TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. V. OSHRC
16 F.3d 1455 (6th Cir. 1994)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Trinity Industries (P) appealed an order of OSHA (D) affirming an
administrative law judge's decision to deny P's motion to suppress evidence.
FACTS: A P employee filed a formal complaint with D, alleging that portable grinders and
rollers used in the plant were improperly wired, that compressed gas cylinders were
unsecured and not fitted with valve protection caps, and that oil-slick floors and stored
materials impeded safe access to workplace aisles and passageways. P refused to grant D
permission to inspect the facility. D sought an administrative inspection warrant from a
federal magistrate judge. D also sought conditional authorization to conduct a full-scope
inspection of the worksite pursuant to an administrative plan detailed in OSHA Instruction
CPL 2.45A. A facility is subject to a full-scope inspection if: (1) an employee complaint
has been filed that sets forth reasonable grounds for the Secretary of Labor to believe that
a violation or danger exists; (2) the establishment is in an industry with a high lost
workdays injury rate; (3) a complete safety inspection of the facility has not been carried
out in the current year or in the last two fiscal years; and (4) the facility's safety
records show a lost workday injury rate at or above the national average. D maintains that P
met the first three of these four conditions. A magistrate issued a warrant granting the
agency the authority to conduct a limited 'special inspection' of P's facility focusing on
the allegations of the employee complaint. P filed a motion to quash the warrant and it was
denied. D conducted the limited-complaint inspection and issued citations to P for specific
alleged violations of OSHA standards. The district court affirmed the magistrate's order
denying Trinity's motion to quash the warrant. P then agreed to allow D to review the
company's safety and health records, and to conduct a comprehensive inspection if the
records revealed an establishment lost workday injury rate of 4.2 or more. The lost workday
injury rate was 13.6, and D undertook two comprehensive inspections. Two citations were
issued and penalties proposed by D totaled almost $33,000. P challenged the two citations
and an administrative law judge denied a motion by P to suppress the evidence obtained. P
obtained review by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission which affirmed the
ALJ. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment