Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1926.20; 1926.21; 1910.1200; 1926.59|
|OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.|
Employer Interference. Where entry has been allowed but the employer interferes with or limits any important aspect of the inspection, the CSHO shall determine whether or not to consider this action as a refusal. Examples of interference are refusals to permit the walkaround, the examination of records essential to the inspection, the taking of essential photographs and/or videotapes, the inspection of a particular part of the premises, indispensable employee interviews, or the refusal to allow attachment of sample devices. [emphasis added]Question #12. How is the employer-employee relationship defined by OSHA when temporary workers are utilized in the workplace? Is there any guidance provided in the OSHA compliance directives or field manual?
Definition of Employee. Whether or not exposed persons are employees of an employer depends on several factors, the most important of which is who controls the manner in which the employees perform their assigned work. The question of who pays these employees may not be the determining factor. Determining the employer of an exposed person may be a very complex question, in which case the Area Director may seek the advice of the Regional Solicitor.Two U.S. Supreme Court cases (neither case involved occupational safety and health), that discuss the criteria to be considered in determining the existence of a master-servant (or employer-employee) relationship in common law, are Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed 2d 581 (1992) and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166 (1989). The cases held that the following criteria is to be considered in determining whether there is an employer-employee relationship.
|Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.