Abstract: On January 8, 2014, Employee #1, a telephone line installer/repairer employed by Pinnacle Telecommunications, Inc., and coworkers were working at a telephone sub-station. Their employer, which specializes in telecommunications infrastructure design, installation, and maintenance, had been contracted by the property's owning and operating employer to install telecommunication switch gears in the sub-station. Employee #1 and coworkers were working above grade, at a height of between 7 and 10 feet, standing on a metal structure suspended from the ceiling of the sub-station. This metal structure, less than 20 inches wide, was used to mount and suspend the telephone switching equipment. During interviews conducted as part of the subsequent investigation, Employee #1's coworkers stated they found Employee #1 lying on the floor of the building at Aisle 137, next to Rack RR 137.08, .5-01. Employee #1 was unconscious, with a gash to his head and blood coming from his nose. Emergency services were called, and Employee #1 was transported to the hospital, where he was admitted and treated for a head fracture. The employer reported this event to Cal/OSHA at approximately 11:30 a.m. on January 8, 2014. The subsequent investigation determined that the employer is classified as an electrical contractor and other wiring installation contractor. Employee #1 fell approximately 7 feet from the suspended metal structure to grade. At the time of his fall, neither Employee #1 nor any other employee was using fall arrest equipment, work positioning equipment, or travel restricting equipment. Other fall protection methods were not provided, for example, guardrails, safety nets, etc. The stated reason from management was, "While working at heights is part of the general training required, fall protection training is not, as there are no harnesses deployed or used in our present environment. A copy of the Job Hazard/Safety Analysis for the stated job is not available. No hazards were identified on this job." The investigation found that, at the time of Employee #1's fall, the employer did not require employees to use personal fall protective devices to prevent a fall. The employer's stated reason was that the controlling employer did not want to risk a metal part of a personal fall protective device coming into contact with a piece of telephone switch gear, because such potential contact could cause a service outage. Pinnacle Telecommunications, Inc., the exposing employer, did not utilize other fall protection methods to protect its employees, such as guardrails, safety nets, etc.