Williams Construction Co. v. Oshrc Case

Part 1

The Occupational Safety Health Act (OSHA) was enacted by Congress to ensure employers remain responsible for the safety of their employees. Negligence by the employer is punishable by law unless there is evidence of defiance by the employees to follow the given instructions and directions. In case there is evidence of a lack of safety measures by the employer to keep employees safe, and an accident occurs, the employer is legally viable. OSHA has ensured improved safety and wellness of employees, which has ensured reduced cases of avoidable accidents that sometimes prove fatal (Michaels & Wagner, 2020). The act is thus an essential addition to improved employee wellness and prevention of negligence by employers on matters concerning health and safety in the workplace.

The Circuit Court heard and rendered a decision in the OSHA violation case R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC in 2006. The petitioner included Williams and his company, R. Williams Construction, which acted as the employer, while the defendant was the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which had found the employer guilty of violating OSHA. The case was tabled following the death of Williams’ employer, Jose Aguiniga, and severe injuries incurred by a second employer, Adam Palomar, after a trench they were working in collapsed. The two employers were tasked with cleaning the pumps, which they did in the trench despite being able to pull them to the ground. The employers had routinely cleaned the pumps, which were used to suck away the water in a trench that was more than forty feet long and ten to twelve feet deep. The court established that the hydraulic jack shoring system used to keep the trench from collapsing had been removed the day before it collapsed with the two workers inside. Williams also testified to having no competency on OSHA and trench safety requirements, as well as failing to provide the safety menu placed at the back of his seat. Furthermore, there was a witness who testified to receiving no safety information, instructions, or manual from the employer. The other two employers presented as witnesses were dismissed for providing contradicting messages to the court. Following a two-day hearing, the petitioner was found guilty of violating several OSHA requirements. First, Williams failed to instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and did not eliminate other hazards. Secondly, Williams ensured only a single safe means for egress despite the one pump being over 25 feet away from the safe exit. The petitioner also failed to use a competent person on trench safety to correct and identify predictable and existing hazards. Lastly, Williams failed to provide employees with protection from cave-ins. The employer was given a total penalty amounting to $ 22,000.

The highlights and facts provided in the case above are essential for the practice of HR. First, an HR officer is mainly responsible for ensuring the health, safety, and general wellness of the employees in any organization. The HR department is expected to ensure the company conforms to all legal provisions on employee wellness and safety. As a result, HR should always ensure that the company adheres to OSHA requirements to prevent it from facing court fines and other punishments for negligence (Mutegi et al., 2023). If Williams was a competent HR officer, he would have developed various methods of ensuring the safety of people working in the trench since he admits frequently questioning its safety. Consequently, his negligence led to the loss of one life and severe injuries to another employer despite being predictable and avoidable. HR officers should always analyze hazards and potential lack of safety at the workplace that can cause injuries for effective and efficient mitigation. In doing so, employees are kept safe and healthy as provided by OSHA.

Part 2

1. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC case has a significant impact on the practice of HR as developed below:
2. When an HR officer does not have enough competency and skills to analyze and gauge safety measures in the workplace, the law requires them to hire a person with such knowledge to uphold the safety and health of employees.
3. In any workplace, the HR department should provide a safety protocol or manual to guide employees on their wellness. The HR officers should ensure the message is clear to all employees. Furthermore, various safety exits should also be provided to increase the chances of safe escape by employees in case of a hazardous emergency (Abdelrahim et al., 2023).
4. In case the HR provides safety measures and protocols and employees fail to effectively follow them, the employer is not responsible for their injuries. If Williams had provided safety instructions to the two employees, the company would not be liable for any injuries.
5. In case of any changes at the workplace that can increase safety concerns, HR should inform all the employees to avoid any injuries if a hazardous occurrence happens (Abdelrahim et al., 2023). Williams failed to inform the two employees about the removal of the hydraulic jack shoring despite knowing that it had been installed to prevent the walls of the trench from collapsing. In doing so, the risk of the walls collapsing significantly increased, and it was unsafe for the employees to go inside. Since it was possible to lift the pumps for leaning outside the trench, the change could have been enacted, thus effectively and efficiently preventing the accident.
6. Employees should always be equipped with effective and appropriate training on safety measures and protocols at the workplace. No employee by Williams had undergone such training.

Of the five ways provided above, the most important one to HR is the second one. The main reason is that a hazardous and fatal emergency can occur in any workplace despite all the required safety requirements. In such cases, the HR should have provided various ways to ensure safe exit by the employees. OSHA prohibits availing only a single escape as it would cause delays and increase the injuries and fatality of the occurrence. In doing so, HR can always ensure improved health and safety of employees, even in cases where unwanted accidents at the workplace cause hazardous emergencies that require employees to escape.

One recommendation is to provide a safety protocol to employees and how they can access a safe place in case of emergencies. Employees should know where all the exits are located in case of emergencies and items they can use to improve safety and reduce the devastating impacts of a hazardous action (Ladewski & Al-Bayati, 2019). For instance, employees should know the position of fire extinguishers and have the skills to use them to ensure they have improved safety in case of a fire outbreak. Such actions by HR would ensure a safer workplace, which ensures the health and wellness of the workers while eliminating any legal liabilities.

References

Abdelrahim, R. A., Otitolaiye, V. O., Omer, F., & Abdelbasit, Z. (2023). A Scoping Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Governance in Sudan: The Story So Far. Safety and Health at Work. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2023.03.007

Ladewski, B. J., & Al-Bayati, A. J. (2019). Quality and safety management practices: The theory of quality management approach. Journal of Safety Research, 69, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.004

Michaels, D., & Wagner, G. R. (2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Worker Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA, 324(14), 1389–1390. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.16343

Mutegi, T. M., Joshua, P. M., & Kinyua, J. M. (2023). Workplace Safety and Employee Productivity of Manufacturing Firms in Kenya. 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2215569