Standard Interpretations - (Archived) Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1904.12(g)(1)|
October 16, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR: Byron R. Chadwick Regional Administrator THRU: Carey, Director Office of Field Programs FROM: Thomas J. Shepich, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs SUBJECT: Recordkeeping InterpretationThis is in response to your memorandum of June 9, received in this office on August 4, in which you sought policy guidance. The issues arose over calculation of LWDI rates at a Coors Brewery, where the company has a can plant, a bottle plant, and a brewery, located at the same physical site. You also had a question as to how to handle a maintenance shop at the Coors Brewery, which is a common service provided to the three operations and cannot be attributed to any single establishment except the administrative complex, which is low-hazard and would not be subject to a programmed inspection.
First, we agree with your determination that Coors does have three separate manufacturing establishments on this site. As you are aware, 29 CFR 1904.12(g)(1) treats the above-mentioned situation as a "separate establishment".
Second, the maintenance shops should be treated as a separate establishment
for recordkeeping purposes. Guidance is provided in Chapter iii(A), page 19,
of the BLS Recordkeeping Guidelines for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.
A separate set of logs should be kept for these employees since they are not
identified exclusively with any one of the three manufacturing
establishments. Additionally, because maintenance shops are not considered
low hazard, they may fall within the scope of a comprehensive programmed or
unprogrammed inspection, as discussed in Chapter II(B)(5)(a) of the Field
June 9, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR: BYRON R. CHADWICK Regional Administrator FROM: GERARD RYAN Area Director SUBJECT: Request For Recordkeeping InterpretationDuring a recent inspection at the Adolph Coors brewery a question was raised as to what constituted an establishment for the purposes of our lwdi calculation. The Coors Company has a can plant, bottle plant, and brewery all located at the same physical site which comprises several hundred acres. In addition they also have several service type operations that perform services for these manufacturing operations such as engineering: maintenance and their Administrative office.
The Coors Company wanted us to treat the entire valley in Golden as one establishment. If we had done so their lwdi rate would have been less then the National average and a comprehensive safety inspection would not have been conducted. Our position was that they had three separate manufacturing establishments each with it's own unique SIC code which appear in different locations on the planning guides outside of the current cycle.
It appears from looking at 1904 and BLS's Recordkeeping Guidelines (blue book) that an establishment is dependent on a single location, has "distinctly separate activities", and would typically have separate administrative services such as management, accounting and payroll.
They are located on one contiguous location, they do have distinctly separate activities, and they have separate management at the manufacturing locations which report to common management at their main administrative office where they share the same accounting and payroll services. Thus you could argue either position. I feel however, that they should be treated as having three separate manufacturing establishments. If we do that however, how do we handle their maintenance shops which is a common service provided to all three and can not be attributed to any single establishment except their administrative complex which is low hazard and would not be subject to a programmed inspection?
As you are aware the Coors company did allow a consensual inspection. I
would appreciate an interpretation for our future reference on how to treat
such a location should the need arise to obtain a warrant.
|Standard Interpretations - (Archived) Table of Contents|