Associated General Contractors of Indiana, Inc.
May 11, 1999
Felipe G. Devora
Safety Director; Fretz Construction
Chairperson; Multi Employer Work-Group
Re: Suggested Points to Address in the Proposed Draft
I would like to preface my comments by saying that AGC of Indiana is not in agreement with the current OSHA policy concerning Multi Employer inspections. However, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the improvement of the policy draft, which has improved under your leadership of the Multi Employer Work Group.
The Work Group meeting May 5 was very productive. The following points, I feel, are of value to recommend to OSHA for development of Multi Employer Work Sites enforcement policy:
This policy causes substantial exposure to Construction Managers and General Contractors to being issued frequently cited violations resulting in numerous repeated violations with high penalties. In addition to high penalties, the history established through IMIS OSHA data collection is not a fair representation when owner(s) make reviews in selecting a Construction Manager or General contractor. I recommend that OSHA be approached in giving consideration in issuing repeat violations for situations other than the Exposing Employer or the Creating Employer only.
Definition of Reasonable Care
The reasonable care requirements as stipulated in the 05-1999 draft follows a very high requirement for the exposing employer (c)(g)(a)(1) to a lesser (c)(g)(e)(3) (analysis) which I feel is appropriate.
Without going to a federally published check list or adoption of Oregon OSHA Multi Employer Worksite Policies, or the use of Stute versus PBMC decision as a checklist, I think that the policy should include as many scenario examples as possible.
Consistently OSHA has been accused of being inconsistent in the issuance's of Multi Employer citations resulting in a great deal of frustration. The more OSHA tries to re-define policy and delegate decision making throughout the regions, the more the inconsistencies are compounded by multiple persons within each region, and region(s) supervising state plans, trying to have the same interpretation of an already complex issue.
I understand that such decision delegation is a part of this administration's "reinvention of government" and may work in some regulatory agencies serving to "streamline government". However, with the complex issue of multi employer citations, it soon becomes disserving and makes and already complex issue more unmanageable.
My recommendation is that all multi employer citations other than exposing & creating be supervised by one entity within OSHA to assure uniform and consistent interpretation of the multi employer policy.
Jim BrownBack to Top