inspection no. 1016945 wooden window, inc. · pdf fileoshab 600 (rev. 4/16) decision 1 before...

OSHAB 600 (Rev. 4/16) DECISION 1

BEFORE THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTHAPPEALS BOARD

In the Matter of the Appeal of:

WOODEN WINDOW, INC.

Employer

Inspection No.1016945

DECISION

Statement of the Case

Wooden Window, Inc. (Employer) manufactures custom doors and windows. Beginning January 8, 2015, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (the Division) through Associate Safety Engineer Tara Huffman (Huffman), conducted a consensual programmed inspection at a place of employment maintained by Employer at 849 29th Street, Oakland, California 94608 (the site). On June 15, 2015, the Division cited Employer for seven general violations, two regulatory1 and four serious violations of California Code of Regulations, title 8.2 The citations remaining at issue for the ALJ to rule on allege the following: Employer failed to ensure the flexible power cord was not used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the structure; Employer failed to ensure the hand-fed table saw was guarded by a hood; Employer failed to ensure the hand-fed table saw was equipped with a spreader fastened securely to the saw; Employer failed to ensure the hand-fed table saw was guarded by a hood designed to prevent a kickback or a separate attachment that would prevent a kickback.

Employer filed a timely appeal contesting the existence of the alleged violations for Citation 1, Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Additionally, Employer contested the existence of the alleged violations, the classification of the alleged violations, and the reasonableness of the proposed civil penalties for Citation 2, Item 1, Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1. Employer pleaded numerous affirmative defenses for all appealed citations.3

During the hearing, Employer withdrew its appeal of Citation 1, Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and Citation 2, Item 1. The parties stipulated the term “acetone” in the alleged violation

1 At hearing, the parties stipulated to the reclassification of Citation 1, Item 5 from general to regulatory. Additionally, although Citation 1, Item 7 is characterized in the hearing record as a general classification, the correct classification is regulatory (Exhibits 1.2, 3).2 See Exhibit 1. Unless otherwise specified, all references are to California Code of Regulations, title 8.3 Except as otherwise noted in this Decision, Employer failed to present evidence in support of its pleaded affirmative defenses, and said defenses are therefore deemed waived. (See, e.g. Central Coast Pipeline Construction Co., Inc, Cal/OSHA App. 76-1342, Decision After Reconsideration (July 16, 1980) [holding that the employer bears the burden of proving all of the elements of the Independent Employee Action Defense.])


description (AVD) for Citation 1, Item 8, should be amended to “isopropyl alcohol”. Additionally, the parties stipulated the penalty for Citation 2, Item 1 should be adjusted to $3,600 based on Employer’s timely abatement.

This matter came regularly for hearing before Mary Dryovage, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board), in Oakland, California on February 2, 2016 and March 4, 2016. Ronald E. Medeiros, Attorney, of the Robert D. Peterson Law Corporation, represented Employer. Denise M. Cardoso, Staff Counsel, and Carl Paganelli, Staff Counsel, represented the Division.4 The matter was submitted on January 6, 2017.

Prior to issuing a decision, ALJ Dryovage became unavailable.5 ALJ Christopher P. Merrill was assigned to write the decision. The decision is based upon a review of the evidence in the record. No new evidence was provided or considered.

Issues

1. Did Employer violate section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1), by failing to ensure the flexible extension cord powering the paint mixer SN: 014586P was not substituted for the fixed wiring of the building?

2. Did the Division establish employees of Employer were exposed to the violation alleged in Citation 1, Item 3?

3. Did Employer establish a permitted use for the flexible extension power cord as an exception to section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1)?

4. Did Employer violate section 4300.1, subdivision (a), by failing to ensure the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was guarded by a hood which completely encloses that portion of the saw above the table and that portion of the blade above the material being cut?


6. Did the Division establish a rebuttable presumption that the alleged violation in Citation 3, Item 1, is properly classified as serious?

7. Did Employer violate section 4300.1, subdivision (b), by failing to ensure the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was equipped with a spreader and fastened securely to the saw?


9. Did the Division establish a rebuttable presumption that the alleged violation in Citation 4, Item 1, is properly classified as serious?

4 Carl Paganelli appeared for the Division on March 4, 2016 for the limited purpose of cross-examination of Employer’s witness, Mark Christiansen. 5 The parties stipulated to have a newly assigned ALJ issue a decision based on the record.


10. Did Employer violate section 4300.1, subdivision (c)(1), by failing to ensure the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was guarded by a hood designed to prevent a “kickback”?


12. Did the Division establish a rebuttable presumption that the violation alleged in Citation 5, Item 1, is properly classified as serious?

13. Did the Division establish the proposed penalties for Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1, are reasonable?

14. Did Employer demonstrate equivalent safety as an affirmative defense to Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1?

15. Are the hazards addressed in Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1, duplicative and subject to the same abatement?

Findings of Fact6

1. All of the photographs presented as exhibits at hearing were taken by Huffman during her inspection at the site on January 8, 2015.

2. Francisco Ortega was an employee of Employer on January 8, 2015.3. Employer used a flexible extension power cord to provide power to a paint mixer for several

months as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building.4. Employer’s employees were actually exposed to the hazard of electrical shock caused by

using a flexible extension power cord to power the paint mixer as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building.

5. The paint mixer is not an appliance.6. The use of the flexible extension power cord did not prevent the transmission of vibration.7. The hood guard to the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was not

attached to saw.8. Employer engaged in rip cutting of wood.79. The majority of Employer’s employees used the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN:

1114101675.10. Failure to utilize a hood guard on the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675

exposed employees to lacerations, contusions, and amputation.11. The spreader and anti-kickback device to the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN:

1114101675 were attached to the removed hood guard.12. During inspection, Employer was not engaged in crosscutting, grooving, dadoing, or

rabbeting. 13. Failure to have the spreader and anti-kickback device attached to the SawStop 10” Industrial

Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 exposed employees to serous physical harm from lacerations, contusions, internal bleeding, and amputation.

14. The SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 Safety System did not provide the equivalent safety of the hood guard.

6 Findings of fact 1, 2, 16 and 17 were stipulated by the parties at hearing. 7 A rip-cut is used in woodworking to sever or divide a piece of wood parallel to or with the grain of the work-piece.


15. Ensuring the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 is guarded with a hood guard would eliminate the hazard in Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1.

16. The proposed civil penalties were calculated in accordance with the Division’s policies and procedures pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8 and the Labor Code.

17. Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1 are adjusted to $3,600 each based on Employer’s verified timely abatement.

Analysis

1. Did Employer violate section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1), by failing to ensure the flexible extension cord powering the paint mixer SN: 014586P was not substituted for the fixed wiring of the building? Section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1), found under Article 49 (Flexible Cords and Cables) of

Subchapter 5 (Electrical Safety Orders) provides:

(a) Unless specifically permitted otherwise in Section 2500.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used:

(1) as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure;

In citing Employer, the Division alleged:

Prior to and during the course of the inspection, including, but not limited to January 8, 2015 the employer did not ensure that the flexible extension cord powering the paint mixer SN: 014586P in the spray painting area was [not] substituted for the fixed wiring of the building.

The Division has the burden of proving a violation, including the applicability of the safety order, by a preponderance of the evidence. (Howard J. White, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 78-741, Decision After Reconsideration (June 16, 1983).) “Preponderance of the evidence” is usually defined in terms of probability of truth, or of evidence that when weighted with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and greater probability of truth with consideration of both direct and circumstantial evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from both kinds of evidence. (Lone Pine Nurseries, Cal/OSHA App. 00-2817, Decision After Reconsideration (Oct. 30, 2001), citing Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App. 4th 472, 483.) Words within an administrative regulation are to be given their plain and commonsense meaning, and when the plain language of the regulation is clear, there is a presumption that the regulation means what it says. (AC Transit, Cal/OSHA App. 08-135, Decision After Reconsideration (June 12, 2013) (Internal citations omitted).)


Here, the safety order on its face applies to the cited activity. Both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence illustrating Employer allowed the use of a flexible extension power cord to power the paint mixer SN: 014586P (paint mixer) in the spray painting area of the building. Employer did not dispute the building is a structure. Employer, therefore, is subject to the safety order.

The parties disputed whether Employer failed to ensure the flexible extension power cord was not used as a substitute for the fixed wiring in the structure.8 In order to meet its burden, the Division must prove Employer used the flexible extension power cord as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building. It is the use of the cord or cable that is most important. (Bethlehem Steel Corp., Cal/OSHA App. 76-552, Decision After Reconsideration (May 21, 1981).)

Huffman credibly testified that during her inspection she observed the orange flexible extension power cord in use to power the paint mixer in the spray paint area of the building. Huffman observed dry paint caked on the flexible extension power cord and identified this at hearing on a photograph she took during her investigation (Exhibit 21). Huffman confirmed the flexible extension power cord attached to the black power cord from the paint mixer was energized by using a “tech-tracer”.9 During direct testimony, Huffman identified the tech tracer light illuminated to demonstrate the paint mixer as energized in the photograph she took of the flexible extension power cord plugged into the paint mixer black power cord during her investigation (Exhibit 22). Huffman testified based on her discussions with several of Employer’s employees that the flexible extension power cord had been plugged in for several weeks and was used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of the building. This exposed employees to the hazard of electrical shock due to the paint mixer becoming overloaded or through a power surge.

The Division, therefore, established Employer failed to ensure the flexible extension power cord was not substituted for the fixed wiring of the structure.

2. Did the Division establish employees of Employer were exposed to the violation alleged in Citation 1, Item 3? The Division bears the burden of proving employee exposure to a violative condition

addressed by a safety order by a preponderance of the evidence. The Division may establish exposure in one of two ways. First, the Division may demonstrate employee exposure by showing that an employee was actually exposed to the zone of danger or hazard created by a violative condition. Alternatively, “the Division may establish the element of employee

8 Although not defined in the safety order, structure is defined as “something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or damn” ("Structure." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed January 5, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/structure.)9 The tech tracer indicates light when energy is flowing into the flexible extension power cord.


exposure to the violative condition without proof of actual exposure by showing employee access to the zone of danger based on evidence of reasonable predictability that employees while in the course of assigned work duties, pursuing personal activities during work, and normal means of ingress and egress would have access to the zone of danger.” (Benicia Foundry & Iron Works, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 00-2976, Decision After Reconsideration (April 24, 2003).) “The zone of danger is that area surrounding the violative condition that presents the danger to employees that the standard is intended to prevent.” (Ibid.) “Reasonable predictability is an objective standard and is not analyzed from a subjective point of view….” (River Ranch Fresh Foods-Salinas, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 01-1977, Decision After Reconsideration (July 21, 2003), citing Phoenix Roofing, Inc., 17 OSHC 1076, 1079, 1993-95 OSHD ¶ 30,699 (1995).) "The Board defines 'exposure' as reliable proof that employees are endangered by an existing hazardous condition or circumstance." (Stiles Paint Manufacturing, Cal/OSHA App. 02-1630, Decision After Reconsideration (Aug. 16, (2006), citing Ford Motor Company, Cal/OSHA App. 76-706 Decision After Reconsideration (July 20, 1979).) A violation "may not be based on speculation, assumptions, or conjecture that employees will be exposed to the hazard which the safety order is designed to abate, but rather upon definite evidence of a past or existing danger." (Ford Motor Company, Cal/OSHA App. 76-706, supra.)

The Division must demonstrate employees of Employer were exposed to the flexible extension power cord powering the paint mixer to establish a violation of section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1). Huffman credibly testified that during her investigation she interviewed two management employees of Employer, Robert Janca (Janca) and Roberto Uribe (Uribe), regarding employee exposure to the flexible extension power cord. Both Janca and Uribe informed Huffman that an employee painter, Alex Andrei (Andrei), worked in the spray paint area where the paint mixer attached to the flexible extension power cord. Employer made no attempt to refute Huffman’s testimony on this point. Additionally, Mark Christiansen (Christiansen), Employer’s Chief Executive Officer, testified during direct examination that employees of Employer used the paint mixer. Christiansen did not specifically state which employee used the paint mixer, but it can be inferred from his testimony that employees were exposed to the hazard through the necessity of performing their job duties in the course of manufacturing custom doors and windows and would be in the zone of danger by performing those duties. Under both analyses cited above, employees of Employer were actually exposed to an existing hazardous condition, and it is reasonably predictable that during the course of assigned work duties employees would have access to the zone of danger created by the existing hazardous condition.

Employer, citing Ja Con Construction Systems, Inc. dba Ja Con Construction, Cal/OSHA App. 03-441, Decision After Reconsideration (March 27, 2006), argues in its post-hearing reply brief that the Division did not demonstrate employees were actually exposed to any hazard during the workday when they used the paint mixer. Employer argues that because Huffman hypothetically theorized during her testimony that Employer could, to avoid the hazard,


temporarily use the flexible extension power cord during the workday and then at the end of the day unplug it and attach it to the fixed wiring of the building at night, that no employee exposure existed. However, this is not enough to sustain Employer’s argument. In particular, Employer did not offer any credible evidence to demonstrate it implemented this practice. On the contrary, Christiansen credibly testified that Employer did not unplug the paint mixer every night and it had been in the state depicted in Exhibit 21 for months. It is precisely because Employer did not unplug the paint mixer from the flexible extension power cord and use the fixed wiring of the building that employees were exposed to the hazard of electrical shock due to an overload or a power surge. Employer’s theoretical or hypothetical possibilities posed to Huffman at hearing do not disprove this.

The Division, therefore, established employees of Employer were exposed to the violation alleged in Citation 1, Item 3.

3. Did Employer establish a permitted use for the flexible extension power cord as an exception to section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1)? Section 2500.7 provides a number of specific permitted uses for flexible cords as exempt

from section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1). Section 2500.7, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part:

(b) Flexible cords and cables shall be used only for:

[…]

(3) connection of portable lamps or appliance;

[…]

(8) prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration;

[…]

Section 2300, subdivision (b) defines an appliance as:

Utilization equipment, generally other than industrial, normally built in standardized sizes or types, which is installed or connected as a unit to perform one or more functions such as clothes washing, air conditioning, food mixing, deep frying, etc.

The Appeals Board regards exceptions to safety orders as affirmative defenses for which the employer has the burden of proof. (Chacon Steel Company, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 85-1430, Decision after Reconsideration (August. 13, 1987).)


In order to meet its burden, Employer must demonstrate that it used the flexible extension power cord for connection of a portable lamp or appliance, or to prevent the transmission of noise or vibration.10

Employer, in its post-hearing brief argues the paint mixer is an appliance. Employer, however, presented no credible evidence at the hearing to support its claim. At hearing, Christiansen testified that the function of the paint mixer is to violently shake a five gallon bucket of paint. An employee would accomplish this by placing a bucket of paint in a clamp. Once the paint mixer is in-use, it utilizes a shaft to function as a piston to violently shake the liquid mix. Hoffman’s photograph of the paint mixer indicates the paint mixer is quite large and industrial in nature (Exhibit 21). Christiansen testified the paint mixer is a heavy piece of machinery. The industrial nature of the paint mixer is supported by the size of the machine and the fact that Employer is engaged in the industrial manufacturing of windows and doors and uses the paint mixer to assist in the completion of the painting portion of the manufacturing finishing process of the windows and doors. Therefore, Employer did not demonstrate the paint mixer is an appliance within the meaning of section 2500.7, subdivision (b)(3), as defined in section 2300, subdivision (b).

Employer, in its post-hearing brief, also argues that it used the flexible extension cord to prevent the transmission of vibration. Employer’s position, however, is undermined by its own witness. Christiansen testified at hearing that the paint mixer is, as illustrated in Huffman’s photograph, connected to the flexible extension power cord on a platform which moves a bit due to shaking caused by the violent action during the paint mixing process (Exhibit 21). Based on this testimony, the use of the flexible extension power cord did not prevent the transmission of vibration because vibration occurred due to the violent action stemming from the paint mixing process. Employer, therefore, did not demonstrate its use of the flexible extension power cord prevented the transmission of vibration within the meaning of section 2500.7, subdivision (b)(8).

Employer did not carry its burden of proof for these affirmative defenses. The Division met its burden in establishing a violation of section 2500.8, subdivision (a)(1).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

10 Employer did not present evidence on or argue that any of the other enumerated permitted activities found within the section applied to their operation of the paint mixer.


4. Did Employer violate section 4300.1, subdivision (a), by failing to ensure the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was guarded by a hood which completely encloses that portion of the saw above the table and that portion of the blade above the material being cut? Section 4300.1, subdivision (a), found under Article 59 (Woodworking Machines and

Equipment), Group 8 (Points of Operation and Other Hazardous Parts of Machinery) of Subchapter 7 (General Industry Safety Orders) provides:

(a) Each hand-fed table saw shall be guarded by a hood which completely encloses that portion of the saw blade above the table and that portion of the blade above the material being cut.


Prior to and during the course of the inspection, including, but not limited to January 8, 2015 the employer did not ensure that the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was guarded by a hood which completely encloses the portion of the saw blade above the table and the portion of the blade above the material being cut. The employers’ table saw had the hood guard sitting on the saw with the words “Do Not Remove” written on it.

Here, the safety order on its face applies to Employer’s cited activities. The parties both provided testimony that the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 (SawStop Saw) is a hand-fed table saw that Employer used to cut wood for manufacturing custom wood windows and doors. Therefore, Employer is subject to the safety order.

To demonstrate Employer violated section 4300.1, subdivision (a), the Division must show Employer did not ensure the SawStop Saw was guarded by a hood. Hoffman credibly testified that during her investigation she observed that the hand-fed SawStop Saw did not have a hood guard attached to it to completely enclose the saw blade above the table. Huffman observed the hood guard lying off to the side on the table next to the blade, with the words printed on the hood guard in marker “Do Not Remove!” (Exhibit 5 and 6). Huffman testified the purpose of the guard is to protect employees from accessing the blade while it is in motion. Huffman testified during her investigation Janca and Uribe admitted Employer used the SawStop Saw for rip-cutting. Francisco Ortega (Ortega), who works for Employer as a miller, credibly testified that he would, on occasion, take the guard off because the hood guard made it difficult to cut smaller pieces of wood. Ortega testified he witnessed other employees take off the hood guard. Ortega acknowledged he understood the hood guard is meant to prevent the blade from coming in contact with hands and cutting fingers.

Based on the credible evidence presented by the Division, Employer did not ensure the SawStop Saw was guarded by a hood.


5. Did the Division establish employees of Employer were exposed to the violation alleged in Citation 3, Item 1? The Division must show employees of Employer were exposed to the violative condition

by either demonstrating actual exposure or, absent evidence of actual exposure, by demonstrating employee access to the zone of danger based on evidence of reasonable predictability.

Huffman credibly testified during her inspection she spoke with Janca and Uribe to determine employee exposure to the hazard created by not having a hood guard covering the blade on the SawStop Saw. Janca and Uribe informed Huffman the majority of the shop used the SawStop Saw, including Ortega.11 Ortega testified that he worked with the SawStop Saw once or twice a week to perform various types of wood cuts. Additionally, Ortega testified that Janca disciplined him for removing the hood guard and Christiansen verbally warned him not to remove the hood guard.

Employer argues in its post-hearing brief, relying on JA Con Construction, Cal/OSHA App. 03-441, supra, that the Division did not prove employee exposure because Huffman did not observe any employee using the SawStop Saw without the hood guard in place. However, real time observation of a violation is not the standard for actual exposure. A violation may be established based upon definite evidence of a past or existing danger. (Ford Motor Company, Cal/OSHA App. 76-706, supra.) Huffman credibly testified she observed the hood guard removed from the SawStop Saw at the time of the inspection. Ortega testified he removed the hood guard and he observed other employees do the same. At the time of the inspection Janca and Uribe informed Huffman the majority of Employer’s employees used the SawStop Saw. Additionally, Janca and Uribe informed Huffman employees used the SawStop Saw for rip- cutting, the precise type of wood cutting for which a hood guard is required (Exhibit 28, pg. 34). Therefore, the Division demonstrated actual employee exposure to the hazard.

Alternatively, based on the credible evidence the Division presented, it is reasonably predictable that Employer’s employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of danger created by the removal of the hood guard. The safety order is designed to prevent the misuse of the SawStop Saw and the zone of danger is the area surrounding the SawStop Saw when the hood guard is not in place. The Appeals Board has held Ja Con Construction, Cal/OSHA App. 03-441, supra, merely reiterated that the reasonable predictability standard required some consideration of the “likelihood” of employee access to make sure that exposure determinations were not made solely on tenuous theoretical or hypothetical possibilities. “Reasonable predictability” requires consideration of such things as “the nature of the work, the work activities required, and the

11 Admissions adverse to an employer made by a representative of that employer are an exception to the hearsay rule and may support a finding of fact. (See Evidence Code § 1222; Macco Construction, Cal/OSHA App. 84-1106, Decision After Reconsideration (Aug. 20, 1986).)


routes of arrival and departure.” In short, Ja Con Construction was an effort to give further meaning to the “reasonable predictability” “access” standard, and to avoid a misreading, not to supplant it. (Dynamic Construction Services, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 14-1471, Decision After Reconsideration (December 1, 2016).)

Here, the Division established the majority of Employer’s employees used the SawStop Saw. It is likely that by not having the hood guard in place on the SawStop Saw Employer placed employees (who would have access to and use the SawStop Saw for rip-cutting in the course of their job duties as manufacturers of custom wood windows and doors) in the zone of danger and exposed them to the hazard created.

6. Did the Division establish a rebuttable presumption that the alleged violation in Citation 3, Item 1, is properly classified as serious? A rebuttable presumption of a serious violation exists when the Division establishes there

is "a realistic possibility that death or serious physical harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation." (Labor Code section 6432, subdivision (a).) The term "realistic possibility" means that that it is within the bounds of reason, and not purely speculative. (Langer Farms, LLC, Cal/OSHA App. 13-0231, Decision After Reconsideration (Apr. 24, 2015).) To meet its initial burden, the Division must produce "some satisfactory evidence demonstrating the types of injuries that could result and the possibility of those injuries occurring." (MDB Management, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 14-2373, Decision After Reconsideration (Apr. 25, 2016).) The Board has long held that unguarded machine parts in plain view constitute a serious hazard. (Fibreboard Box & Millwork Corp.While the lack of previous injuries may indicate that an injury is unlikely to occur, it is not a defense to a serious violation. (Kaiser Sand & Gravel Co. Inc., OSHAB 83-003, Decision After Reconsideration (Sept. 26, 1985).)

The Division must demonstrate that serious physical harm is a "realistic possibility" from the hazard created by not having the hood guard in place on the SawStop Saw. At hearing, Huffman testified she was current in her Division mandated training. Huffman, therefore, is deemed competent by operation of law to establish each element of a serious violation because her training was up to date.12 Additionally, Huffman testified she received extensive training with her previous employer, VA/OSHA, regarding general health and safety, lock-out/tag-out, and machine guarding. Huffman testified, based on her training and experience, in her opinion it is realistically possible employees would suffer serious physical harm by not having the hood guard on the SawStop Saw. Without the hood guard in place, Employees would be exposed to potential contact of hands and fingers with the moving blade of the SawStop Saw. Such contact could realistically result in lacerations, contusions or amputations of a hand or appendage. Moreover, Huffman observed the lack of a hood guard in plain view during her investigation,

12 Labor Code section 6432, subdivision (g).


which provided Employer notice of the presence of a serious violation. The Division, therefore, established a presumption of a serious violation.

Labor Code section 6432, subdivision (c) provides a mechanism for Employer to rebut the presumption of a serious violation. It states:

If the division establishes a presumption pursuant to subdivision (a) that a violation is serious, the employer may rebut the presumption and establish that a violation is not serious by demonstrating that the employer did not know and could not, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have known of the presence of the violation.

Here, Employer did not demonstrate it did not know, and could not have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the presence of the violation. Ortega testified that Christiansen told him to not remove the guard from the blade.13 Christiansen testified that although the manufacturer did not require it, he specifically asked the facilities manager to write the words “Do Not Remove!” in black marker on the hood guard (Exhibit 5 and 6). Christiansen did this because he wanted to ensure the guard would stay with the SawStop Saw when removed and to ensure if an employee did not know or was not trained on the SawStop Saw they would ask someone before using the SawStop Saw. Based on this testimony, Employer knew not having the hood guard on the SawStop Saw presented a serious hazard. Employer did not present any evidence on its training practices for employees or supervisors to prevent exposure to the hazards of not ensuring the SawStop Saw hood guard was used.

Employer presented no evidence of procedures for controlling access to, and correcting the hazard presented by not having a hood guard on the SawStop Saw. Employer did not provide any alternative explanation for the circumstances surrounding the alleged violative events. While Employer offered some testimony in an effort to rebut the presumption, its evidence is not sufficient to do so. Christiansen testified that to the best of his knowledge there had been no previous injuries involving the SawStop Saw. He also observed that some of the wood cuts Employer utilized could not be accomplished with the hood guard in place. The absence of previous accidents and Employer's wood cutting processes without the use of a hood guard has some relevance to the classification; however, it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 6432, subdivision (c).

/ / /

/ / /

13 Ortega testified he would receive disciplinary consequences, such as having points taken away from the bonuses he received, if he removed the guard from the blade.


7. Did Employer violate section 4300.1, subdivision (b), by failing to ensure the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was equipped with a spreader and fastened securely to the saw? Section 4300.1, subdivision (b), found under Article 59 (Woodworking Machines and


(b) Except when crosscutting, grooving, dadoing, or rabbeting, a spreader shall be provided and fastened securely to the saw. It shall be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4296.

The Class B designation in the title line of section 4300.1 is defined in section 4188. Section 4188 states in relevant part:

The designation “Class-B” means that the order applies unless the nature of the work, type of machinery, or size and shape of material being worked will not permit.


Prior to and during the course of the inspection, including, but not limited to January 8, 2015 the employer did not ensure that the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was equipped with a spreader and fastened securely to the saw. The employers table saw had the hood guard with the spreader device attached sitting on the saw with the words “Do Not Remove” written on it.

Here, the safety order on its face applies to the cited activity. The parties both provided testimony that Employer used the SawStop Saw to perform rip-cutting of wood used in manufacturing custom wood windows and doors. Therefore, Employer is subject to the safety order.

The second element requires the Division to establish Employer failed to ensure the SawStop Saw was equipped with a spreader fastened securely to the saw. Huffman credibly testified that Employer informed her during the investigation it engaged in the rip-cutting of wood. Huffman testified that Employer violated the safety order because the removed hood guard had the spreader attached to it. The hood guard used by Employer is an all in one unit in which the spreader is attached to the hood guard. Once the hood guard is removed from the SawStop Saw, the spreader is also removed and not fastened securely to the SawStop Saw. Huffman testified that she observed a hood guard, with the words “Do Not Remove!” written on it, and the attached spreader removed from the blade and placed next to the blade on the table portion of the SawStop Saw. The function of the spreader is to keep the material cut separated while the wood is passed through the saw blade. Ortega credibly testified the purpose of the spreader was to help prevent the wood from kicking back into the operator during operation of


the SawStop Saw. Without the spreader in place, employees would be exposed to the hazard of material being thrown back on the operator. This could result in serious injuries such as amputation, lacerations and contusions.

Employer argues in its post-hearing brief it was entitled to the application of the exception found under sections 4188 and 4300.1. An exception to a safety order is an affirmative defense, by which the Employer may demonstrate that, after the Division has shown a violation of the cited safety order, it is in compliance with an authorized exception to the general (California Erectors, Bay Area, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 93-503, Decision After Reconsideration (Jul. 31, 1998).) An exception, however, must be read narrowly; a reading of an exception that "consumes the rule" is an absurd interpretation and is disfavored under rules of statutory construction. (See Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., Cal/OSHA App. 11-2217, Denial of Petition of Reconsideration (Mar. 11, 2013).)

Employer contends the safety order does not apply because Employer used the SawStop Saw for crosscutting, grooving, dadoing, or rabbeting type cuts which could not be accomplished with the hood guard installed on the SawStop Saw (Exhibit 28 pg. 34). Thus, Employer argues that for certain types of smaller cuts it used the SawStop Saw for, the hood guard with the spreader attached to it could not be utilized and had to be removed. However, this position is not supported by the credible evidence presented at hearing. Huffman testified, and Employer did not rebut, that Janca and Uribe informed her during her investigation that Employer was not engaged in crosscutting, grooving, dadoing, or rabbeting. Rather, Janca and Uribe informed Huffman that Employer was engaged in rip-cutting wood. The nature of rip-cutting wood required the use of the spreader for the safe operation of the SawStop Saw.14 Christiansen did provide some testimony that Employer used the SawStop Saw at some point for grooving, rabbet and dado cuts. However, the recognized exceptions do not supersede the general rule which requires a spreader to be securely fastened to a saw when Employer is using the SawStop Saw for operations not characterized as crosscutting, grooving, dadoing, or rabbeting.

Therefore, Employer has not satisfied its burden of proof to demonstrate that either exception applies to this matter.

8. Did the Division establish employees of Employer were exposed to the violation alleged in Citation 4, Item 1? The Division must show employees of Employer were exposed to the violation by either

demonstrating actual exposure or, absent evidence of actual exposure, by demonstrating employee access to the zone of danger based on evidence of reasonable predictability.

14 On page 34 of the SawStop Owner’s Manual a warning in red lettering states, “WARNING! Use the blade guard and spreader for every operation for it can be used, including all through sawing.”.


Under the standards discussed in the preceding section on employee exposure for Citation 3, Item 1, the evidence also supports employee exposure for Citation 4, Item 1. Huffman credibly testified she observed the hood guard which had the spreader attached to it removed from the blade and placed next to the blade on the SawStop Saw table. Huffman determined during her investigation through discussions with Janca and Uribe the majority of the Employer’s employees used the SawStop Saw. Additionally, based on the information provided to Huffman by Employer during the investigation it is reasonably predictable that employees of Employer were likely exposed to the hazard caused by the removal of the spreader attached to the hood guard of the SawStop Saw.

Therefore, the Division established employee exposure to the violation in Citation 4, Item 1.

9. Did the Division establish a rebuttable presumption that the alleged violation in Citation 4, Item 1, is properly classified as serious? Under the standards discussed in the preceding section on classification for Citation 3,

Item 1, the evidence also supports the serious classification for Citation 4, Item 1. Huffman credibly testified in her opinion, based on her experience and training, a realistic possibility of death or serious physical harm existed to employees by Employer failing to ensure the SawStop Saw was equipped with a spreader securely fastened to it. The spreader is used to protect employees from material being thrown back on the operator during rip-cutting operations. Huffman testified she observed the hood guard with the attached spreader removed from SawStop Saw and placed next to the blade on the table in plain view. If an employee operated the SawStop Saw while rip-cutting wood without the spreader in place a serious injury could result, including lacerations, contusions or amputation. Thus, the Division established a presumption of a serious violation.

Employer failed to rebut the presumption. As discussed in the preceding section on classification, Employer provided no evidence regarding its efforts or procedures to identify, control, supervise and train on the relevant hazards.

The Division, therefore, properly classified Citation 4, Item 1, as serious.

10. Did Employer violate section 4300.1, subdivision (c)(1), by failing to ensure the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was guarded by a hood designed to prevent a “kickback”? Section 4300.1, subdivision (c)(1), found under Article 59 (Woodworking Machines and



(c) Ripping operations shall comply with the following requirements in addition to those in subsections (a) and (b):

(1) The hood or other guard shall be so designed as to prevent a “kickback”, or a separate attachment that will prevent a “kickback” shall be provided. “Anti-kickback” devices shall be designed to be effective for all thicknesses of material.


Prior to and during the course of the inspection, including, but not limited to January 8, 2015 the employer did not ensure that the SawStop 10” Industrial Cabinet Saw SN: 1114101675 was guarded by a hood which was designed to prevent a “kickback”, or a separate attachment that would prevent a “kickback”. The employers table saw had the hood guard with the anti-kickback device attached sitting on the saw with the words “Do Not Remove” written on it.

Here, the safety order on its face applies to the cited activity. The parties both provided testimony that Employer used the SawStop Saw to perform rip-cutting of wood used in manufacturing custom wood windows and doors. Therefore, Employer is subject to the safety order.

The second element requires the Division to establish Employer failed to ensure the SawStop Saw was equipped with hood guard designed to prevent a kickback or a separate device for that purpose. Huffman credibly testified during her investigation she observed the hood guard removed from the SawStop Saw and placed next to the blade on SawStop Saw table. The hood guard is connected to the anti-kickback device, and; therefore, if the hood guard is removed from the SawStop Saw, so is the anti-kickback device. Based on her interview with Janca and Uribe, Huffman determined Employer used the SawStop Saw for ripping operations. Employer did not offer any credible evidence to refute Huffman’s testimony.

11. Did the Division establish employees of Employer were exposed to the violation alleged in Citation 5, Item 1? The Division must show employees of Employer were exposed to the violation by either

demonstrating actual exposure or, absent evidence of actual exposure, by demonstrating employee access to the zone of danger based on evidence of reasonable predictability.

Under the standards discussed in the preceding section on employee exposure for Citation 3, Item 1 and Citation 4, Item 1, the evidence also supports employee exposure for Citation 5, Item 1. Huffman credibly testified she observed the hood guard which had the anti-kickback device attached to it removed from the blade and placed next to the blade on the SawStop Saw table. Huffman determined during her investigation through discussions with Janca and Uribe the


majority of the Employer’s employees used the SawStop Saw. Additionally, Uribe and Janca informed Huffman Employer used the SawStop Saw for rip-cutting operations. Based on the information provided to Huffman by Employer during her investigation it is reasonably predictable that employees of Employer were likely exposed to the hazard caused by the removal of the anti-kickback device attached to the hood guard of the SawStop Saw.

Therefore, the Division established employee exposure to the violation in Citation 5, Item 1.

12. Did the Division establish a rebuttable presumption that the violation alleged in Citation 5, Item 1, is properly classified as serious? Under the standards discussed in the preceding sections on classification for Citation 3,

Item 1 and Citation 4, Item 1, the evidence also supports the serious classification for Citation 5, Item 1.

Huffman credibly testified in her opinion, based on her experience and training, a realistic possibility of death or serious physical harm existed to employees by Employer failing to ensure the SawStop Saw was equipped with an anti-kickback device securely fastened to it. The anti-kickback device is used to protect employees from wood caught by the blade being thrown back into employee’s abdominal area during rip-cutting operations. Huffman testified she observed the hood guard with the attached anti-kickback device removed from SawStop Saw and placed next to the blade on the table in plain view. If an employee used the SawStop Saw for rip-cutting operations without the anti-kickback device in place material could be thrown back into the employee’s abdominal area causing a serious injury, including lacerations, contusions or internal bleeding. Thus, the Division established a presumption of a serious violation.

Employer, in its post-hearing brief, argues the Division did not establish a presumption that the violation in Citation 5, Item 1 is serious because it failed to address the size of any material allegedly cut when the anti-kickback device was not used. Under Employer’s theory, it is the size of the material being cut that controls whether or not a serious violation exists. However, it is Employer’s burden to rebut the presumption of a serious violation. Employer failed to present any credible evidence to suggest Employer only cut wood material of a certain size to alleviate it from complying with the safety order cited. Additionally, as discussed in the preceding sections on classification, there is no evidence regarding Employer's efforts or procedures to identify, control, and train on the relevant hazards, or provide appropriate supervision. Thus, Employer failed to rebut the presumption.

The Division, therefore, properly classified Citation 5, Item 1 as serious.

/ / /

/ / /


13. Did the Division establish the proposed penalties for Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1, are reasonable?

Penalties calculated in accordance with the penalty setting regulations (section 333 through 336) are presumptively reasonable and will not be reduced absent evidence that the amount of the proposed civil penalty was miscalculated, the regulations were improperly applied, or that the totality of the circumstances warrant a reduction. (Stockton Tri Industries, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 02-4946, Decision After Reconsideration (Mar. 27, 2006).)

During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the penalties for Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1 were calculated in accordance with the Division’s policies and procedures. Therefore, each proposed penalty of $3,600 for Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1 are found reasonable.

14. Did Employer demonstrate equivalent safety as an affirmative defense to Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1?

Generally, an exception to the requirements of a safety order is in the nature of an affirmative defense, which the employer has the burden of raising and proving at the hearing. (See Kaiser Steel Corporation, Cal/OSHA App. 75-1135, DAR (June 21, 1982); Roof Structures, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 81-357, DAR (Feb. 24, 1983); and The Koll Company, Cal/OSHA App. 79-1147, DAR (May 27, 1983).) The burden of establishing the equivalency must fall upon the one who asserts it -- here the employer. Any other rule would pose an impossible task upon the Division, as it would be obliged to investigate and possibly test whatever means or method an employer conceived of as being equivalent. (F. P. Lathrop, Cal/OSHA App. 81-1273 (Decision After Reconsideration (April 20, 1984).) The Appeals Board has held in a number of previous decisions that "[An] employer does not have the discretion to decide when it will follow a safety order. Employer must comply with all safety orders. It may not, of its own accord, substitute a safety measure for that required by a safety order." (Certified Grocers of California, LTD., Cal/OSHA App. 78-607, DAR (Oct. 27, 1982).)

Employer argues, in its post-hearing brief, that equivalent safety exists because the SawStop Saw incorporated an electronic detection unit that, in the event human skin makes contact with the rotating saw blade, would immediately apply a brake to stop the blade in about 3-5 milliseconds (Exhibit 28 pg. 11). Christiansen testified that one of the factors he considered in purchasing the SawStop Saw was the electronic safety system. Employer, however, did not offer any credible evidence to establish that the SawStop Safety System provided equivalent safety for all types of cuts on the SawStop Saw. As noted in the SawStop Owner’s Manual the blade guard and spreader should be used for every operation it can be used, including all through sawing (Exhibit 28, pg. 34). Employer engaged in rip-cutting of wood, which is a form of all through sawing. The hood guard is used to prevent employees from coming into physical


contact with the SawStop Saw blade. The SawStop Safety System is predicated on human skin contact before it is activated. Employer failed to present any credible evidence to reconcile this point. Finally, Huffman testified the SawStop Safety System does not provide equivalent safety because it is not a viable guard. Employer did not offer any evidence to rebut Huffman’s testimony on this point.

Employer, therefore, failed to establish equivalent safety as an affirmative defense for Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1.

15. Are the hazards addressed in Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1 duplicative and subject to the same abatement?

In general, only one penalty can be assessed against an employer for multiple violations involving a single hazard even though an employer may be cited and found in violation of each of the violations. The Board has held penalties which tend to be duplicative or cumulative, and are not needed to effectuate abatement, are inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Act. (Strong Ties, Cal/OSHA App. 75-856, DAR (Sept. 16, 1978). Western Pacific Roofing Corp., Cal/OSHA App. 96-529, DAR (Oct. 18, 2000).) Under those circumstances, the Appeals Board may set aside a penalty if 1) the hazard is substantially identical or duplicative of another violation, and (2) abatement of one will serve to abate the other. (JSA Engineering, Inc., Cal-OSHA App. 00-1367, Decision After Reconsideration (December 3, 2002).) As the Board stated:

"In San Francisco Newspaper Agency, Cal/OSHA App. 93-319, Decision After Reconsideration (December 20, 1996), it was announced that: '[t]he Board … may set aside a violation if it is substantially identical or duplicative of another violation and is not needed to effectuate abatement.' In Color Specialists, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 95-3883, Decision After Reconsideration (June 30, 2000), the Board interpreted the San Francisco Newspaper Agency holding to mean, 'that where two or more citations are issued in relation to the same hazard, and are not identical, the civil penalties for those citations which relate to the same hazard may be set aside only if both violations will be abated by the same action.'" (Vance Brown, Inc., Cal/OSHA App. 00-3318, Decision After Reconsideration (April 1, 2003).)

Here, the Division cited interrelated, but not identical, sub-sections of the safety order concerning the safe operation of a hand-fed table saw.15 The SawStop Saw is a somewhat unique piece of equipment because the hood guard is configured in such a way where if it is removed so is the spreader and anti-kickback device. If the hood guard is removed, it creates employee

15 Section 4300.1, subdivision (a) requires Employer to ensure each hand-fed table saw is guarded by a hood which completely encloses that portion of the saw blade above the table and that portion of the blade above the material being cut; section 4300.1, subdivision (b) requires an employer to ensure a spreader is proved and fastened securely to the saw, except when crosscutting, grooving, dadoing, or rabbeting; section 4300.1, subdivision (c)(1) requires Employer ensure ripping operations comply with 4300.1, subdivisions (a) and (b), and the hood or guard should be designed to prevent a kickback, or a separate attachment that will prevent a kickback should be provided.


exposure to the hazard of not having a spreader or anti-kickback device for the hand-fed table saw. Thus, the hazards for Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1 and Citation 5, Item 1 are based on the same facts: namely ensuring the safe use of the SawStop Saw with a hood guard.

A single abatement (such as Employer ensuring the SawStop Saw is guarded by a hood) would eliminate the hazards in all three citations because, in this specific instance, the hood guard used for the SawStop Saw has three components to it that cannot be used independently of one another. Essentially, once the hood guard is removed on the SawStop Saw, the spreader and anti-kickback device are also removed from the SawStop Saw by virtue of being attached to the hood guard. Abatement of the violation in Citation 3, Item 1, by ensuring the SawStop Saw is guarded with a hood guard is essentially the same step necessary to effectuate satisfactory abatement for the violations cited in Citation 4, Item 1 and Citation 5, Item 1.

Therefore, pursuant to section 336, subdivision (k), the proposed penalty will not be assessed for Citation 4, Item 1 and Citation 5, Item 1.

Conclusion

Employer’s appeal for Citation 1, Item 3, Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1 is denied. The hazard in Citation 4, Item 1 and Citation 5, Item 1 is substantially identical to the hazard in Citation 3, Item 1. The violations in Citation 4, Item 1 and Citation 5, Item 1 are abated by the same action required in Citation 3, Item 1. Therefore, no penalties are assessed for Citation 4, Item 1 and Citation 5, Item 1 per section 336, subdivision (k).

Order

It is hereby ordered that Citation 1, Item 3, Citation 3, Item 1, Citation 4, Item 1, and Citation 5, Item 1 are affirmed. The associated penalty for each citation is set forth in the attached Summary Table.

__________________________________Dated: Christopher P. Merrill

Administrative Law Judge02/06/2017

OSHAB 601 APPENDIX A Rev. 5/16Summary of Evidentiary Record and Certification of Recording

APPENDIX ASUMMARY OF EVIDENTIARY RECORD

Inspection No.: 1016945Employer: WOODEN WINDOW, INC. Date of hearing(s): February 2, 2016, March 4, 2016

DIVISION’S EXHIBITS Exhibit Number Exhibit Description Status

01.1 Jurisdictional Document Admitted Into Evidence

01.2 Jurisdictional Document Admitted Into Evidence

01.3 Citation and Notification of Penalty Document Admitted Into Evidence

02 Cal/OSHA 1BY Document Admitted Into Evidence

03 Cal/OSHA 10 - Penalty Calculation Worksheet Admitted Into Evidence

04 Photo Admitted Into Evidence

05 Photo - Table Saw Admitted Into Evidence

06 Photo - Guard Admitted Into Evidence

07 Photo - Planer Admitted Into Evidence

08 Photo - Rip Saw Admitted Into Evidence

09 Photo - Sander Admitted Into Evidence

10 Tara Huffman - Letter for OSHA Mandated Training Admitted Into Evidence

11 Tara Huffman Notes Not Admitted into Evidence

12 Cal/OSHA 1AY - Document Request Admitted Into Evidence

13 Photo - Electrical Panel Admitted Into Evidence

14 Photo - Electrical Panel Admitted Into Evidence

15 Photo - Tarp Admitted Into Evidence

16 Photo - Tarp Covering Electrical Panel Admitted Into Evidence






21 Photo - Paint Mixer Admitted Into Evidence


23 Email Admitted Into Evidence



26 Cal/OSHA - 1B Not Admitted into Evidence

27 Photo - Bottle with Clear Liquid Admitted Into Evidence

28 SawStop Owner's Manual (107 pages) Admitted Into Evidence


30 Frequently Asked Questions - SawStop Not Admitted into Evidence

EMPLOYER’S EXHIBITS

Exhibit Letter Exhibit Description StatusA SawStop User's Manual - Using Your Saw (3 pages) Admitted Into

Evidence

Witnesses testifying at hearing:

Francisco Ortega Miller, Wooden Window, Inc.

Tara HuffmanAssociate Safety Engineer - DOSH High Hazard Unit

Mark ChristiansenChief Executive Officer, Wooden Window, Inc.


APPENDIX ACERTIFICATION OF HEARING RECORD

Inspection No.: 1016945Employer: WOODEN WINDOW, INC.

I, Christopher P. Merrill, the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board Administrative Law Judge duly assigned to hear the above-entitled matter, hereby certify the proceedings therein were electronically recorded or recorded by a certified court reporter. If the proceedings were recorded electronically, the recording was periodically monitored during the hearing. Either the electronic recording or the recording made by a certified court reporter constitutes the official record of the proceedings, along with the documentary and other evidence presented and received into evidence during or after the hearing. To the best of my knowledge the recording equipment, if utilized, was functioning normally and exhibits listed in this Appendix are true and correct, and accurately represent the evidence received during or after the hearing.

Christopher P. Merrill DateAdministrative Law Judge

02/06/2017

OSHAB 201 SUMMARY TABLE Rev. 06/16

SUMMARY TABLEOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

In the Matter of the Appeal of: WOODEN WINDOW, INC.

Inspection No.1016945

Citation Issuance Date: 06/15/2015CITATION

ITEM SECTION

TYPE

CITATION/ITEM RESOLUTION

AFF IRMED

VACATED

PENALTY PROPOSED BY DOSH IN

CITATION

FINAL PENALTY

ASSESSED

1 1 2340.16 (c) G Er w/drew appeal at hearing. A $160.00 $160.001 2 2473.1 (a) G Er w/drew appeal at hearing. A $160.00 $160.001 3 2500.8 (a) (1) G ALJ denied appeal. A $160.00 $160.001 4 2500.25 G Er w/drew appeal at hearing. A $160.00 $160.001 5 3203 (b) (1) G DOSH recl. to Reg. Er w/drew

appeal at hearing. A $485.00 $485.001 6 3400 (c) G Er w/drew appeal at hearing. A $160.00 $160.001 7 3664 (a) R Er w/drew appeal at hearing. A $325.00 $325.001 8 5194 (f) (4) G Stipulated amended AVD. Er

w/drew appeal at hearing. A $160.00 $160.001 9 6151 (c) (1) G Er w/drew appeal at hearing. A $160.00 $160.002 1 3314 (g)

(2)(A) S DOSH rec. to G. Er w/drew appeal at hearing. Stipulated penalty. A $7,200.00 $3,600.00

3 1 4300.1 (a) S ALJ denied appeal. Stipulated penalty. A $7,200.00 $3,600.00

4 1 4300.1 (b) S ALJ denied appeal, 336(k) w/Cit. 3-1, penalty reduced. A $7,200.00 $0.00

5 1 4300.1 (c) (1) S ALJ denied appeal; 336(k) w/Cit. 3-1, penalty reduced. A $7,200.00 $0.00

Sub-Total $30,730.00 $9,130.00

Total Amount Due* $9,130.00

*You may owe more than this amount if you did not appeal one or more citations or items containing penalties. Please call (415) 703-4291 if you have any questions.

PENALTY PAYMENT INFORMATION

1. Please make your cashier’s check, money order, or company check payable to: Department of Industrial Relations 2. Write the Inspection No. on your payment 3. Mail payment to: Department of Industrial Relations (Accounting) Cashier Accounting Office P.O. Box 420603 San Francisco CA 94142-0603

Online Payments can also be made by logging on to http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/CalOSHA_PaymentOption.html

-DO NOT send payments to the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board-

OSHAB 201 SUMMARY TABLE Rev. 06/16

Abbreviation Key:G=General R=Regulatory Er=EmployerS=Serious W=Willful Ee=Employee A/R=Accident RelatedRG=Repeat General RR=Repeat Regulatory RS=Repeat Serious

inspection no. 1016945 wooden window, inc. · pdf fileoshab 600 (rev. 4/16) decision 1 before...

Documents