OSHA’s controversial new Electronic Injury and Illness Recordkeeping data submission rule, along with its new Anti-Retaliation elements has thus far survived a barrage of negative stakeholder comments during the rulemaking, multiple enforcement deferrals, and a legal challenge complete with a preliminary injunction motions, and continuing legal challenges. As of today, all elements of the rule are in effect, including limits on post-injury drug testing and safety incentive programs, and barring a change before July 1, 2017, thousands of employers will, for the first time, be required to submit injury and illness recordkeeping data to OSHA, possibly for publishing online.
Participants in this complimentary webinar learned about:
Requirements of OSHA’s Electronic Injury Recordkeeping data submission
The status of OSHA’s new database to receive injury data
OSHA’s policy on publishing the injury data received from employers
The Anti-Retaliation Elements of the E-Recordkeeping Rule
The status and future of this new Final Rule
The fate of “Volks” Recordkeeping Statute of Limitations Rule
This was the fifth webinar event in Conn Maciel Carey’s 2017 OSHA Webinar Series. Plan to join us for the remaining complimentary monthly OSHA webinars. Click here for the full schedule and program descriptions for the 2017 series, and/or to register for the entire 2017 series, click here to send us an email request, and we will get you registered.
OSHA’s Injury and Illness Recordkeeping regulations require employers to record certain injuries and illnesses within seven days of the incident and also to preserve a copy of those records for five years. 29 C.F.R. Part 1904 et seq. Separately, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to issue citations alleging violations of regulations adopted under the Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. The statute of limitations in the OSH Act states, however, that “[n]o citation may be issued under this section after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation.” 29 U.S.C. § 658(c).
The article provides a historical look at how OSHA interpreted and enforced its injury and illness recordkeeping regulations Continue reading →
In what is certain to land OSHA back in court, OSHA plans to soon roll out a rule that attempts to end-run around the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision that rejected the Agency’s historical doctrine that violations of OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping requirements continued each day an employer’s log remained incomplete or inaccurate, and declared instead that recordkeeping violations may only be cited within a strict six month statute of limitations. OSHA has attached the misleading name “Clarification of Employer’s Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness” to this rulemaking.
The driver behind OSHA’s proposed amendment to its injury and illness recordkeeping rule is not to clarify anything, but rather to attempt to undo the D.C. Circuit’s very clear 2012 decision in AKM LLC v. Secretary of Labor (aka the Volks Constructors case). In Volks Constructors, OSHA argued that every day the logs remain inaccurate, the employer commits a new violation, and extends the enforcement deadline. In other words, even though Congress set a six month statute of limitations for OSHA violations, OSHA believed the statute of limitations for injury and illness recordkeeping violations was five years plus six months due to the “continuing” nature of recordkeeping violations. Applying this expansive and flawed view of the statute of limitations historically gave OSHA wide latitude in recordkeeping enforcement. Continue reading →
As we wind down the year and head into the waning days of the Obama Administration, we look with interest at the Administration’s latest, and likely final, Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda, published November 20th.
If one were a jaded OSHA defense lawyer like me, the thought that publication of the Agency’s list of regulatory priorities and planned rulemaking activities on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday, when most of the country is focused on family, preparing a Thanksgiving feast, and gearing up for some good football, might have been intentional. “Maybe they won’t notice?” Well, we did, and we thought it would be useful for our readers to have a summary of OSHA’s final priorities in the regulatory arena as the Obama Administration focuses on legacy, and what they would like to accomplish before Secretary Perez and Assistant Secretary for OSHA David Michaels turn out the lights next year at 200 Constitution Avenue.
“So many workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities are preventable. They not only put workers in harm’s way, they jeopardize their economic security, often forcing families out of the middle class and into poverty. The Department’s safety and health regulatory proposals are based on the responsibility of employers to provide workers with workplaces that do not threaten their safety or health and we reject the false choice between worker safety and economic growth. Our efforts will both save lives and improve employers’ bottom lines.”
One note about OSHA’s robust list of planned regulatory activity for 2016 — and an apt idiom for an analysis of the Thanksgiving Regulatory Agenda — OSHA’s eyes are too big for its stomach. While the Agency’s plans look ambitious and aggressive, if history is a guide, the cumbersome rulemaking machinery will prevent much of these plans from coming to fruition, especially in the final few months before the presidential election. Unless 2016 is an exception, this means there really are only a few productive months remaining for OSHA to accomplish some subset of its long list of priority actions. Looking at the roadblocks Dr. Michaels has already faced in the regulatory arena throughout his term – some of which came from the White House itself – it is unlikely OSHA will accomplish much of what appears in its final Regulatory Agenda.
Notwithstanding, it is important to understand the Agency’s rulemaking plans for numerous reasons, the most important of which is that you can count on the fact that Dr. Michaels’ last priorities will become the first priorities of the next Administration, should a Democrat again take the White House.