AFL-CIO Sues to Make Employers Pay for Protective Gear
When OSHA inspected Union Tank Car Co. in 1996, the agency cited the railroad car repair business for requiring its workers to pay for safety gear such as boots and welding gloves. But when Union Tank Car challenged the citation, the agency's review commission tossed it out. The commission said...
February 28, 2007 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
When OSHA inspected Union Tank Car Co. in 1996, the agency cited the railroad car repair business for requiring its workers to pay for safety gear such as boots and welding gloves. But when Union Tank Car challenged the citation, the agency's review commission tossed it out. The commission said OSHA hadn't provided clear rules about whether employers had to pay for protective gear and therefore could not punish employers that made workers shoulder the cost.
Case closed? Not on the underlying issue. Nearly 10 years later, there is still no word from OSHA about whether employers must pay for mandatory safety equipment.
A new case seeks to put an end to the delays. The AFL-CIO filed a complaint asking the D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus that would give the government 60 days to issue final regulations.
While clear rules from the agency would lend certainty to companies' decisions about who pays for equipment, the costs will add up quickly if the agency forces employers to pay for gear. Even for companies that already provide safety gear, a broadly written rule could mean more expense and less flexibility.
“We're talking about millions of dollars each year,” says Ron Signorino, a consultant and lobbyist at Blueoceana Co. Inc. who worked as an OSHA regulator.
Cost Confusion
Current OSHA rules require employers to provide certain protective equipment for employees in dangerous jobs. However only some of those rules delineate who must pay for that equipment. Certain OSHA policies now on the books–such as those regulating worker exposure to lead, benzene and noise–explicitly require the employer to pay. But the agency's rules governing other hazardous conditions don't say who pays for safety gear.
The AFL-CIO says the hodgepodge of rules is unfair to certain employees. For example, under current rules, workers on a battery plant production line are entitled to have their employer pay for gear to prevent lead exposure, while workers on the charging line in the same facility may have to pay for their own gear to prevent exposure to sulfuric acid. The petition says that OSHA should force employers to shoulder the cost of all protective gear to eliminate that inconsistency.
“OSHA's failure to finish the rule puts workers at risk of harm and undermines enforcement of the OSH Act,” the AFL-CIO's petition says.
According to OSHA, most employers already pay for protective gear. Nonetheless, a new rule would change the way they manage those costs. For instance, the rules could force a company to pay for replacement equipment even if a worker repeatedly loses safety gloves or fails to properly maintain an employer-issued respirator says Baruch Fellner, a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C. In the past, a company would have been able to negotiate with a union about who pays for replacements when gear is lost or damaged.
Accepting Exceptions
But a greater concern for employers than the loss of flexibility is whether OSHA will carve out exceptions to the new rule. For some employers, big money is riding on the exact language of the regulations.
A 1999 proposed rule contained an exception that would let workers pay for protective footwear and prescription safety eyewear based on the fact employees often use such gear off the job. The agency has also considered a “tools of the trade” exception to allow employers to require workers to supply certain gear, such as hard hats, under standard industry practices. In industries with high turnover, such as construction, that exception is crucial to containing costs.
“It is very troublesome if OSHA doesn't come up with some kind of tools-of-the-trade exception,” Fellner says. “And it will be troublesome to the unions if they do.”
The conflict over exceptions means the issue of who has to pay for safety gear may still be litigated for years to come. Lynn Rhinehart, AFL-CIO associate general counsel, says the organization opposes any exceptions, but wouldn't say whether it would sue over them. Businesses also may challenge any rule OSHA promulgates, arguing that OSHA has the authority to protect workers from dangerous conditions, but not to determine how businesses pay for safety gear.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-59
- 2The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 3Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 4Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 5Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250