palletcentral

PalletCentral • July-August 2020 31 iStockphoto.com/anielsbfoto (water)/coffeekai (employee) • California. California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard requires employers to provide training, water, shade, and planning. A temperature of 80°F triggers the requirements. See the full text of the California heat standard (https://www.dir.ca.gov/ title8/3395.html). • Minnesota. The Minnesota OSHA standard applies to indoor places of employment. See the full text of the regulation (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ rules/5205.0110/). • Washington. Washington State has adopted an Outdoor Heat Exposure Rule. See the full text of the regulation (https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default. aspx?cite=296-62&full=true#296-62-095). Using the CalOSHA rule as a reference (which applies to outdoor exposures only), employers in that state must take four steps to prevent heat illness: train all employees and supervisors about heat illness prevention; provide enough fresh water so that each employee can drink at least one quart per hour; provide access to shade and encourage employees to take a cool-down rest in the shade for at least five minutes; and develop and implement written procedures for complying with the regulations. Federal OSHA has long enforced heat stress prevention through its General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, with potential penalties of up to $134,937 per affected worker for willful or repeated violations. However, in 2019, the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (OSHRC) overturned a judge's decision and vacated a heat stress GDC citation that had been issued after the death of a 60-year-old worker from heat-related issues. In that case, A.H. Sturgill Roofing, Inc. was a commercial roofing company whose employee collapsed while working on a roofing project and subsequently died. The issues before OSHRC were whether employer's lack of knowledge of worker's underlying health problems were relevant to OSHA's burden of proof, and whether ALJ miscalculated heat index on day in question. Ultimately, OSHRC held that OSHA failed to establish a heat-related hazard on day in question, the employer had no knowledge of worker's underlying health condition (he was a temporary worker), and OSHA's guidance documents on heat stress prevention failed to establish the requisite employer knowledge to sustain a GDC citation. One of the Commissioners, writing in the Sturgill decision, noted: "the [GDC] provision seems to have increasingly become more of a 'gotcha' and 'catch all' for the agency to utilize, which as a practical matter often leaves employers confused as to what is required of them." Pressure for OSHA to Act This decision was an enormous setback to OSHA's enforcement efforts, as it seems to require

• Cover