October 22nd
Tuesday, May 28th
Tuesday, November 19th
Tuesday, June 18th
Tuesday, December 17th
See below for descriptions of the webinars and registration links Continue reading
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1 PM Eastern, join Jordan B. Schwartz and Lindsay A. DiSalvo of the law firm Conn Maciel Carey for a complimentary webinar: “OSHA and the ADA: How Two Labor Laws Align and Diverge.”
OSHA guidance states that “if an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability is irrelevant.” But under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it can be difficult to determine when and how to accommodate a disability while also protecting safety of disabled employees and their co-workers. This assessment is further complicated when employers are unaware a disability may cause or contribute to a workplace hazard. It is important to understand the law in this context, especially due to America’s aging workforce.
The ADA also requires medical information related to a disability be kept confidential, yet OSHA mandates certain information be provided on OSHA injuries and illness recordkeeping Logs. A disability may also impact whether and how an injury is recorded. Likewise, both the ADA and OSHA rules impact employee drug testing and handling drug test information. Therefore, it is critical for employers to understand the intersection between the ADA and OSHA.
On November 13, 2018, Eric J. Conn, Micah Smith, and Beeta Lashkari of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group presented a webinar: “Process Safety Update: The Latest with OSHA’s PSM Standard & EPA’s RMP Rule.”
Following the tragic West Fertilizer explosion in 2013, then-President Obama issued an Executive Order directing OSHA, EPA and other agencies to “modernize” the way the government regulates chemical manufacturing processes. OSHA and EPA took sweeping actions in response to the Executive Order, from enforcement initiatives (like the second wave of Refinery PSM NEP inspections) to rulemaking and interpretation letters to overhaul OSHA’s PSM and EPA’s RMP regulatory landscape.
Then President Trump took office with a de-regulatory agenda. Just days into office, key safety and environmental regulations were delayed or repealed, new political leadership was installed, and enforcement policies were reexamined. So where does that leave OSHA’s and EPA’s efforts to change the structure of process safety management?
This webinar reviewed the status and likely future of OSHA’s PSM Standard and EPA’s RMP Rule, and other major safety and health related developments rolling out in the early stages of the Trump Administration.
On October 16, 2018, Eric J. Conn and Amanda R. Walker of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group presented a webinar: “Everything You Never Wanted to Know about OSHA Repeat, Willful and Egregious Violations.”
During the Obama Era, OSHA sharpened its enforcement teeth considerably by rewriting policies to characterize more violations as repeat and willful, and by significantly increasing its civil penalty authority. Now, OSHA violations characterized as Repeat or Willful carry penalties up to approx. $126,000 each. But what are Repeat and Willful violations? And what are these “Egregious” (or per-instance) citations OSHA has been issuing more and more often that lead to multi-million dollar enforcement actions?
This webinar covered the legal standard for Repeat, Willful and Egregious violations, the circumstances most often associated with them, the consequences for receiving them, and how OSHA’s enforcement policies have resulted in significant increases in the frequency with which we see them.
On September 18, 2018, Micah Smith and Dan Deacon of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group, presented a webinar: “Lessons Learned from OSHA’s Updated Walking/Working Surfaces Rule.”
Slips, trips and falls are among the leading causes of work-related injuries and fatalities in the U.S., and continue to pose problems for all employers. In November 2016, OSHA published its updated Walking / Working Surfaces (WWS) Standard, the regulation that governs slips, trips and fall hazards in general industry, after decades of attempts to amend the Rule. The Final Rule was intended to modernize and harmonize OSHA’s various regulations focused on fall hazards, based on advances in fall protection technologies and methods, and lessons learned over the decades.
Now, just over a year since the new WWS Rule has gone into effect, many questions remain for employers with respect to modifying workplace practices and physical installations, especially those related to fall protection, fixed ladders, and scaffolding.
Participants in this webinar learned:
On August 21, 2018, Eric J. Conn and Aaron R. Gelb of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group presented a webinar: “OSHA’s Policies of Public Shaming: the Status under the Trump Admin. and the Future.“
As a small budget agency, OSHA has long looked for policies that will leverage individual enforcement actions to have the greatest impact on Industry. That is the origin of OSHA’s controversial policy of “Regulation by Shaming.” During the Obama Administration, employer shaming became a significant enforcement tool and came in many forms, from increasing use of enforcement press releases that included embarrassing and inflammatory quotations about employers, to maintaining a public bad actors list in connection with the Severe Violator Enforcement Program, and the pièce de résistance – publishing a Rule by which OSHA will collect and publish employers’ injury and illness data and details about fatalities.
The Trump Administration has signaled it will take a different approach to public shaming, but at the very least, the vestiges of these policies still remain, and some Administration actions suggest they are here to stay.
During this webinar, participants learned about:
On July 10, 2018, Conn Maciel Carey attorneys Andrew J. Sommer, Eric J. Conn, and Megan S. Shaked presented a webinar: “Key Cal/OSHA Issues that California Employers Must Track.”
The state of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, is perhaps the most aggressive and enforcement-heavy approved state OSH Program in the nation. California employers face a host of requirements that other employers around the country do not. Likewise, the Cal/OSHA inspection and appeal process creates several unique landmines for California employers.
Of particular significance, in the coming year, California employers can expect an uptick in Cal/OSHA penalties as result of two significant changes, one adopting higher maximum civil penalty authority, and the other changing how the agency finds and cites violations characterized as Repeat.
During this webinar, participants learned about:
For a host of reasons, it is vital for employers to get compliance with OSHA’s standard for the “control of hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout)” (29 C.F.R. 1910.147) (LOTO) right, but it also happens to be one of the least understood and most often botched set of regulatory requirements in OSHA’s portfolio of standards.
This two-part article lays out:
- [Part 1]: 5 reasons it is critical for employers to ensure compliance with OSHA’s LOTO Standard; and
- [Part 2]: 5 common mistakes employers make implementing LOTO requirements.
Part 1 Summary: Five Reasons it is Critical to Get LOTO Right
As we discussed in Part 1 of this two-part article, there are five important OSHA enforcement reasons why it is vital for employers to truly grasp OSHA’s regulatory requirements for lockout/tagout (LOTO) and implement them.
Those 5 reasons are:
- Amputation Injuries Create Special Reporting Obligations
- LOTO Citations are Low Hanging Fruit for OSHA
- OSHA is Actively Pursuing LOTO Violations with a National Emphasis Program
- LOTO Violations Qualify for the Severe Violator Enforcement Program
- LOTO Violations are Among the Most Used for OSH Act Criminal Prosecutions
For a detailed discussion about those reasons, check out Part 1 of this two-part article.
Part 2: Five Common LOTO Mistakes
This part details the five most common mistakes and misunderstandings associated with OSHA’s regulatory requirements for LOTO.
1. Confusion about When the LOTO Standard Applies
Normal production operations are not covered by the LOTO standard. Rather, the requirements of OSHA’s LOTO standard kick in during servicing and/or maintenance, or any production activity that requires an employee to remove or bypass a guard or other safety device, or if an employee is required to place any part of his or her body into an area on a machine or piece of equipment where work is performed upon the material being processed. Otherwise, the employer is expected to install and maintain appropriate guards that protect employees as required by 1910.212, OSHA’s machine guarding standard.
While the LOTO and machine guarding standards tend to complement each other—one protects employees during normal production operations (guarding), while the other protects employees during servicing or maintenance (LOTO). Technically, OSHA may not cite the Continue reading
For a host of reasons, it is vital for employers to get compliance with OSHA’s standard for the “control of hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout)” (29 C.F.R. 1910.147) right, but it also happens to be one of the least understood and most often botched set of regulatory requirements in OSHA’s portfolio of standards.
This two-part article will lay out:
- [Part 1]: Five reasons it is critical for employers to ensure compliance with OSHA’s LOTO Standard; and
- [Part 2]: Five common mistakes employers make when implementing the LOTO requirements.
Part 1: Why it is Critical for Employers to Get LOTO Right
The list could be much longer, but we have identified five enforcement-related reasons why it is particularly important for employers to fully grasp OSHA’s LOTO requirements and to implement them effectively.
Before we get to the enforcement reasons for strict LOTO compliance, let’s first note that the associated hazards that LOTO was designed to protect against are serious and frequently realized. Workers performing service or maintenance on machinery face the risk of serious injuries and even death, if hazardous energy is not properly controlled. The most common types of injuries from unexpected energization during maintenance are amputations or lacerations to body parts, as well as electrocutions, burns, and crushing/struck-by.
OSHA reports that “craft workers, electricians, machine operators, and laborers are among the 3 million workers who service equipment routinely and face the greatest risk of injury. Workers injured on the job from exposure to hazardous energy lose an average of 24 workdays for recuperation.” OSHA also explains that the failure to control hazardous energy accounts for 10% of the serious accidents in most industries.
While employers should never lose focus from that important safety reason to focus on LOTO, the purpose of this article is to address the numerous regulatory enforcement reasons that getting LOTO right is uniquely important.
1. Amputation Injuries Create Special Reporting Obligations
Amputations, which is one of the primary hazards intended to be addressed by effective LOTO, is one of the only specific injury types for which there is a special duty for employers to proactively to report to OSHA. Continue reading
On June 5, 2018, Jordan B. Schwartz, Eric J. Conn, and Lindsay A. DiSalvo of Conn Maciel Carey, presented a webinar regarding “Joint and Multi-Employer, Independent Contractor, and Temp Labor OSHA and Employment Law Issues.“
Employers’ perceptions about their legal responsibilities for certain workers is not always reality, particularly in the context of oft-changing interpretations of what constitutes an employer-employee relationship. An employer may classify workers as a temp or independent contractor, but that does not mean DOL agrees. At the tail end of the Obama Admin., DOL issued guidance that a majority of workers should be treated as employees, insinuating that in most cases, employers are accountable for the obligations of an employer-employee relationship. However, the Trump Admin. appears is shifting gears. That guidance was withdrawn by new Sec. of Labor Acosta. Congress has also begun to undercut the broad joint-employer standard established by the NLRB in Browning-Ferris, by revisiting language in applicable laws. It remains essential for employers to carefully evaluate employment relationships and their own functions in the multi-employer context.
Even if there is no legal employer-employee relationship, companies may have safety obligations and liability depending on their role at multi-employer worksites or when using temporary workers. Protection of temporary workers was a priority of OSHA in the prior Admin., and the guidance developed in that context remains the current standard for host employers and staffing agencies. OSHA has also stood by its multi-employer policy, though it is being challenged in federal court.
On May 15, 2018, Amanda Strainis-Walker and Dan C. Deacon of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group presented a webinar: “The Latest on OSHA’s E-Recordkeeping and Anti-Retaliation Rule.“
OSHA’s controversial Electronic Recordkeeping and Anti-Retaliation Rule was promulgated in May 2016. Despite a barrage of negative comments during the rulemaking, multiple enforcement deferrals, and two legal challenges that have been stayed pending the Trump Administration’s re-evaluation of the Rule, all elements of the rule are currently in effect. Indeed, last December, hundreds of thousands of workplaces, for the first time, submitted their injury and illness recordkeeping data to OSHA through its Injury Tracking Application (ITA) web portal.
The Trump Administration is ready to announce its future plans for the E-Recordkeeping Rule, signaling that it will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise (or potentially rescind) the Rule later this month. However, the extent of the revisions to the rule remain unknown, and the timing is key as we approach July 1, 2018, the deadline for the second round of injury data submissions.
On April 17, 2018, Kate McMahon and Nick Scala, of the national Workplace Safety Practice at Conn Maciel Carey, presented a webinar: “New Silica and Beryllium Standards: Update on OSHA Chemical Rulemaking.”
OSHA’s struggles to reform its chemical exposure limits continue with the rocky roll-out of its two newest occupational exposure standards – Silica and Beryllium. Both standards have faced legal challenges, but will survive in some form resulting in a full panoply of new obligations, including significant reductions in the allowable exposure levels to these chemicals, and a comprehensive set of ancillary requirements, such as housekeeping, hygiene, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, workplace signage, training, etc.
MSHA, even without its own Silica Standard on the books, has adopted some elements of the hierarchy of controls fundamental to OSHA chemical standards. MSHA also conducts exposure monitoring at least annually for respirable silica, and rigorously enforces silica exposure issues. “Me too” Silica and Beryllium standards for the mining industry may also be in the offing.
On March 20, 2018, Kate McMahon and Amanda Strainis-Walker, of the national OSHA Practice Group at Conn Maciel Carey, presented a webinar: “Who is the New DOL Leadership Team Impacting OSH Law?”
Pres. Obama’s Secretary of Labor, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, and the rest of his political Leadership Team at the Department of Labor turned over the keys to the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration has now installed, or at least announced, its own OSHA and OSHRC Leadership Team, and the backgrounds and regulatory philosophies between the outgoing and new decision makers and policymakers could not be more different.
During this webinar, participants learned about the new appointees who have taken (or should soon take) the reins at OSHA, and how this new Leadership Team will affect OSHA enforcement and rulemaking. We also reviewed other personnel changes at OSHA and OSHRC that will impact the regulatory landscape for employers.
On February 20, 2018, Eric J. Conn and Aaron R. Gelb of the national OSHA Practice Group at Conn Maciel Carey presented a webinar: “Unlock The Mysteries of OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout Standard.”
OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout (Energy Control) Standard is always one of OSHA’s most frequently cited standards, and now, with the “Amputations National Emphasis Program” raging on into 2018, as well as LOTO violations continuing to be considered “high emphasis hazards” to qualify employers into the dreaded Severe Violator Enforcement Program, it is critical for employers to get Lockout/Tagout right. While LOTO continues to be an important standard, it also continues to be one of the least understood standards. This webinar will highlight the Top 10 most misunderstand and frequently cited aspects of the LOTO rule, and forecast some potential changes to the rule and OSHA’s enforcement of it.
The ball has dropped, the confetti has been swept out of Times Square, and 2017 is in the books. It’s time to look back and take stock of what we learned from and about OSHA over the past year. More importantly, the question on everyone’s mind (well, maybe just OSHA nerds like us), is what can we expect from OSHA in the first full year of the Trump Administration?
In this webinar event, attorneys from the national OSHA Practice Group at Conn Maciel Carey reviewed OSHA enforcement, rulemaking, and other developments from 2017, and discussed the Top 10 OSHA Issues employers should monitor and prepare for in the New Year. During this webinar, participants learned:
- 2017 OSHA enforcement data and trends, and the future of OSHA enforcement
- The Top 10 OSHA issues employers should track in 2018
- Rulemaking and de-regulatory developments and predictions
- Status/future of the roll-out of Pres. Trump’s De-Regulatory Agenda
- Other significant OSHA policy issues to track in the New Year
The Trump Administration has taken the reins at OSHA, and the first year of the new OSHA’s enforcement and regulatory (or de-regulatory) agenda is in the books. We have already seen significant changes in the way OSHA does business and the tools available to the Agency in its toolkit. Now, as the new Administration finishes filling out the OSHA leadership team with its own appointees, we are sure to see shifting of enforcement priorities, budgets and policies, and an amplified effort to repeal or re-interpret controversial Obama-era OSHA rules and policies. Accordingly, it is critical to stay abreast of OSHA developments.
Conn Maciel Carey’s complimentary 2018 OSHA Webinar Series, presented by the firm’s national OSHA Practice Group, is designed to give employers insight into changes and developments at OSHA during this period of flux.
To register for an individual webinar, click the link below the program description. To register for the entire 2018 series, click here to send us an email request, and we will register you. If you missed any programs from prior years, here is a link to an archive of recordings of those webinars.
Tuesday, January 16th
Tuesday, July 10th
Tuesday, February 20th
Future of OSHA’s Policy
Tuesday, March 20th
Tuesday, September 18th
Tuesday, April 17th
Tuesday, October 16th
Tuesday, May 5th
Tuesday, November 13th
Joint- and Multi-Employers,
Tuesday, December 4th
See below for descriptions of the webinars and registration links
On December 12, 2017, Eric J. Conn and Micah Smith of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group presented a webinar regarding “OSHA’s PSM Standard & EPA’s RMP Rule.”
Following the tragic West Fertilizer explosion in 2013, then-Pres. Obama issued an Executive Order directing OSHA, EPA and other agencies to “modernize” how the government regulates chemical manufacturing. In response, OSHA and EPA took sweeping actions, from rulemaking and interpretation letters to overhaul the PSM and RMP regulatory landscape, to new enforcement initiatives, like a the Chemical Facilities and Petroleum Refineries PSM National Emphasis Program. When Pres. Trump took office, several key process safety and environmental regulations were delayed or repealed, new political leadership was installed, and enforcement policies were reexamined. This webinar will review the status and likely future of OSHA’s PSM and EPA’s RMP regulatory programs.
During this webinar, participants learned:
OSHA’s Final Rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (aka the E-Recordkeeping Rule) requires employers of certain sizes that fall into certain categories to proactively submit electronic injury and illnesses data to OSHA through its new web portal – the “Injury Tracking Application.” The new rule dramatically changes the responsibilities and impacts of OSHA’s long-standing injury and illness recordkeeping program.
Historically, unless OSHA opened an enforcement inspection at an employer’s workplace or the Bureau of Labor Statistics requested an employer to participate in its annual injury data survey, employers’ OSHA 300 Logs and related forms remained strictly in-house. Employers kept the data and their OSHA logs in their HR or Safety Department office, posted them internally for employees to view for a couple of months, used the data themselves to make decisions about how to reduce risk of injury and illness in their workplaces, and then stored the records in a cabinet or desk drawer for five years. Now, OSHA’s new rule requires hundreds of thousands of employers to proactively submit these historically private records to OSHA, which in turn may publish the data online for all the world to see.
Key Changes in OSHA’s New Recordkeeping Rule
- All establishments with 250 or more employees (in industries not exempt from keeping injury logs) must submit to OSHA annually their injury and illness data from their OSHA 300 Logs, 301 Incident Reports, and 300A Annual Summaries.
- Establishments with 20-249 employees in certain so-called “high hazard industries” must each year submit information from their 300A Annual Summaries only.
- All of the submissions to OSHA must be made electronically, via a purportedly secure website.
- OSHA stated its original intent was to publish the data online, likely in a manner that is sortable, searchable, filterable, and as embarrassing to employers as possible.
Note however, in this first year of the rule, for the upcoming data submission of 2016 injury data to be made in calendar year 2017, all employers, irrespective of size, are only required to submit 300A Annual Summary data.
Deadline to Submit Data – A Moving Target
The deadline to submit data has been a topic of discussion, and there remains some uncertainty whether employers will be required to electronically submit injury and illness data. Continue reading
On November 14, 2017, Eric J. Conn and Lindsay A. DiSalvo of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group presented a webinar regarding “OSHA’s Fatality, Hospitalization & Amputation Reporting Rule.“
In former President Obama’s second term, his Administration rolled-out a major change to OSHA’s Fatality & Significant Injury Reporting Rule. Not to be confused with the new Electronic Recordkeeping Rule (which requires certain employers to submit injury and illness data to OSHA on annual basis), this amended rule required all employers to make prompt phone calls to OSHA when work related fatalities or covered in-patient hospitalizations and amputations occur.
The rule has resulted in thousands more reports of incidents to OSHA than before. Now, three years into the new reporting scheme, we have learned a lot of lessons about what is being reported to OSHA, what non-mandatory reports are often made, and what OSHA is doing with all the new reported incidents.
During this webinar, participants learned:
The regulatory requirement at 29 C.F.R. 1904.39, OSHA’s Fatality and Serious Injury Reporting Rule, which requires employers to report to OSHA certain in-patient hospitalizations, may seem straightforward, but there are several nuances employers routinely miss that affect the determination whether a hospitalization is actually reportable to OSHA.
Although failing to timely report a reportable hospitalization can be cited, and could set up an employer for costly Repeat violations, over-reporting has its own significant consequences. Reporting hospitalizations very often triggers an on-site enforcement inspection, and OSHA issues a citation at least 75% of the time it conducts an inspection (an even higher percentage for incident inspections). Moreover, at least 85% of OSHA citations are characterized as Serious, Repeat or Willful, and OSHA’s civil penalty authority has skyrocketed by 80% in the past two years. Accordingly, it is critical that employers understand the intricacies of what makes an employee’s visit to the hospital a reportable event, and conversely, what does not, so as to avoid unnecessary and costly reports to OSHA.
As we outlined in a prior article discussing OSHA’s updated Fatality and Serious Injury Reporting Rule, under the current reporting requirements, employers must:
“within 24 hours after the in-patient hospitalization of one or more employees [that occurs within 24 hours of the work-related incident] . . . report the in-patient hospitalization . . . to OSHA.”
This is a significant change from the prior reporting rule, which required a report to OSHA only if three or more employees were hospitalized overnight. It was extraordinarily rare that a single workplace incident resulted in the overnight hospitalization of three or more workers, and so the instances of reporting under that rule were infrequent. The new rule, however, requires a report to OSHA for the hospitalization of a single employee, which has opened the door to thousands more incidents that must be evaluated for possible reporting.
Although the current regulation has increased the number of employee hospitalizations that are being reported to OSHA, many of those incidents reported to OSHA did not actually meet the criteria for reporting, based on a very particular definition of hospitalization and a limited time period for when the hospitalization must occur. In other words, many incidents are being reported to OSHA (effectively inviting OSHA to conduct a site enforcement inspection) that should not have been reported at all. Continue reading
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 1:00 PM Eastern, join Kara Maciel, Amanda Walker, and Dan Deacon of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice and OSHA Practice, for a complimentary webinar regarding “Addressing Employee Complaints: Whistleblower / Retaliation Claims and OSHA Notices of Alleged Hazards.”
OSHA whistleblower complaints have been on the rise, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission receives more charges of retaliation than any other type of claim for the statutes they regulate, including Title VII discrimination.
It is essential for employers to develop, maintain, and evaluate their employee complaint policy and procedure to foster a supportive work environment and address employee issues before they turn into a regulatory issue or the basis for litigation. As part of this complaint policy, employers must also ensure their management representatives understand how to effectively interact with a complaining employee after a grievance has been communicated, including dealing with performance issues in a manner that makes clear any adverse employment action is distinct from the employee’s complaint.
During this webinar, participants will learn:
On September 12, 2017, Eric J. Conn and Dan C. Deacon of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice presented a webinar regarding the Latest on OSHA’s Electronic Recordkeeping and Anti-Retaliation Rule.
OSHA’s controversial Electronic Injury and Illness Recordkeeping data submission rule, along with new Anti-Retaliation elements, has thus far survived a barrage of negative stakeholder comments during the rulemaking, multiple enforcement deferrals and delays of effective dates, and legal challenges complete with preliminary injunction motions. As of today, all elements of the rule are still in effect, including limits on post-injury drug testing and safety incentive programs, and barring a change before December 1, 2017, hundreds of thousands of workplaces will, for the first time, submit injury and illness recordkeeping data to OSHA, possibly for publishing online.
On August 15, 2017, Kathryn M. McMahon, Amanda Strainis-Walker, and Micah Smith of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice, presented a webinar regarding the OSHA Status of Pres. Trump’s Agenda for the “Deconstruction of the Administrative State”
President Trump was carried to the White House on promises (or threats) of rolling back government regulations. At the CPAC conference this year, Pres. Trump’s Sr. Policy Advisor, Steve Bannon, framed much of Trump’s agenda with the phrase, “deconstruction of the administrative state,” meaning the system of regulations and taxes that the president says have stymied economic growth. OSHA regulations are apparently at the heart of this deconstruction. Now, only half a year into the Trump Administration, we have seen significant changes to the OSHA regulatory landscape. This webinar will take a deep dive into the actions taken by the Trump Administration in conjunction with the Republican Congress to roll-back OSHA regulations or otherwise lessen the punitive influence of OSHA on our nation’s employers. From the repeal of several Obama-era midnight rules, to a budget proposal that could gut OSHA’s enforcement efforts, to a series of Executive Orders that shift to a business friendly regulatory agenda.
This webinar addressed:
On July 11, 2017 attorneys from Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice and OSHA Practice, delivered a webinar regarding “Joint and Multi-Employer, Independent Contractor, and Temp Worker Employment Law and OSHA Issues.”
Employers’ perceptions about their legal responsibilities for certain workers is not always reality. Although an employer may classify workers as temporary workers or independent contractors, that does not mean the Department of Labor takes the same view. At the tail end of the Obama Administration, DOL was vocal about its belief that most workers should be treated as employees, insinuating that in most cases, employers will be accountable for the specific obligations of an employer-employee relationship. The Trump Administration is moving in the other direction, but a lot of questions remain unanswered or muddled. DOL has also been cracking down on employee misclassification and division of responsibility among multiple employers. Additionally, employers continue to have certain safety and health related obligations and potential OSHA liability depending on their role at multi-employer worksites or in joint employer situations.
It is essential for employers to carefully evaluate the employment relationship and their own individual function in the multi-employer context.
This webinar covered:
- Criteria used to evaluate the employer-employee relationship
- Employers roles on a multi-employer worksite and the specific obligations associated with each role
- Guidance on how to clearly establish an independent contractor relationship
- How to lawfully and effectively manage temporary workers at your workplace