Occupational Safety

Robby is being hired in an illegal manner. The job description, as has been narrated, entails contact with hazardous and radioactive containers. This is in contrast with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of the United States of America. In summary, FLSA establishes employment’s least age of admission, which is 14 years employment in the non-agricultural industry; put a limit on the number of work-hours  for minor employees, generally under 16 years; and, provide prohibition for employment of minors, (defined to be under the age of 18) in dangerous occupations.

Moreover, FLSA institutes below minimum salary average for individuals under the age of 20 years, students on a full-time scale, interns, student learners, and individuals with disabilities. Under Subpart E of Part 570 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, otherwise known as the Hazardous Occupations Orders (HOs) for Nonagricultural Employment, the following work environments are considered hazardous and would need qualified employees to performing tasks in these environments:

The Hazardous Occupations Orders (HOs) for Nonagricultural Employment HO 1        Manufacturing and storing of explosives. HO 2        Motor-vehicle driving and outside helper on a motor vehicle. HO 3        Coal mining. HO 4        Logging and sawmilling. HO 5*        Power-driven woodworking machines HO 6        Exposure to radioactive substances. HO 7         Power-driven hoisting apparatus, including forklifts. HO 8*        Power-driven metal-forming, punching, and shearing machines HO 9         Mining, other than coal mining.

Operating power-driven meat processing equipment, including meat slicers and other food slicers, in retail establishments (such as grocery stores, restaurants, kitchens and delis), wholesale establishments, and most occupations in meat slaughtering, packing, processing, or rendering. HO 11     Power-driven bakery machines including vertical dough or batter mixers. HO 12*    Power-driven paper-products machines including scrap paper balers and cardboard box compactors HO 13     Manufacturing bricks, tile, and kindred products.

Power-driven circular saws, bandsaws, and guillotine shears. HO 15         Wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking operations. HO 16*         Roofing operations and all work on or about a roof. HO 17*         Excavation operations (*These HOs provide limited exemptions for 16- and 17-year-olds   who are bona-fide student-learners and apprentices. ) Our discussion will then tone down to HO 6 which is the situation Robby Landry is in when hired. HO 6 defines the Occupations Involving Exposure to Radioactive Substances and to Ionizing Radiation3.

Employment of minors is considered illegal when work conditions would include the following: (1) work in any workroom to which radium is stored; or, used in the manufacture of self-luminous compound or self-luminous compound is made, processed, or packaged; or, self-luminous compound is stored, used, or worked upon; or, incandescent mantles are made from fabric and solutions containing thorium salts, or are processed or packaged; or, other radioactive substances are present in the air in average concentrations exceeding 10 percent of the maximum permissible concentrations in the air recommended for occupations exposure by the National Committee on Radiation Protection, as set forth in the 40-hour week column of Table One of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook No. 69 entitled Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Radio-nuclides in Air and In Water for Occupational Exposure issued June 5, 1959; and, (2) Any other work which involves exposure to ionizing radiations in excess of 0. 5 REM per year. 3 In the above enumeration of prohibited work conditions for minors, self-luminous compound means any mixture phosphorescent material and radium, mesothorium, or other radioactive element. 3 Also, workroom embraces the whole zones which are wall-enclosed with solid material and from floor to ceiling.

Ionizing radiations is defined to be alpha and beta particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, gamma, and X-ray and all other radiations which produce ionizations directly or indirectly, but does not include electromagnetic radiations other than gamma and X-ray. 3 With the above definitions and enumerations from FLSA, clearly, Robby Landry is in for a tough job and he is supposed not to. His employer has evidently violated the law as prescribed on Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of the United States of America for hiring Minor individuals. 4. In general, workers should be aware of mechanical machines and vehicles such as forklift, etc. in a workplace. This is in coherence Material Handling Equipment as part of 1926. 602 in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR).

In this case, The Boxer was wrong when Forklift 17 was still being used before repair of a busted alarm system, though it has already been scheduled. On that faithful Wednesday, Ryan Madison is being hit by the said hauling vehicle when it was in Reverse when he made a turn in the corner. As has been stated in 1926. 602(a)(9)(ii): “No employer shall permit earthmoving or compacting equipment which has an obstructed view to the rear to be used in reverse gear unless the equipment has in operation a reverse signal alarm distinguishable from the surrounding noise level or an employee signals that it is safe to do so. ” Ryan Madison’s case of being hit in a blind turn with Forklift 17, having a dysfunctional alarm, while in reverse is purely of the employers fault.

In the first place, the said equipment shouldn’t have been used before repair of the alarm has been done. OSHA main goal is ensuring American workers’ safety and health through coordination with both the employees and employers in establishing healthy and safe working conditions as well as improving environments where individuals perform there jobs. Prior to its establishment, workplace fatalities have been high that upon introduction in 1971, OSHA has helped to cut workplace fatalities by more than 60 percent and occupational injury and illness rates by 40 percent. At the same time, U. S. employment has increased from 56 million employees at 3. 5 million worksites to more than 135 million employees at 8. 9 million sites.

4 This is done by promoting continual development on workplace safety and health; imposing standards; and, offer education and outreach; building collaborations. The Boxer should take sole responsibility to the incident and learn/be reminded that standards are results of mistakes from the past and that they serve as guide for a safe and healthy workplace. At that, I close Ryan Madison’s case. 5. Build-Rite’s claim that it is negligence on the part of Tom Woodstock has several loopholes. Initially, as per provision by subsection 8102 (Compensation for Disability or Death of Employee) of the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (FECA), which is also known as Public Law 103-3 enacted 1993, compensation by the United States will be forfeited upon willful misconduct of the employee .

If we look at it the way it has been presented, Build-Rite has rightfully claimed that the negligence is on the part of Tom’s – had he been paying attention only to his walking on the beam, he would not have become quadriplegic as a result of his 30-foot fall. FECA (5 U. S. C. 8101 et seq. ) is promulgated by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) of the Department of Labor of the United States. Compensation benefits, for civilian employees of the United States, are bestowed upon disability caused by personal injury incurred while in the performance of duty or to employment-related disease. On one hand, Tom Woodstock’s claim would be valid on the grounds set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR).

Protection in the workplace to every employee should be afforded by the employer and it the latter’s responsibility to provide basic protection to employees especially in such dangerous workplace like Tom’s. Fall protection systems criteria and practices are provided by the 1926. 502 of Safety and Health Regulations for Construction in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR). Under this standard, guardrail, safety net, personal fall arrest, positioning device, and warning line systems are to be implemented. Also, controlled access zones, safety monitoring systems, covers, protection from falling objects, and fall protection plan are to be instigated, as well. Regular check-up of such devices is also stipulated in this subpart.

In this subsection, we will clearly see what has been lacking in Tom’s get-up – a personal fall arrest system is just one amongst the many protections he should have had. Personal fall arrest systems, limits maximum arresting force on an employee to 900 pounds (4 kN) when used with a body belt; limits maximum arresting force on an employee to 1,800 pounds (8 kN) when used with a body harness; will be rigged such that an employee can neither free fall more than 6 feet (1. 8 m), nor contact any lower level; bring an employee to a complete stop and limit maximum deceleration distance an employee travels to 3. 5 feet (1. 07 m); and, have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.

8 m), or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is less. Safety nets could have also lessened the impact Tom’s fall. It could have saved him from being quadriplegic. These nets shall be installed as close as practicable under the walking/working surface on which employees are working, but in no case more than 30 feet (9. 1 m) below such level. When nets are used on bridges, the potential fall area from the walking/working surface to the net shall be unobstructed. 7 Tom’s 30-ft fall entitled him a 13-ft wide of horizontal distance of outer edge of net from the edge of the working surface. This could have made the difference. The non-presence of Guardrails is also clear in this case.

As we have read, Tom was walking on a beam with no protection at all. He looks down at women coming out from a restaurant, slips then fall. Prior to his fall, the slip could have been prevented had there been guardrails which could have been a helpful grip for Tom. This case is clearly a two-way situation. Tom Woodstock should have concentrated on doing his task of crossing a beam, but Build-Rite should have implemented the Fall Protection System Criteria and Practices. I would say that in this case, Built-Rite has to concur with the standards and should grant compensation, shoulder expenses on rehab and medicine, and provide compensation for Permanent Disability.

Sarah from Law Aspect

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/9aavBA