ADAAA Shifts Focus From “Are They Disabled” To Did You Properly Interact With and Accomodate Them

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

ADAAA’s Twist On Administration Of Employment Practices

Date: August 9, 2012

By Mauro Ramirez and A. Kevin TroutmanMost experienced human resources (HR) professionals know and follow an old adage when applying policies and making employment decisions: Follow established company policies consistently. For decades, this fundamental practice has helped ensure fairness and avoid potential legal problems.

However, a recent string of actions by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) illustrates how and why HR professionals must change the way they approach issues involving employees who may be disabled. In these cases, consistently following a policy without performing an individualized assessment of the circumstances will likely lead to significant legal problems. In fact, making well-reasoned policy exceptions may often be the only way to avoid such liability.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of an applicant or employee’s disability. It also requires employers to provide a “reasonable accommodation” when doing so would enable a disabled person to perform the essential functions of the job in question. 

In 2008, Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), confirming its intent that this law should be applied in a manner to favor broad coverage of individuals. Congress took this step because it observed that courts were rejecting too many ADA claims because the employees did not qualify as “disabled” under the law. Under the revised statute and regulations, focus has shifted away from determining “who is disabled,” now looking more closely at whether an employer illegally discriminated or denied a reasonable accommodation. The results of these analyses have nearly turned some traditional HR practices upside down.

For example, many employers have traditionally allowed employees additional leave after they’ve exhausted Family and Medical Leave Act leave. However, most also limited such additional leave to one, three or six months, though such leave would not be “job protected.” If the employee was able to resume work during the extension, his return would be subject to the company’s employment needs at the time. If the employee was still unable to return to work after exhausting the additional leave, the employee would be terminated, no questions asked, but eligible for rehire

Today it is clear that for a disabled employee, consistently enforcing this policy would almost certainly violate the ADA. Instead of strictly enforcing the policy, employers must conduct individualized assessments of employees’ circumstances to determine whether another leave extension would constitute a reasonable accommodation that would enable return to performing the essential functions of the applicable job.

Going forward, this represents an important new adage for HR professionals when dealing with the ADA: Sometimes, a policy exception is the only reasonable option.

This article appeared on August 9, 2012 on Employment Law360.

Posted in aging workforce, discipline and discharge, employer policies, wellness, workers comp | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

OSHA: Don’t Get Caught in the Trap of Rewarding Employees for Reducing Recordables!

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

OSHA: Don’t Get Caught in the Trap of Rewarding Employees for Reducing Recordables!

Date: September 10, 2012

By Howard MavityFor several years, we have encouraged employers to move away from safety management programs that primarily track the program’s effectiveness based upon recordable injuries and utilize monetary incentive programs based in whole or in part on the number of recordable workplace injuries and illnesses experienced by an employee or group of employees.

However, employers have another reason to increasingly shift away from programs primarily driven by recordables. Even before the current administration’s leaders took office, they questioned the accuracy of employer recordkeeping and asserted that employees underreport workplace injuries in order to participate in safety incentive programs, or as a result of pressure imposed upon them by employers either on an intentional basis or as a result of their safety management processes.

Moreover, all branches of the U.S. Department of Labor steadily have escalated their emphasis on the prosecution of whistleblower claims. OSHA and other federal agencies actively have encouraged employees to be sensitive to possible retaliation and discrimination on the basis of protected behavior, including safety-related activities (especially the reporting of recordable injuries). Numerous decisions have come out in the last few years in which OSHA claimed that employers who discharged employees for safety violations associated with injuries were using “safety violations” as a pretext for retaliation.

We hardly need another reason to encourage clients to review and revamp incentive programs or be wary of increased risks associated with whistleblower claims, but these developments certainly increase the sense of urgency.

This article appeared in the September 10, 2012 issue of EHS Today.

Posted in discipline and discharge, employer policies, food processing, hospitality, manufacturing, OSHA, workers comp | Tagged | Leave a comment

Part 2 – Social Media, the NLRB and Employer Policies

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

Employment At-Will Policies

Officials of the NLRB also declared key phrases in traditional employment-at-will policies to be unlawful in two cases filed in the Phoenix Region of the NLRB earlier this year. In one of those cases, the one that did not settle before trial, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held that an employer’s requirement that an employee sign an acknowledgment that the employee’s at-will status “could not be amended, modified or altered in any way” was unlawful because “[c]learly such a clause would reasonably chill employees who were interested in exercising their Section 7 rights [to engage in PCA].”

Although untested, it is possible that the following language would address the language cited by the ALJ as unlawful and cure any defects: “The at-will nature of employment with [Employer Name] may be modified only if in writing, signed by you or your representative and an authorized Center representative.” This language leaves open the possibility that an employee could have a representative, including a union, “negotiate” for a better deal than simply at-will employment and should be held to be lawful.

Off-Duty Access Policies

The NLRB also held a hotel chain’s “no off-duty access” rule to be unlawful because the rule reserved the right to the employer to exercise its discretion to grant exceptions to its general rule that employees were not allowed to enter onto its property when they were not working.” Under the rule of law applied by the NLRB, a no access rule is valid only if three conditions are met. The rule must (1) limit access solely with respect to the interior of the employer’s premises and other working areas; (2) be clearly disseminated to all employees; and (3) apply to off-duty employees seeking access to the facility for any purpose and not just to those engaging in union activity.

Employers who want to ban employees from coming onto their property when they are not working will have to meet all three of these criteria. As result, lawful no-access rules will be harsher and cannot include any exceptions.

Conclusion

By its nature, the NLRB is prone to what experts call “policy oscillations” where its interpretations of the law may change with the political party in power at any given time. To some degree these fluctuations can be expected. However, the current NLRB seems to have taken a dramatic turn in the expansive way it views employee rights. Employers should be aware of these recent developments and should review their work rules and policies to make sure that they still comply with the law as viewed by the current NLRB. Specifically, employers should revise their social media, employment-at-will and no-access polices as soon as possible.

Posted in concerted protected activity, discipline and discharge, employer policies, hospitality, NLRB, unions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Part 2 – Social Media, the NLRB and Employer Policies

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

 

Ever since the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) was passed in 1935, employees have had the right to engage in “protected concerted activity” (“PCA”) for their mutual aid and protection. These rights apply to employees regardless of whether they are represented by a union in their workplace.

Under President Obama, the NLRB has been very aggressive in further expanding employee rights to engage in PCA. This conclusion is supported by the NLRB’s rulings or official guidelines with regard to social media, employment-at-will and off-duty access policies.

Social Media and Related Policies

No other policy area has received more attention by the NLRB than social media. The attention has arisen because social media is a relatively new technology, at least when compared to the history of the Act. Social media policies also cover a broad range of topics, such as confidential information, harassment, workplace violence, contact with third parties, the media or government agencies, and therefore may involve many different employee rights.

The NLRB’s General Counsel issued three different papers setting forth guidelines concerning what employers may and may not say in social media policies. The length and scope of these guidelines gives a lot of insight into the current NLRB’s view of employee rights.

 

Policies or Rules Declared Lawful

In those same guidelines, the NLRB’s General Counsel ruled the following rules to be lawful:

  • Employees should not post “any opinion or statement as the policy or view of the employer or any individual in that capacity as an employer otherwise on behalf of the employer.”
  • Employees should not post “inappropriate postings that may include discriminatory remarks, harassment and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct.”
  • Develop a healthy suspicion. Don’t let anyone trick you into disclosing confidential information. Be suspicious if asked to ignore identification procedures.
  • Employees should not discuss information related to the “safety performance of the employer’s systems or components or vehicles” and “secret, confidential or attorney-client privileged information.”
  • “Respect all copyright and all other intellectual property laws. For the employer’s protection as well as your own, it is critical to show proper respect for the laws governing copyright, fair use of copyright material owned by others, trademarks and other intellectual property, including the employer’s own copyrights, trademarks and brands.”
  • Employees should try to work out concerns over working conditions through internal procedures.
  • Use your best judgment and exercise personal responsibility. Take responsibility as stewards of personal information to heart. Display integrity, accountability and respect of core employer values. As a company, we trust – and expect – you to exercise personal responsibility when you participate in social media or other online activities. Remember that there can be consequences for your actions in the social media world – both internally, if your comments violate our policies – and with outside individuals or entities. [It would be unlawful to state: if you are about to publish, respond or engage in something that makes you even the slightest bit uncomfortable, don’t do it].
  • “Harassment, bullying, discrimination or retaliation that is not permissible in the workplace is not permissible between coworkers online, even if it’s done after hours, from home and on home computers.”
  • No unauthorized postings: Users may not post anything on the Internet or in the name of the employer or in a manner that can reasonably be attributed to the employer without prior written authorization from the president or the president’s designated agent.
  • Employees should expressly state that postings are “my own and do not represent my employer’s positions, strategies, or opinions.”
  • Be “respectful and fair and courteous in the posting of comments, complaints, photographs, or videos”…[along with sufficient examples of plainly egregious conduct]…For example, do not post things that “could be viewed as malicious, obscene, threatening, or intimidating” or “harassment or bullying” and avoid “offensive posts meant to intentionally harm someone’s reputation” or posts that can contribute to a hostile work environment on the basis of “race, sex, disability, religion or any other status protected by law or company policy.”
  • Employees should “maintain the confidentiality of the employer’s trade secrets;”
  • Employees are prohibited from disclosing information regarding the development of systems, processes, products, know-how, technology, internal reports, procedures or other internal business-related communications. [The rule does need to communicate to employees that it does not reach protected communications about working conditions].
Posted in employer policies, NLRB, social media, unions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Better Get Serious About Wellness – Obesity Contributes to Workers Comp Claims and Absenteeism

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

If I figure out effective ways to get tired warehouse and construction craft employees to exercise before or after work, I deserve a Nobel Prize.  It’s tough to focus on good eating and diet when you work 8 or 10 hours in a physical job.  The EHS Magazine articles below discuss the relationship between obesity and workers comp claims and the difficulties in establishing an effective wellness program outside of an office setting.

http://ehstoday.com/health/ehs_imp_52818

Study: Obesity Increased Workers’ Comp Costs

According to the results of a new study, obese workers filed twice the number of workers’ compensation claims, had seven times higher medical costs from those claims and lost 13 times more days from work injuries or work illnesses than non-obese workers.

http://ehstoday.com/health/study-obesity-surpasses-smoking-employee-health-care-costs

 Study: Obesity Surpasses Smoking in Employee Health Care Costs

A study of more than 30,000 employees suggests that when it comes to racking up additional health care costs, obesity surpasses smoking.

Apr. 18, 2012 Laura Walter

Obesity Linked to Job Absenteeism, Study Says

A recent study suggests that issues related to obesity and morbid obesity go far beyond the waistline. The health conditions also are associated with increased rates of work absenteeism, with estimated costs of $4.3 billion per year in the United States.

Dec. 26, 2007 Katherine Torres
Posted in aging workforce, OSHA, wellness, workers comp | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Changing Demographics and Personal Philosphy Affect Recruiting and Managing Newer Workers

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

We talk regularly about Generation Y, X, Z or whatever, and the obvious ethnic changes in the U.S.  However, consider the increase in “individualism” and “me” philosophy these days.  When recruiting for traditionally dirty or demanding or positions requiring long hours, you should consider this developing attitude. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/opinion/brooks-the-talent-society.html

The Talent Society By

We’re living in the middle of an amazing era of individualism. A few generations ago, it was considered shameful for people to have children unless they were married. But as Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise reported in The Times on Saturday, these days, more than half of the births to women under 30 occur outside of marriage.

In 1957, 57 percent of those surveyed said that they believed that adults who preferred to be single were “immoral” or “neurotic.” But today, as Eric Klinenberg reminds us in his book, “Going Solo,” more than 50 percent of adults are single. Twenty-eight percent of households nationwide consist of just one person. There are more single-person households than there are married-with-children households. In cities like Denver, Washington and Atlanta, more than 40 percent of the households are one-person dwellings. In Manhattan, roughly half the households are solos.  READ more at the above link.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865567386/More-households-with-dogs-than-with-children.html?pg=all

Posted in discipline and discharge, EEOC, employer policies, food processing, generational differences, hospitality, recruiting | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Part 1 What Rules Can I Enforce About Social Media

Posted on November 30, 2012 by mavity2012

It’s bad enough dealing with teaching one’s children to use social media responsibly, but we also have to deal with an NLRB who seems committed to prohibiting most rules governing employee social media use.  What’s an employer to do?  Part 1 of my posts will deal with some but not all rules found unlawful by the NLRB.

 

  • A rule that employees not “release confidential guest, team member or company information;

 

  • A rule instructing employees not to share confidential information with coworkers unless they need the information to their job;

 

  • A rule instructing employees not to have discussions regarding confidential information in the break room, at home, or in open areas in public places;

 

  • A rule threatening employees with discharge or criminal prosecution for failing to report unauthorized access on issues of confidential information;

 

  • A rule instructing employees to be sure that their postings are “completely accurate and not misleading and that they do not reveal non-public information on any public site;”

 

  • A rule that instructs employees not to “reveal non-public company information on any public sites;”

 

  • A rule that cautions employees that “when in doubt about whether the information you are considering sharing falls into one of the prohibited categories, do not post.  Check with the Employer to see if it’s a good idea;”

 

  • A rule that prohibits employees from posting photos, music, videos and “personal information of others without obtaining the owner’s permission and ensuring that the content can be legally shared;”

 

  • A rule prohibiting employees from using the Employer’s logos and trademarks; [It appears that a rule prohibiting the commercial use of an Employer’s logo or trademarks would be lawful];

 

  • A rule that “offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks are as out-of-place online as they are offline;”

 

  • A rule instructing employees to “think carefully about friending coworkers;”

 

  • A rule that instructs employees to “report any unusual or inappropriate internal social media activities;”

 

  • A rule prohibiting disclosure of personal information about the employers, employees and contingent workers;

 

  • A rule prohibiting employees from commenting on legal matters;

 

  • A rule warning employees not to “pick fights” and to avoid conflicts that might be considered objectionable or inflammatory..such as politics and religion;

 

  • A rule reminding employees to communicate in a “professional tone;”

 

  • A rule requiring employees to “get permission for reusing others’ content or images;”

 

  • A rule encouraging employees to “resolve concerns about work by speaking with coworkers, supervisors or managers;”

 

  • A rule prohibiting employees from posting information regarding the Employer that can be deemed “material, non-public information” or “confidential or proprietary;”

 

  • A rule warning employees to “avoid harming the image and integrity of the Company;”

 

  • A rule requiring employees who receive “unsolicited or inappropriate electronic communications” to report them;

 

  • A rule prohibiting employees from making “disparaging or defamatory” comments;

 

  • A rule prohibiting employees from participating in activities that disparage or defame Company on Company time;
Posted in concerted protected activity, social media | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

In Drive to Unionize, Fast-Food Workers Walk Off the Job

Posted on November 29, 2012 by mavity2012

In Drive to Unionize, Fast-Food Workers Walk Off the Job

By

Check the article in today’s NYT about the SEIU’s efforts to unionize fast food workers. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/nyregion/drive-to-unionize-fast-food-workers-opens-in-ny.html 

A few excerpts are pasted below.  Check the NYT for the full article and others of interest.

Fast-food workers at several restaurants in New York walked off the job on Thursday, firing the first salvo in what workplace experts say is the biggest effort to unionize fast-food workers ever undertaken in the United States.

The campaign — backed by community and civil rights groups, religious leaders and a labor union — has engaged 40 full-time organizers in recent months to enlist workers at McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Domino’s, Taco Bell and other fast-food restaurants across the city.

Leaders of the effort said that workers were walking off the job to protest what they said were low wages and retaliation against several workers who have backed the unionization campaign.  (NOTE FROM HOWARD:  any sort of third-party or employee “public” protest is going to include “claims of retaliation” and “whistleblowers.” )

They said it would be the first multi-restaurant strike by fast-food workers in American history, although it was unclear how many workers would walk off the job.

 The first walkout took place at 6:30 a.m. at a McDonald’s at Madison Avenue and 40th Street, where several dozen striking workers and supporters chanted: “Hey, hey, what do you say? We demand fair pay.” An organizer of the unionizing campaign said that 14 of the 17 employees scheduled to work the morning shift had gone on strike. 

…..

 The new campaign aims in part to raise low-end wages and reduce income inequality, and is also an uphill battle to win union recognition. (NOTE FROM HOWARD:  Expect to see these Occupy Wallstreet-type themes gain more use.)

….

Christine C. Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council who has struggled with various measures intended to improve wages and working conditions in the city, expressed support for fast-food workers.  (ANOTHER COMMON TACTIC).

“I support fast food restaurant workers’ rights to organize and fight for decent wages,’’ Ms. Quinn wrote in a Twitter message on Thursday morning.  (NOTE THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.)

Jonathan Westin, organizing director at New York Communities for Change, a community group that is playing a central role in the effort, said hundreds of workers had already voiced support for the campaign, called Fast Food Forward.

….

Mr. Westin said the campaign was using techniques that differed from those in most unionization drives, and was still developing overall strategy. He declined to say whether it would pursue unionization through elections or by getting workers to sign a majority of cards backing a union.

McDonald’s issued a statement about the incipient unionization push. “McDonald’s values our employees and has consistently remained committed to them, so in turn they can provide quality service to our customers,” the company said.

It added that the company had an “an open dialogue with our employees” and always encouraged them to express any concerns “so we can continue to be an even better employer.” McDonald’s noted that most of its restaurants were owned and operated by franchisees “who offer pay and benefits competitive within the” industry.

….

Even with a union, it might be hard to obtain wages of $15 an hour, and many employers say they would most likely employ fewer workers if they had to pay that much.

Mr. Westin’s group, New York Communities for Change, has played a major role in the recent uptick in unionizing low-wage workers in New York, many of whom are immigrants. In the past year, his group, working closely with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and other organizations, has helped win unionization votes at four carwashes and six supermarkets in New York.  (MY EMPHASIS ADDED.)

The sponsors of the fast-food campaign also include UnitedNY.org, the Black Institute and the Service Employees International Union, a powerful union that is playing a quiet but important role behind the scenes.

Several religious leaders are backing the effort.

….

“I feel I deserve $15 an hour,” said Ms. Archer, 59. “I work very hard.” She said she hoped a union would deliver affordable health insurance and paid sick days.

“My hope is we can all come together in a union without being intimidated,” she said.

TCB Management, the franchisee that operates Mr. Hall’s McDonald’s, and Lewis Foods, which runs Ms. Archer’s, did not respond to inquiries.

Tim McIntyre, a Domino’s Pizza spokesman, said the few efforts to unionize its stores and drivers had fallen flat.

“It’s a fairly high-turnover position, so there’s never been a successful union effort,” he said. “People who are doing this part time, seasonally or as they work their way through college don’t find much interest in membership.”

Richard W. Hurd, a labor relations professor at Cornell, said the organizations backing the fast-food campaign seemed intent on finding pressure points to push the restaurants to improve wages and benefits.

“But it’s going to be a lot harder for them to win union recognition,” he said. “It will be harder to unionize them than carwash workers because the parent companies will fight hard against it, because they worry if you unionize fast-food outlets in New York, that’s going to have a lot of ramifications elsewhere.”

Nate Schweber contributed reporting.

Posted in hospitality, retail, unions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Threats of Retail Employee Strikes Illustrate Need for Preperation

Posted on November 29, 2012 by mavity2012

As the linked articles below explain, the UFCW, Moveon.org and various other groups planned to interfere with the Thanksgiving shopping activities through “strikes” and other actions designed to disrupt or embarrass retailers during their most crucial sales period.

Happily, based on reports, shopping crazy buyers and the retail world enjoyed a mutually satisfactory weekend.  However, as discussed today (11/29) in a fine Wall Street Journal article, these Black Friday/Cyber Monday efforts are a harbinger of things to come.  Retailers and other “public” employers, such as hospitality and restaurants should prepare for this or future efforts. http://247wallst.com/2012/11/29/walmart-and-fast-food-strikers-face-harsh-winds/ 

Employers should plan for how they would handle third party actions against their stores, restaurants, hotels or other workplaces,  and should realize that the NLRB has been aggressively accepting charges and issuing complaints about employee concerted protected activities not involving unionized sites or employees involved in or trying to organize a union.  While the steps below are intended for retailers, many of the recommendations are applicable to most employers.

All Retailers Should Be Alert!

The concerns  are not solely about Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart has simply had the misfortune to be large enough to serve as a whipping boy and easy target.  Amazon and others have experienced similar attacks.  Moreover, some third-party groups are affiliated with or the offspring of “Occupy Wall Street” and reflect those groups’ unfocused complaints and wide range of targets.  Radio and TV stations are airing interviews with employees of many retailers who are bemoaning having to work on Thanksgiving Day as Black Friday moves back to “Black Thanksgiving Evening.”

As if this is not enough, one of the articles below describes a union associated group’s efforts to get consumers to boycott “Cyber Monday” allegedly

because of “dangerous, sweatshop-like working conditions facing U.S. warehouse workers who fulfill online orders for retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon,”  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/activist-groups-boycott-cyber-monday/

 

Consider Neighboring Retailers & Your Suppliers

An employer may not be directly attacked but must still plan for how to manage issues created by disturbances at a neighboring retailer or other workplace and how to communicate with its own employees should questions arise.

Coordinate with suppliers and transportation/logistics providers about maintaining deliveries, especially if they are unionized and may be unable or choose not to cross a picket line.

 

Retailers and Those Who Supply Them Should Ensure that They are Ready:

  • Know your rights and risks, including:
  1. Individuals have certain rights to picket and handbill on public right of ways and other areas, depending on the facts and so long as the activity does not interfere with entrance and exit;
  2. Employees have the right to “engage in concerted protected activity” and employers may have the right to “permanently replace strikers”… but avoid knee-jerk actions;
  • Establish managers at every site who are trained to handle issues relating to pickets, employees not showing up for work, press inquiries, third-party and employee hand billing or disturbances in stores, OSHA and other complaints, involvement of law enforcement, ongoing communications with employees,  and other issues;
  • Establish a Corporate Response Team to support individual stores and handle complex legal and publicity issues and allow store management to focus on maintaining business as is usual.
  • Train supervisors on how to respond to pickets and other group activity at stores;
  • Prepare strike plans, including coordination with law enforcement and analysis of how to handle traffic;
  • Review with suppliers and transportation companies whether they are prepared to maintain urgent deliveries during the season;
  • Have a “press plan” in place and be ready to respond to negative communications as needed, including reports based on the retailers response to pickets and other similar activities.
  • Review policies governing Confidentiality, Electronic Communications and Negative/Unprofessional Behavior in light of restrictive recent NLRB decisions.  Don’t make mistakes through knee-jerk responses to employees picketing, missing work or making negative statements about the retailer.
  • Carefully review your No-Solicitation and Distribution” and property access/security policies, and how you enforce them in light of recent NLRB decisions, including where a contractor on site or in the same shopping area may be a target.
  • Train supervisors about how to handle “striking employees” so as to avoid unfair labor practices relating to improper discipline and discharge.
  • Be prepared for employee complaints triggering inspections, especially to OSHA and to local fire marshals and similar agencies.
  • In addition to NLRB concerted protected activity charges, expect safety/whistleblower charges, including the 20+ retaliation laws enforced by OSHA.
  • REMEMBER!  Third parties often seek to trick an employer into unwittingly violating the law!  They take photos and video, tape record, and may try to provoke action.

OSHA and Safety & Security Complaints are a Popular way to Embarrass Employers

To see how a union can harass a highly visible employer who must protect its “brand” go to the union, UNITE-HERE’s site at: http://www.hotelworkersrising.org/

OSHA has issued “Crowd Control Guidance” ( http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=23259 )  and employees and third parties may be quick to make complaints about any perceived failures or simply to embarrass and cost a company money.

Moreover, most stores are not as effective at unloading stock and handling it as they would prefer and a rush period such as the Christmas Holiday press creates countless possible OSHA violations relating to:

  • Blocked exits, extinguishers and electric panels, including by the use of temporary conveyors;
  • Miscellaneous routine electrical violations such as unlabeled switches in cabinets, materials improperly stored in electrical rooms, missing ground plugs, damaged cords and temporary extension cords running to equipment when OSHA regulations require permanent wiring;
  • Fire extinguishers knocked off walls or sitting on floors;
  • Missing or inadequate exit signage;

Go to OSHA’s “NEWSROOM” and review retailer-OSHA citations over the last few years and the routine items cited:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owares.do_search?p_doc_type=NEWS_RELEASES&p_logger=1&p_status=CURRENT&p_search_type=NEWSTEXTPOLICY&p_search_str=retail&pBindCalendar1=&pBindCalendar2=&x=15&y=9

Here’s to a peaceful season!  Maybe concerns are overblown.

Howard

Posted in concerted protected activity, hospitality, OSHA, retail, unions | Tagged , , | Leave a comment