Tag: labor

United Auto Workers (UAW) and Volkswagen (VW) Efforts to Establish First Works Council in the U.S. Fails

Michael Best Logo

 

The United Auto Workers (UAW), which already represents most of the largest carmakers in the United States, was unsuccessful in its efforts to unionizeVolkswagen’s (VW) plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. What makes this noteworthy is that leading up to the February 14th representation election, the German company was actually campaigning for the UAW not against it in an employer-union alliance seldom seen in this country.

While the “big three” American carmakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) are all unionized, foreign carmakers have avoided unionization by locating their plants in Southern states with strong Right to Work laws. Volkswagen, however, considers the creation of a so-called “works council” a crucial element of its business. Works councils are common under German law, and Volkswagen has established works councils at all its foreign plants, with the exception of Chattanooga and China.

Under these works councils, all workers in a factory regardless of position and whether they are unionized or not, help decide things like staffing schedules and working conditions, while the union bargains on wages and benefits. They also have the right to review certain types of information about how the company is doing financially, which means that they tend to be more sympathetic towards management’s desire to make cutbacks during tough financial times. Each Volkswagen plant throughout the world sends its delegates to a global works council that influences which products the company makes and where. This arrangement would have represented a new experience for the UAW, unlike its relationship with Chrysler, General Motors and Ford, which would have involved sharing control with the works council.

A tough question for Volkswagen and the UAW is whether a works council would be legal in the United States without a union. There is no provision in the NLRA for the kind of German-style works council Volkswagen seeks. Volkswagen’s best option for creating a works council would have been for its workers to accept UAW representation. Volkswagen must now rethink its options in seeking a way to create a works council. Options include talking with a different union that might be more popular with its workers or encouraging workers to organize their own independent union. Another option would be moving ahead without a union and risking an NLRB challenge.

After the UAW was defeated by a 712-626 vote in its bid to represent workers at the Volkswagen plant, the UAW promptly requested a new election claiming Tennessee politicians and outside organizations coordinated and vigorously promoted a coercive campaign to sow fear and deprive Volkswagen workers of their right to join a union. Senior state officials including United States Senator Bob Corker, TennesseeGovernor William Haslam, State House Speaker Beth Harwell, and State House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, made statements in an effort to convince the workers to reject the UAW. The UAW’s alleges this was part of an unlawful campaign which included publicly announced and widely disseminated threats by elected officials that state-financed incentives would be withheld if workers exercised their right to join the UAW’s ranks. However, on February 25, 2014, a group of Volkswagen workers sought to intervene in the UAW‘s bid, and argued that the election results should stand.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Facebook Post Breaches Confidentiality Provision of Settlement Agreement

Jackson Lewis Logo

 

A Florida appellate court has ruled that a teenaged daughter’s post on Facebookmentioning her father’s confidential settlement of an age discrimination claim breached a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement, barring the father from collecting an $80,000 settlement. Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay, No. 3D13-1952 (Fla 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2014).

The plaintiff, Patrick Snay, was a headmaster of Gulliver, a private school in the Miami area. After his contract was not renewed, he sued for age discrimination. The parties reached a settlement pursuant to a written agreement, which included a detailed confidentiality provision. The provision stated in part:

13. Confidentiality . . . [T]he plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly, disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this Agreement. . . A breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiff’s portion of the Settlement Payments.

A couple of days after the agreement was signed, Snay’s daughter, who had recently been a student at Gulliver, posted the following on her Facebook page:

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.

Snay’s daughter had about 1,200 Facebook friends, many of whom were current or former Gulliver students. Gulliver notified Snay of the breach and refused to tender the $80,000 to Snay under the terms of the settlement. (Snay’s attorneys received their portion). Snay moved to enforce the agreement. Limited discovery revealed that Snay and his wife notified their daughter “that the case was settled and they were happy with the result.” Snay denied ever discussing a trip to Europe. The district court held that Snay’s actions did not violate the terms of the agreement, but the appellate court reversed, noting that Snay was prohibited from “directly or indirectly” disclosing even the “existence” of the settlement.

The decision offers lessons for counsel, litigants, and parents. Counsel and litigants need to remember that these types of confidentiality provisions with disgorgement penalties are taken seriously by the courts and can be enforced. Parents need to remind their children to be mindful of what they post on social media, because it might have adult consequences.

Article by:

V. John Ella

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Illinois Federal Court Issues Reminder That "100% Healed" Requirements Violate ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)

vonBriesen

 

On February 11, 2014, an Illinois Federal District Court issued a decision reminding employers that “100% healed” return-to-work requirements violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit alleging that United Parcel Service’s (“UPS”) “100% healed” requirement violated the ADA. UPS moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the EEOC could not state a claim that there was a violation of the ADA. The Court denied UPS’s motion and permitted the EEOC lawsuit to proceed.

UPS maintained a leave policy requiring employees to be “administratively separated from employment” after 12 months of leave. In 2007, an employee returned from a 12-month medical leave. After returning, the employee requested certain accommodations, including a hand cart. UPS refused to provide any accommodation. Shortly thereafter, the employee injured herself and needed additional medical leave. Instead of granting leave, UPS terminated the employee under its 12-month leave policy.

The EEOC alleged that UPS’s 12-month leave policy acted as a “100% healed” requirement because it functioned as a “qualification standard” under the ADA. UPS argued that the ability to regularly attend work was an essential job function and not an impermissible “qualification standard” and, therefore, not in violation of the ADA.

Although the Court conceded that regular job attendance is an essential job requirement, the court found that the lawsuit was not based on attendance requirements, but rather on the “100% healed” requirement that an employee must satisfy before returning to work. As a prerequisite to returning to work, the 12-month policy was a “qualification standard” and not an essential job function subject to accommodation. A “qualification standard” is “the personal and professional attributes, including the skill, experience, educational, physical, medical, safety and other requirements established by a covered entity as requirements an individual must meet in order to be eligible for the position held or desired.”

The court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s previous determination that a “100% healed” policy is per se impermissible because it “prevents individualized assessments” and “necessarily operates to exclude disabled people that are qualified to work.” A “100% healed” requirement limits the ability of qualified individuals with a disability to return to work. Thus, a “100% healed” acts as a prohibited “qualification standard” because it removes the opportunity for the employee to pursue reasonable accommodation, in violation of the ADA. Accordingly, the court denied UPS’s motion to dismiss and permitted the EEOC’s lawsuit to proceed.

Although this case does not provide a definitive answer to the EEOC’s lawsuit, it does provide a strong reminder to employers that “100% healed” policies violate the ADA. Employers should review their return to work policies to ensure that they do not contain “100% healed” requirements. When dealing with leave issues, employers also should remember to enter into the interactive process when necessary and balance obligations under federal, state and local disability and leave requirements, in addition to those created by contract or agreement.

Article by:

Geoffrey S. Trotier

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

The NLRB Revives Controversial Expedited Election Rules – National Labor Relations Board

Michael Best Logo

On February 6, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reissued its controversial rules aimed at expediting union elections in the workplace. This rule, referred to as the “Ambush Election Rule,” could limit an employer’s right to express its views to employees and respond to union statements. The proposed rules mirror the NLRB’s June 2011 proposal, which ultimately was struck down by a district court in May 2012.

Analogous to the June 2011 proposal, the NLRB’s most recent proposal seeks to significantly impact the current union election process. The proposed reforms are aimed at shortening the election cycle from the current median of 38 days from petition to election to as little as 10 to 21 days. The proposed reforms also would move resolution of voter eligibility determination to after the election; reduce the NLRB’s review of representation cases; expand employer disclosure of employee contact information (including e-mail addresses); and allow more electronic filing with the NLRB.

Despite reducing the amount of time an employer has to communicate its message or rebut the union’s statements, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce has stated the proposed rules are intended to “improve the process for all parties.” The NLRB is likely to issue a final rule governing union elections later this year.

Action Steps?

The NLRB has issued a proposed rule, and by law, will allow for public comments through April 7, 2014. Employers may direct comments regarding the proposed reforms to the NLRB here. Additionally, the NLRB will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules in Washington D.C. during the week of April 7, 2014, and employers may voice their concerns at the forum.

Finally, employers should consider conducting a vulnerability audit to identify any concerns that can be addressed now (rather than after a final rule is put in place) and should provide supervisors and management with training so they are prepared to address any potential NLRB election situation.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Office Romances: 3-Part Series on How to Shield Your Company from Liability Part 3

GT Law

 

According to a recent CareerBuilder survey, four in ten people admitted to dating a co-worker, and one-third eventually married that person.  Whether a relationship between peers, relationships between supervisors/subordinates, flings, long-term relationships, or extramarital affairs, office romances can lead to unwelcome complaints and expensive lawsuits.

Part 1 of this three-part series addressed the potential risks that office romances pose to companies, and Part 2 covered the importance of adopting and enforcing a company policy addressing fraternization.  This final installment offers recommended steps you should take now to defend potential claims of discrimination and harassment.

Tips for Employers

Employers should prepare and implement a clear policy regarding office relationships or update an existing one, and be sure to disseminate it and obtain employees’ acknowledgements.   The policy should address to extent to which office relationships are permissible, and, if appropriate, require employees to promptly disclose the existence (or termination) of a romantic or sexual relationship to a designated member of Human Resources or management. When the employees involved are in a supervisor/subordinate relationship, disclosure is especially critical so that the employer may effectively address the impact of the relationship (e.g., evaluating if it is necessary to change job duties or reassign the employee(s)).

If harassment occurs despite an employer’s best efforts to prevent and stop it, you will have a strong defense if you can demonstrate that you have done the following:

  • Implement and enforce a sexual harassment and office romance policy that provides a clear reporting channel and prohibits retaliation for good faith complaints.
  • Respect employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their relationship in line with the company policies.
  • Train new and existing employees on the sexual harassment policy and document the training.
  • Train managers on what constitutes sexual harassment and how to handle complaints.
  • Train employees to report inappropriate behavior.
  • If a relationship develops between a manager and his/her subordinate, transfer one of them if possible to eliminate a direct reporting relationship.
  • Promptly and thoroughly investigate complaints.
  • Take appropriate corrective action to address prior incidents of sexual harassment.

Regardless of the type of policy your company adopts, be sure to customize it to the needs and actual practices of your business.  Train employees and managers on expectations governing office romances.  A well-drafted and uniformly enforced fraternization (or non-fraternization) policy will not prevent workplace relationships altogether, but it can protect you if you encounter office romances.

See Part 1 Here

See Part 2 Here 

Article by:

Mona M. Stone

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Philadelphia Enacts Pregnancy Accommodation Law

Morgan Lewis

 

An amendment to the city’s ordinance enhances protections for nondisabled employees affected by pregnancy or childbirth and imposes greater accommodation requirements on employers.

On January 20, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed an amendment[1] to the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance (Chapter 9-1100 of The Philadelphia Code), expressly banning discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition and imposing new workplace accommodation requirements on Philadelphia employers. The amendment places Philadelphia among a growing number of jurisdictions that require employers to provide workplace accommodations to employees who are “affected by pregnancy,” regardless of whether those employees are “disabled.”

Impact of the Amendment

Unlike its federal and state counterparts—the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act—Philadelphia’s amended ordinance actually compels employers to make reasonable workplace accommodations for female employees “affected by pregnancy”—i.e., women who are pregnant or have medical conditions relating to pregnancy or childbirth—regardless of whether those employees have been “disabled” by the pregnancy. The ordinance identifies a number of possible accommodations that may be required, including restroom breaks, periodic rest for those whose jobs require that they stand for long periods of time, special assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring.

This new law imposes a significant burden on employers, requiring that they grant the requested accommodations unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the operation of the employers’ businesses. The factors to be considered in the undue hardship analysis include the following: (a) the nature and cost of the accommodations; (b) the overall financial resources of the employer’s facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, including the number of persons employed at such facility or facilities, the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodations upon the operation of the employer; (c) the overall financial resources of the employer, including the size of the employer with respect to the number of its employees and the number, type, and location of its facilities; and (d) the type of operation or operations of the employer, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce, and the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the employer.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the amendment is that it extends privileges to employees affected by pregnancy that are unavailable to other employees, including many disabled employees. For example, the law requires an employer to consider job reassignment and job restructuring for pregnant employees, even though these types of accommodations are generally not required for disabled employees under state or federal law. As such, employers with operations in Philadelphia (along with those in other jurisdictions that have recently passed heightened pregnancy accommodation laws like California,[2]Maryland,[3] New Jersey,[4] and New York City[5]) should revisit their existing reasonable accommodation policies to ensure that they are providing required accommodations for pregnant workers—even those who are healthy and not incapacitated by the pregnancy.

From a litigation perspective, the law specifies the affirmative defenses that will be available to employers facing claims under the amended ordinance. In addition to the undue-burden defense described above, an employer will have an affirmative defense if it can show that the employee “could not, with reasonable accommodations, satisfy the requisites of the job.” This language is important because it will allow employers to continue managing the performance of pregnant workers who, even with accommodation, simply cannot perform their jobs. Nonetheless, the impact of this affirmative defense remains to be seen given the amendment’s language suggesting that job restructuring and reassignment may be required accommodations.

Employees aggrieved by a violation of the amended ordinance are entitled to the same remedies that are available for other unlawful employment practices—including injunctive or other equitable relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Additionally, certain factual scenarios, such as a failure to properly respond to a request for accommodations (e.g., lactation breaks or nursing an infant), may trigger a pregnancy accommodation cause of action, as well as causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or Title VII.[6]

As mentioned above, the amendment places Philadelphia squarely in the middle of a significant legislative trend that has been gaining momentum. In the last 18 months, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York City have passed similar pregnancy accommodation laws. Several other jurisdictions are, or will soon be, considering comparable legislation. The West Virginia House of Representatives unanimously passed a similar bill on February 5, 2014, and Pennsylvania legislators announced in December 2013 that they will be introducing Pennsylvania’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the near future. In addition, a federal version of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate in May 2013 but stalled in committee. Several other states—including Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Texas—already require some type of pregnancy accommodation.

Notice Requirement

The new law requires that Philadelphia employers provide written notice—in a form and manner to be determined by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations—by April 20, 2014. The notice must be posted conspicuously in an area accessible to employees.

Moving Forward

For employers with operations in Philadelphia, the amendments to the Fair Practices Ordinance may signal that now is the time to revisit or revamp employee handbooks and train human resources and benefits employees on the new requirements in this area. Specifically, the amended ordinance will require most Philadelphia employers to overhaul their reasonable accommodation policies and train human resources professionals and managers regarding when the interactive process is triggered for employees affected by pregnancy, what steps must be followed to ensure effective engagement in that process, and when accommodations must be granted for such employees.

[1]. View the amendment here.

[2]. See our December 28, 2012 LawFlash, “New California Disability Regulations to Become Effective December 30,” available here.

[3]. See our July 1, 2013 LawFlash, “Maryland Enacts Three New Employment Laws,” available here.

[4]. See our January 10, 2014 LawFlash, “New Jersey Assembly Passes Pregnancy Discrimination Bill,” available here, and our January 27, 2014 LawFlash, “New Requirements for New Jersey Employers,” available here.

[5]. See our September 27, 2013 LawFlash, “New York City Offers Greater Protections for Pregnant Workers,” available here.

[6]. See our June 12, 2013 LawFlash, “New Developments Surrounding Lactation Discrimination,” available here.

Article by:

Sean P. Lynch

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 47: The Reporting Conundrum

MintzLogo2010_Black

 

The Affordable Care Act establishes three new, high-level, reporting requirements:

  • Code § 6051(a)(14)

Employers must report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement;

  • Code § 6055

Entities that offer minimum essential coverage (i.e., health insurance issuers, certain sponsors of self-insured plans, government agencies and other parties that provide health coverage) must report certain information about the coverage to the employee and the IRS; and

  • Code § 6056

Applicable large employers must provide detailed information relating to health insurance coverage that they offer.

The W-2 reporting rules have been in effect for a while, and I do not address them in this post. This post instead addresses Code §§ 6055 and 6056, which were originally slated to take effect in 2014, but which were subsequently delayed by one year in IRS Notice 2013-45.

The Treasury Department and IRS issued proposed regulations under both rules on September 30, 2012. (For an explanation of the proposed regulations, please see our October 21, 2013 client advisory. Although garnering far less attention than the Act’s pay-or-play rules, the rules under newly added Code §§ 6055 and 6056 should not be overlooked. Both provisions require a good deal of specific information about covered persons and the particular features of the group health plan coverage such persons are offered. Required reports must be furnished to both the government and covered individuals.

  • Under Code section 6055, plan sponsors must report to the IRS who is covered by the plans and the months in which they were covered. Plan sponsors must also provide this information to the employees who are enrolled in their plans along with additional contact information for the plan.
  • Under Code section 6056, applicable large employers must report to the IRS, and provide to affected full-time employees, information that includes:

(i) The employer’s contact information;

(ii) Whether the company offered minimum essential coverage to full-time employees and their dependents;

(iii) The months during which coverage was available;

(iv) The monthly cost to employees for the lowest self-only minimum essential coverage;

(v) The number of full-time employees during each month; and

(vi) Information about each full-time employee and the months they were covered under the plan.

Absent regulatory simplification, the costs of compiling, processing, and distributing the required reports will be substantial. But the regulators are in a difficult position, since they must remain true to the requirements of the law. The proposed regulations do offer some suggestions for simplification. For example:

  • Employers might be permitted to report coverage on IRS Form W-2, rather than requiring a separate return under Section 6055 and furnishing separate employee statements. But this approach could be used only for employees employed for the entire calendar year and only if the required contribution for the lowest-cost self-only coverage remains stable for the entire year.
  • The W-2 method could also be extended to apply in situations in which the required monthly employee contribution is below a specified threshold (e.g., 9.5% of the FPL) for a single individual, i.e. the individual cannot be eligible for the premium assistance tax credit.
  • Employers might be permitted to identify the number of full-time employees, but not report whether a particular employee offered coverage is full-time, if the employer certifies that all employees to whom it did not offer coverage during the calendar year were not full-time.

Industry comments filed in response to the proposed regulations have seized these suggestions to ask for further relief. Some commenters suggested replacing the reporting process with a certification process under which an employer could simply certify that it has made the requisite offer of coverage. Others have asked that information be provided to employees only on request, on the theory that not all employees will need to demonstrate that the employer either failed to offer coverage or that the coverage was either unaffordable or did not constitute minimum value.

While many of the comments submitted in response to the proposed regulations were both thoughtful and practical, many are also difficult to square with the terms of the statute. As a result, the most likely outcome is that the final rules under Code §§ 6055 and 6056 will look a lot like the proposed rules—which look a lot like the statute.

Article by:

Alden J. Bianchi

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

4th Cir. First to Apply "Disability" Definition Under ADAAA – ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

On January 23rd, in a ground-breaking decision under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an injury that left the plaintiff unable to walk for seven months and that, without surgery, pain medication, and physical therapy, likely would have rendered the plaintiff unable to walk for far longer can constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Fourth Circuit in Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp. indicated that it is the first appellate court to apply the ADAAA’s expanded definition of “disability.”

The Court reversed a District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s case pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia based its dismissal of the plaintiff’s disability-based discharge claim on its view that the plaintiff’s impairment was temporary and therefore not covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. In its reversal, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff “has unquestionably alleged a ‘disability’ under the ADAAA sufficiently plausible to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”

Article by:

Timothy M. McConville

Of:

Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.

The Seventh Circuit Breaks from the Pack; Prohibits Employers from Challenging the EEOC’s Pre-Lawsuit Conciliation Efforts

Michael Best Logo

 

When the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes a finding of reasonable cause after its investigation of a discrimination charge, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act instructs the EEOC to “…endeavor to eliminate any such unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.” The statute also provides that the EEOC may proceed to filing a lawsuit against the employer only if it “…has been unable to secure from the Respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.” In EEOC v. Mach Mining LLC, No. 13-2456, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) recently held that employers may not challenge the EEOC’s pre-lawsuit conciliation efforts as an affirmative defense to the lawsuit. By its decision, the Seventh Circuit broke away from the majority of Federal Courts of Appeal. The EEOC called the ruling in Mach Mining a “landmark” victory in its press release.

As part of its recent initiatives, the EEOC has been very aggressive in filing lawsuits and in the past few years has suffered setbacks with many courts critical of the Agency’s pre-lawsuit investigatory and conciliation efforts. The defense tactic of raising the failure of the EEOC to engage in good faith conciliation efforts as an Affirmative Defense has been widely used by employers’ attorneys in discrimination lawsuits brought by the EEOC. In many cases the EEOC might fail to even attempt face-to-face negotiation, refuse to provide information requested by the employer to assist in conciliation, or simply make a “take it or leave it proposal” before rushing to the courthouse to file a lawsuit.

The essence of the Court’s decision is that conciliation is an informal process in which the EEOC is to “try” to obtain a settlement acceptable to it. The Court also found that Title VII gives the EEOC “sole discretion” to determine whether a conciliation proposal is acceptable and further noted that Title VII is silent as to the standards by which the adequacy of the Agency’s conciliation efforts can be measured. Finally the Court found that permitting the employer to raise inadequate conciliation efforts as a defense to a discrimination claim would undermine the enforcement goals of Title VII. According to the Court, employers could drag out discrimination litigation by turning “what was meant to be an informal investigation into the subject of endless disputes over whether the EEOC did enough before going to court.” At least in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, the EEOC’s methods, the negotiation process and whether the EEOC has acted in good faith in attempting to resolve a charge before filing a lawsuit no longer matters.

Although it is not yet known whether Mach Mining will petition the United States Supreme Court to resolve the split between the Seventh Circuit and the majority of other Courts of Appeal, it is likely this issue will someday be decided by the Supreme Court.

Article by:

Steven J. Teplinsky

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Comment Period Almost Over for OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Crystalline Silica Proposal

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

In August 2013, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announced a proposed rule regarding workplace exposure to crystalline silica. The proposal includes two separate standards – one for general industry and maritime employment, and one for construction.

If you do not know what crystalline silica is, chances are you are not in an industry that has exposure to it. Crystalline silica is minute, respirable particles that are generated from operations involving stone, rock, concrete, brick, block, mortar and industrial sand. Workers who encounter these materials are in a broad range of industries, including mining, oil and gas, foundries, masonries, pottery manufacturing, and sand blasting.

OSHA’s proposal seeks to limit routine occupational exposure to the so-called “deadly dust.” Inhalation of the particles causes silicosis, an incurable lung disease. Workers are also at risk for developing lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease.  OSHA estimates that its proposal will save 700 lives each year and prevent 1,600 cases of silicosis annually. There are already established permissible exposure limits (“PEL”) for silica, but they were established in 1971 – new research reflects that more stringent standards are needed. The new PEL, 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, would apply to all the regulated industries (though OSHA plans to create distinct standards for the construction industry). In addition to the PEL, the rule also calls for medical surveillance, worker training, recordkeeping, and exposure assessments.

Initially, the deadline to submit written comments and testimony to OSHA was December 11, 2013. That deadline, however, was extended by an additional 47 days to allow for additional public input. The new cut-off is January 27, 2014. Public hearings on the issue are scheduled to begin in March and will likely continue for several weeks due to the significant impact the rule will have on so many industries. Millions of American workers encounter crystalline silica in their day-to-day work operations.

The proposal will directly affect many small businesses and OSHA is specifically interested in receiving input from these entities. Be sure to check back on Wednesday with some tips on what employers can do now to protect workers (and potentially limit their liability for future silica-related claims).

Article by:

Cynthia L. Effinger

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC