Employment &Legal Encounter

Paul has a point about the working space being dangerous and unsuitable for employee safety considering a previous incident. Notwithstanding the report of the safety manager, the working space is deemed too confining and urgent steps should be undertaken to move the machinery to a more spacious area. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1971, NewCorp is obliged to ensure among other things that employees are protected from any harm (U. S. Department of Labor, 2006). The ‘general duty clause’ allows OSHA to intervene in the workplace to enforce regulations ignored by the management.

One of the criteria that permit OSHA to intervene is management awareness of a correctable hazard. In this case, the injury of an employee was sufficient to inform the management of a serious danger. The fact that the company was lax in taking corrective measures, places it at a disadvantage with respect to ensuring employee safety. In this regard NewCorp could face some sanctions from OSHA. Paul is protected under section 11(c) of the law from any retaliation, discrimination or termination of employment resulting from his recourse to OSHA and should go ahead and seek the services of a lawyer (U. S. Department of Labor, 2006).

In the event that the report from OSHA confirms that the working place was indeed dangerous, Paul can sue NewCorp for forcing him to work under such conditions. References Pregnancy Discrimination Act (P. L. 95-555) 1978 Rood v. General Dynamics Corp. , 507 N. W. 2d 591, 598 (Mich. 1993) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), Unlawful Employment Practices SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] (a) 2 Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579 (1980) U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2006) All About OSHA. OSHA. Washington, D. C.