Zero Injuries Is Not Proof Of Safety Excellance

I notice that one of the most popular subjects on which I blog is how to “lawfully” incentivize safety.  A number of my Blogs and articles have focused on OSHA’s vigorous attacks on Employer Safety Incentive Programs or on the ineffectiveness of providing incentives based on the rate of recordable injuries.

There are several good articles on the web this weekend dealing with safety incentive programs and related issues, but I especially liked the EHS Magazine article explaining that Zero Injuries Does Not Equal Safety Excellence.  While we should shoot for zero injuries and not just mouth it as a mindless saying, this is again an approach to safety focusing on lagging indicators.  Good point.  Focus on and incentivize the causes of safety.

Posted in aging workforce, incentive plans, whistleblower/retaliation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

D.C. Court of Appeals Rules NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

Wow. The Administration will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if the Court upholds the Appeals Court, hundreds of NLRB decisions, some of them quite controversial, will be thrown out. I hope that we do not now hear a rant in the media about overreaching judges. It sounds as if the panel simply applied the law in a technical fashion.

The Washington Post has a good summary.  Read the Noel Canning  Decision as well.

For a bit more detail, read our Labor Alert.

Posted in concerted protected activity, discipline and discharge, employer policies, government inspections, NLRB, social media, union organizing, unions | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

For My Fellow Attorneys… Do the Cobbler’s Children Have Shoes?

I could not resist linking to a recent Fortune Magazine article criticizing law firm treatment of personnel; especially associates. Because we are a labor firm, we are constantly becoming better at practicing what we preach, but it requires purposeful effort and constant repetition to show leadership, provide good communication, and to develop more junior leaders and managers. Check out the article, Why Are Lawyers Such Terrible Managers.  we know “what” to do and often we know “how” to do it.  However, we, as managers often do not develop the same sort of detailed plan with objective mile markers for personnel management that we do for our marketing, finance and other objectives.

Posted in cultural changes, discipline and discharge, employer policies, management and leadership, managing legal matters | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Not Sexy, But It Is Important: Top 10 OSHA Crane Standards Cited

Thanks to Jim Goss, one of the best safety Professionals I know, for the list below of common OSHA Crane Citations. 

1. 1926.1428(a)

  • Signal person not qualified

2. 1926.1425(c)(3)

  • Materials not rigged by a qualified rigger

3. 1926.1428(a)(3)

  • No documentation for the signal person

4. 1926.1412(f)(1)

  • No annual inspections performed by a qualified person

5. 1926.1408(a)(2)

  • No determination for working radius closer than 20 feet to a power line.

6. 1926.1417(c)(1)

  • Operators manual, load charts, hazard warnings , etc.. not in the cab at all times

 7. 1926.1412(d)(1)

  • A determination for safety was not made by competent person after a deficiency was noted during a visual inspection. 

 8. 1926.1412(e)(3)(i)

  • Monthly crane inspection results,  missing or signed documentation not maintained

 9. 1926.1412(f)(2)

  • Inspections not performed annually by a qualified person or as specified

10. 1926.1411(f)(2)(xvii)

  • Missing labels supplied by the manufacturer

 

Posted in construction, employer policies, government inspections, OSHA | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

OSHA WILL Go After You If They Don’t Like Your Policies On Discipline For Not reporting Injuries

OSHA Region V recently gave a presentation on their focus on retaliation cases, including an intense scrutiny of rules and discipline related to failure to timely report workplace injuries.

These comments reflect the OSHA National emphasis  I keep harping about (see my various posts on safety incentive programs).

If you would like to see what OSHA attacks, check out the January 15 Accord between OSHA and a major rail road which OSHA accused of dissuading employees from reporting on-the-job injuries through otherwise neutral policies.

The facts will differ from company to company, but take a breath and read the excerpt below from OSHA’s Press Release detailing what OSHA demanded from this large employer:

The major terms of the accord include:

  • Changing BNSF’s disciplinary policy so that injuries no longer play a role in determining the length of an employee’s probation following a record suspension for a serious rule violation. As of Aug. 31, 2012, BNSF has reduced the probations of 136 employees who were serving longer probations because they had been injured on-the-job.
  • Eliminating a policy that assigned points to employees who sustained on-the-job injuries.
  • Revising a program that required increased safety counseling and prescribed operations testing so that work-related injuries will no longer be the basis for enrolling employees in the program. As part of the negotiations leading up to the accord, BNSF removed from the program approximately 400 workers.
  • Instituting a higher level review by BNSF’s upper management and legal department for cases in which an employee who reports an on-duty personal injury is also assessed discipline related to the incident giving rise to the injury.
  • Implementing a training program for BNSF’s managers and labor relations and human resources professionals to educate them about their responsibilities under the FRSA. The training will be incorporated into BNSF’s annual supervisor certification program.
  • Making settlement offers in 36 cases to employees who filed whistleblower complaints with OSHA alleging they were harmed by one or more of the company’s previous policies.

 

Posted in aging workforce, discipline and discharge, employer policies, government inspections, incentive plans, OSHA, whistleblower/retaliation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Common ADA Screw-up’s – Not Documenting That Individual Interaction Process

Common ADA Screw-up’s – Not Documenting Individual Interaction With Employees Who May Have Disability Conditions

I will start blogging about various common mistakes in several areas, including the ADA, OSHA compliance, and investigation/discipline and discharge.

As a starting point, I hope you are aware that under the amended ADA, darned near everyone can have a disability condition or argue that the Company perceived them as having a disability condition. I also assume that everyone knows that disability-type charges are up over 30% in the last few years and the EEOC is feeling newly emboldened since the election.

A recent decision involving a hotel and a self-admitted bi-polar employee seeking transfer indicates various trip hazards, so to speak.

The employee starts as food and beverage attendant at the hotel. Unionized employer, but no contract provision on reasonable accommodation. Contract required seniority to be followed in determining days off, shift-transfers and vacation days, and as you may know, in many situations, contract provisions may trump accommodation rights.

Employee starts manifesting behavior consistent with drug or alcohol impairment, as well as missing work, including when the employee fell asleep in her car. She was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, but welcomed back. All good so far. She relapsed, missed work and was hospitalized again.

The employee went to HR, explained her condition and requested a transfer to another shift because she felt that her shift was gossiping about her. The HR Director was sympathetic but denied the transfer because of the contract’s seniority provisions.

The employer rightly expected to knock out the claim at summary judgment because it felt that it followed the contract and had been quite supportive.

The court disagreed, denied summary judgment and allowed the matter to proceed. The employer may certainly win this case in trial, but the goal was to avoid that expense through summary judgment. Putting aside the fact that I believe that the Judge was over generous in its conclusions (or just wrong) the decision indicates how closely courts are now scrutinizing your documented efforts to accommodate an employee, as well as the harm caused by the behavior or performance involved.

The Court rejected the argument that the contract required strict adherence to seniority by pointing to a phrase saying that the contract allowed waiver of seniority in “exceptional circumstances.” The Court said that there was no documentation that the Hotel engaged in the required “interactive process” to try to determine an accommodation, including whether the seniority system might be waived. The Hotel simply looked at the contract and said “no.” HR should have engaged in some analysis and if it still said “no,” at least documented this process.

The Court also speculated that although the long-suffering hotel documented many absences, it had not documented analysis of whether the absences could have been addressed by reasonable accommodation, including transfer. Finally, as a parting shot, the Court astringently noted that the hotel worked with the employee until the employee self-identified their bi-polar disorder.

What do I take from this decision? First, avoid this Judge. Second… do not make knee-jerk decisions or allow documentation to make it appear that you did not carefully chew through reasonable accommodation possibilities.

We can talk another time about when and how you can ask an employee about their condition, but that was not an issue in this case. Also, focus on the performance issues, not the condition. And consider how those e-mails look. I hate to be such a “lawyer,” but draft them as if they may be exhibits… because, well, they may be.

Posted in ADA, aging workforce, discipline and discharge, EEOC, hospitality, litigation, workers comp | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Predictions About the NLRB

The Workforce Fairness Institute just published an interesting analysis of likely actions by the NLRB in 2013 – NLRB Targets Secret Ballot and Employee Private Information The authors feel pretty strongly about the material and make little pretense of neutrality, but the predictions are reasonable.

Posted in concerted protected activity, discipline and discharge, employer policies, government inspections, hospitality, NLRB, social media, union organizing, unions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 2 – Care and Feeding of Counsel

Posted below is Part 2 of my ruminations on selecting and managing labor counsel.  I prepared Part 1, the first 10 points,  after sharing my Las Vegas partner, Mark Ricciardi’s multi-part series on selecting employment counsel.  It is our hope that you will share your own suggestions and observations on the care and feeding of legal counsel!

10. Always try to approach the government with “clean hands, “ especially in environmental and safety matters. As an example, we try to position cases with OSHA where the employer has already demonstrated commitment to its workers by abatement actions. Then one can fight hard on the legal issues without harming the company’s reputation.

11. Remember my point #1 about telling your counsel “your expectations?” Communications go both ways! Ask counsel what things allow them to better represent you. Here are some of mine:

a. Don’t lie to us; we’re lawyers for goodness sakes! Everyone hates us. We won’t think less of you for being ignorant, stupid, or evil.

b. A caveat to “a.” above . . . the “evil” or “stupid” past behavior is a problem if one won’t fix things going forward. See number 10 above.

c. When we ask factual questions, please talk directly to the actual witness or party involved. Do not rely on the reports of others. Ask counsel for help in asking the harder questions and how to dig further. Labor lawyers tend to be good at this ferreting out of information.

d. When you search documents and e-mails, keep digging until you are confident that you have found everything that is relevant… then dig some more.

e. Teach your managers not to treat emails like telephone calls. Tell them to draft them as if they may be trial exhibits, so that counsel doesn’t have to later dance in front of a fact finder. If one has to explain more than three things, one is usually out of luck.

f. Tell us when you do or do not have the staff to handle investigation, material preparations, and discovery. We’ll look for efficiencies.

g. If you don’t want counsel to attend an OSHA Informal or a government investigation, ask us to coach you and make a script. It can be quite efficient.

h. Ask us to evaluate the real world exposure … we’ll shoot straight with you about whether the matter warrants our involvement.

i. Don’t simply change the name and reuse another employer’s policies or contracts. Be wary of “form” documents. You are better off asking for guidance on customizing the materials.

j. Don’t be bashful to disagree with us, push us and propose strategy. Clients who are creative and push me may drive me nuts at times, but we usually develop nasty tactics that work better than either of us would have devised alone.

k. Partners are paid well, but we depend on staff and associates, who have to endure quite a bit from us. When they do a good job, please praise them or mention it to us. It matters in this increasingly harried and impersonal age.

l. read our detailed e-mails; sometimes they are important.

j. Never hesitate to ask about bills.

12. Don’t be “Pennywise – Pound Foolish.” We make our money litigating and cleaning up problems, but after 29 years, attorneys like me prefer to “prevent” problems. Do not be reluctant to pay fees to get some fast advice to avoid an expensive claim.

13. Many of our clients employ experienced HR and Safety professionals who are competent to handle on site government investigations or to prepare EEOC responses. Find counsel who are adept at coaching you through inspections or who will review your final EEOC SOP’s for a set amount, etc.

14. Use labor counsel to devise and draft critical communications so that you can use documentation as a “sword, as well as a shield.”

15. Clients hire attorneys, not law firms. If you like a particular attorney in a firm, ask for them.

16. Select an attorney as your primary firm contact who acts like an “outside general counsel” in selecting other attorneys in the system to help you. Presumably, all of the attorneys in a firm are competent, but not all of them may best fit your needs.

17. If possible, find a firm with minimal internal politics and where attorneys genuinely have friends within the system. I like the fact that when I assign a case to an attorney in another office, the attorney will watch over my client as if it were their own in part because they are also my friend.

18. Recognize human nature when you select a firm. Attorneys should do their best on every matter, or they should take a job pumping out septic tanks. But, just in case, use a law firm which is smart enough to provide “credit” to attorneys who help manage clients’ matters; not just the relationship or originating attorney. This process of sharing credit also contributes to continuity. Younger attorneys are less likely to try to leave a firm if they are already receiving credit for their contributions.

19. If you work in a company with in-house counsel, please recognize that they have legitimate reasons to want to coordinate outside legal services. Learn their needs and expectations, and make sure that out-house counsel knows them as well. Counsel love representing companies where safety, HR, Risk and Legal work together.

20. Size isn’t everything. The largest firms may not be the most efficient, harmonious, or even the most experienced. Remember point 15? Find the attorneys you like. When you consider their firm, in addition to the points mentioned above, consider if they have related specialties such as workplace safety, benefits and immigration services. Do they have an adequate footprint to reduce travel. Do they run their business efficiently? Do they maintain heavy debt? Are they efficient with collections? Such factors may affect fees and the provision of effective counseling and advocacy.

Posted in cultural changes, discipline and discharge, employer policies, litigation, managing legal matters | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Wash Your $!&# Hands! Employers and the Flu

The CDC reports that the current flu season will be the worst one in recent years. On January 9, news outlets carried stories about the City of Boston declaring a state of public health emergency and of Chicago hospitals having to send flu patients to other hospitals. Today, January 10, the New York Times described the triple threat of this year’s flu season: an early and unusually virulent flu outbreak, a surge in a new form of norovirus (cruise ship sickness) and the worst whooping Cough outbreak in 60 years.  There is similar coverage at other outlets.  To put it mildly, employers are already being harmed by absences and the plague-like spread of flu in their workplaces.

 

As bad as these challenges may be… they are accompanied by legal challenges as employers respond to sick employees, mandate Flu vaccinations, and seek to maintain a safe workplace.

 

On a practical level, employers and individuals should review CDC Guidance and take the steps recommended, including frequent hand washing and vaccinations.

 

Employment Law Issues, include

 

1.         Performing a Risk Assessment to justify vaccination demands and other safety and personnel responses; and

 

2.         the necessity of engaging in an individual analysis of employee refusals to take vaccinations due to religious or ADA concerns.

 

 

 

Resources

 

There is excellent safety, health and employment law guidance at the flu.gov site.  The archived Pandemic site provides practical guidance, especially the “FAQ’s” for employers.  Other resources and links are found at the CDC Seasonal Influenza siteOSHA has a webpage with useful links.

 

Precautions

 

Sad to say, the number one thing we can do is constantly wash our hands, and avoid touching one’s eyes, mouth and nose.  Also, keep waterless hand soap nearby and in your vehicles, and wash your hands in running water for at least 20 seconds whenever you can do so.  And stay home if you are sick . . . employers do not need dutiful workers infecting the entire department. You may need to liberalize PTO policies.  I wish that we could direct you to more sophisticated advice.

 

Even more importantly, encourage employees to take this year’s Flu vaccine because this year’s  vaccine is reportedly effective against the most prevalent current flu strain.

 

Mandatory Flu Vaccination Is A Hot Issue

 

Unfortunately, as discussed in the news outlets, many employees do not want to take vaccines and groups have formed to support employees refusing vaccinations.  Healthcare employers often make flu shots mandatory and have had success in requiring employees to take flu vaccination as a term of employment.  If you Google “mandatory flu vaccine,” you will pull up articles chronicling “hundreds of healthcare workers being fired for refusal to accept vaccination.  USA Today recently ran an article critical of requiring flu vaccination, but the CDC and the public health system is squarely behind the vaccination.

 

Legal Issues

 

In determining whether an employer may mandate flu vaccinations, OSHA, the EEOC, and other Agencies heavily rely on CDC positions, whether the issue is vaccination or response to employees with infectious diseases.  A 2009 OSHA Interpretation Letter largely deferred to healthcare employers’ Risk Assessment following CDC guidance.  The nature of the workplace and employee duties should be evaluated in a Risk Assessment.  Some workplaces may have more problems than others in justifying a mandatory requirement.

 

However, an employer must still at least consider the reasons for an employee objection and whether any accommodation may be feasible in the face of health or religious objections.

 

The EEOC position is that the employer must engage in an individual interactive process in response to religious or health-based (ADA) objections, and consider “direct threat” and accommodation options.  The EEOC set out how it would analyze employers’ obligation to accommodate religious objection in a March 5, 2012 Informal discussion Letter.

 

In one odd recent decision, a federal court allowed a former children’s hospital worker to proceed with her religious discrimination claim that she objected to the flu vaccination because she was a Vegan.

 

A Unionized employer must also adhere to its collective bargaining agreement and may have a duty to bargain about flu prevention policies.  In Virginia Mason Hospital the NLRB recently held that a hospital could unilaterally implement a flu prevention policy because the union agreed to a broad management rights clause in the collective bargaining agreement.  Contract provisions will vary.  Mandatory Flu vaccination is a very inflammatory issue with some employees and a number of healthcare unions have seized upon this issue to promote in both unionized and non unionized sectors.

 

Finally, the CDC maintains a list of state laws which may affect an employer mandating flu vaccinations.  It is possible to encourage or pay for vaccinations without additional legal risk if one does have a reaction.

 

ACTION POINTS?

 

Educate employees about the severity of Flu and the few risks associated with vaccinations – provide CDC guidance as explanation.

 

As with any safety procedure, provide hand washing opportunities and continually remind employees.

 

Encourage sick employees to stay home and use PTO as needed.

 

Conduct a risk Analysis, especially if you are in healthcare, air travel, hospitality, and food service.

 

Encourage vaccinations and if necessary, mandate them.

 

Consider each employee on an individual basis who objects to vaccinations.

 

Regards,

 

Howard Mavity

 

Posted in aging workforce, concerted protected activity, cultural changes, discipline and discharge, EEOC, employer benefit plans, employer policies, food processing, generational differences, government inspections, hospitality, managing legal matters, manufacturing, NLRB, OSHA, retail, social media, union organizing, unions, wellness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Confusion About Safety Incentive Plans – Legal or Illegal?

Questions about Safety Incentive Plans have resurfaced in a number of discussions and blogs because of OSHA’s steadily increasing rhetoric against safety incentive programs that rely on injury data and/or whose incentives OSHA deems to be of sufficient magnitude to perhaps influence an employee to not report an injury.

I have linked an April 9, 2012 Article I wrote in EHS Magazine after the March 12, 2012 Fairfax Memo setting out OSHA’s concerns about incentive programs, and about disciplining employees for unsafe behavior or failure to timely report an injury.

After 9 months, months, here are some updated observations:

• OSHA does not have a standard or law expressly prohibiting incentive programs based on employee injury experience (GAO Report – Better OSHA Guidance Needed On Safety Incentive Programs).
• OSHA would like to bar such programs, but so far has had to rely on more oblique “hammers.”
• As examples, incentive programs relying on recordables may block VPP approval.
• Such plans may be cited in a Whistleblower Claim as further evidence that the employer is taking adverse action against employees who report injuries.  See examples of such OSHA retaliation on OSHA’s website.
• However, OSHA has not yet obtained a Whistleblower ruling that says that such a program is a violation simply because the Plan supposedly discourages or retaliates against employees for reporting recordable injuries.
• Thus, there is no “OSHA-approved” Plan or formula.
OSHA’s view is that employers routinely (a) expressly fabricates a discharge for safety violations to punish employees for reporting a recordable injury; (b) discipline employees for unsafe behavior only when an employee is injured; or (c) unintentionally discourages employee reporting by denying an incentive to an entire group because one employee gets hurt.

Once you understand these general principles, you can see generally what OSHA dislikes in an Incentive Program.

OSHA’s concern raises a much larger issue for employers, and one on which OSHA, employers, employees, and unions can agree . . . that rewarding a lack of recordable injuries is an ineffectual way to drive a safety program. We will discuss this need to incentivize “leading” not “lagging” (injuries) indicators later this month. Many of you know that we recently surveyed data from over 100 contractors ranging in size from modest to multi-billion dollars in revenue. In the coming weeks, I will share the types of “leading” indicators those employers believe foster engaged employees and a safe workplace.

Meanwhile, you, the employer, should incentivize behaviors that avoid injuries. Recordables should be “a” factor. CEO’s, customers and others love numbers, and are unlikely to trust an incentive system that does not at least include recordables. Therefore, both to comply with the spirit of OSHA guidance and to more effectively drive safety…

• Include factors in addition to reported injuries;
• The more factors, the better, so that reported injuries are not the primary determinant of incentives.
• Use these programs to reinforce safety actions you can track by employees, supervisors, plants and job sites.
Rich Fairfax’s Memo also focuses on other behaviors that suggest retaliation under 11(c) or other whistleblower laws and beware of these factual situations:
• Only disciplining employees for unsafe behavior after injuries;
– Which means that employers must document safety-related discipline where no injury occurred.
• OSHA absolutely hates and will closely scrutinize any discipline for failure to timely report an injury; and
• No matter what your policies state, OSHA will look to see if discipline appears to disproportionately affect employees reporting injuries.

Posted in aging workforce, construction, discipline and discharge, employer policies, government contracting, government inspections, incentive plans, manufacturing, OSHA, plastics, workers comp | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment