OSHA “Paper” Investigations

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has broad power to inspect workplaces. Section 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act empowers OSHA inspectors “to enter without delay and at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site” or other workplace.  Inspectors have the right to inspect and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and to question management and employees.

Although courts have ruled that businesses can require OSHA to obtain a warrant before entry, these are administrative warrants which are not difficult to obtain from a court.

However, there is a less intrusive form of investigation which OSHA uses to address complaints about workplace conditions when the potential hazard seems not to present serious, immediate risk to workers and therefore is not a high priority.  These are known as phone/fax investigations, which as the name implies do not involve on-site inspections, at least initially. Having received and reviewed a complaint, an OSHA inspector will contact the employer by telephone, and follow-up with a faxed letter giving notice of a complaint and requesting a response within five business days (OSHA still uses fax machines).

The letter will specifically state that it is not a citation or a notice of on-site inspection, and will describe the type of response that OSHA expects to receive.  If the employer’s response is inadequate or identifies a more serious hazard, OSHA may still conduct an on-site inspection.  However, a detailed and documented response, showing that corrective actions were taken, if any were needed, will most often be enough to allow OSHA to close its file.

The take-away for employers is that providing thorough supporting documentation is worth the effort.  For example, a representation that the employer maintains personal protective equipment should be accompanied with inventory, training and/or maintenance records.  A representation that air quality standards have been met should be supported by records of periodic inspections.  A client of ours responded to a complaint that emergency exits were obstructed by furnishing photographs of the exits showing clear pathways and “Do Not Obstruct” signage.  A comprehensive response is the best way to keep the investigation on paper rather than on-site.

Posted in Employment

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page