Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 001 Hazard: ERGONOMIC

The General Motors Corporation, 199 Beekman Ave., North Tarrytown, NY., covered by the General Motors-UAW Corporate-Wide Settlement Agreement on Ergonomics. The following terms of the Agreement were not met: (Instances listed by paragraph section, title and page of Corporate-Wide Settlement Agreement) a) Section 3.0,Job Analysis Program,page 8: The written job analysis program provided does not explain how facilities injury and illness data were analyzed and who was responsible for doing the analysis. It does not state how priorities were set for job analysis among jobs selected off the GM200 log. Analysis of baseline symptoms surveys is not mentioned. Corrective measures are not addressed. b) Section 3.1,Injury and Illness Analysis,page 8: All relevant workers compensation records, C-3s and C-4s, are not used in injury and illness analysis. c) Section 3.3,Priorities and Timetables,page 9: Priorities and Timetables for corrective action are not reviewed or revised by the ergonomics committee (EC). The line speed increase in August, 1992 should have prompted a revision of the timetables for corrective action by the EC. This did not occur. None of the first 25 jobs which were analyzed between 2/6/92 and 3/5/92 were corrected. This group included nine jobs which were given three or more stars by the monitor. d) Section 4.4,Modification Activity,page 11: Job analysis tracking forms were provided to the plants from Corporate GM to document job modification on an on-going basis. Job modifications were not tracked during 1992. Job analysis tracking forms were not available for all jobs which were risk factored. Tracking forms which were missing pertinent information such as, but not limited to; the number of workers affected, projected completion dates, cost of modification, and reasons for delaying abatement. e) Section 5.3.4Semi-annual review with employees of the application of ergonomic principles during safety talks,Page 16. There are no regularly scheduled safety talks. f) Section 6.3Medical department staff periodic workplace walkthroughs,page 17. The medical department did not perform the walkthroughs as required by this section.g) Section 6.8.3,Re-evaluation in no more than three working days,page 20. Re-evaluation of workers with CTDs exceeded the three working day period. No appointments are made for follow-up visits; employees are only told to return to medical. There is no tracking system for employees who do not return for reevaluation. CTD files are not all available and are grossly incomplete. GM standardized reporting forms for physical exams, medical histories, and treatment summaries are not filled out by the medical staff. h) Section 9.1.1,Reports to Local Area Office,page 27: The quarterly reporting form was changed in April, 1993. The form used for all quarterly reports prior to April does not identify how employees with CTDs were treated. It simply states employees are referred to their private medical doctor for treatment. It does not provide projected engineering controls and a schedule for implementation of control measures. The revised quarterly reports do not identify projected engineering controls and a schedule for implementation of controls.