Hefty OSHA penalty cases tell you what NOT to do
Three unforgettable enforcement cases made OSHA headlines in recent weeks! One case involves corn mill executives now heading to prison for obstructing investigators. Another case concerns a sawmill that secured a $2.5M proposed OSHA penalty — the fourth highest since 2015. Finally, our last case deals with a steel fabricator cited for allegedly failing to correct hazards identified by a third-party auditor.
How these companies landed in the hot seat may offer important lessons for safety professionals. These cases illuminate what NOT to do.
Corn mill executives get prison time
Five people lost their lives in a Wisconsin corn mill dust explosion in 2017. The Department of Justice (DOJ) explains that grain milling generates combustible dust. That dust must be managed for safety. Investigations of the explosion at the mill uncovered inadequate safety practices and improper handling of the dust. Moreover, DOJ discovered that the company concealed these failures through falsified documents and obstructive conduct.
Several company officials are going to prison. However, one company officer was sentenced to two years in prison, a year of supervised release, and a $5,000 fine. DOJ said, among other things, this executive obstructed the OSHA investigation of the explosion by making false and misleading statements during a sworn deposition.
The company itself agreed to pay over $10M to the explosion’s victims and a $1M criminal fine. OSHA also reached a settlement with the mill. That agreement requires it to pay more than $1.8M in penalties and make extensive safety improvements.
“Making false statements and attempting to obstruct our investigation are serious crimes and will be punished as such,” said Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su. “The court’s sentences ... send a clear message that cover-ups related to workplace safety will not be tolerated.”
Sawmill’s record-breaking proposed penalty
OSHA lists over 13,000 cases each with penalties over $40,000 since January 1, 2015. Last month, an Alabama sawmill wound up with the fourth highest proposed penalty since that year at over $2.47M. This was for 22 willful, one repeat, and five serious alleged violations.
An OSHA investigation found that in August 2023, a worker was helping to clear a jam for a woodchipper. The worker crossed over a guardrail to access the area of the jam when he stepped on the pan of the auger that had been restarted. The worker was killed when he lost his footing and fell into the auger. The company had a similar auger-related fatality in 2020.
After inspecting the workplace, the agency applied the “instance-by-instance” citation policy. It cited the employer repeatedly for the same standards:
- Six instances for 1910.147(c)(4)(i) — Procedures used to control potentially hazardous energy.
- Three instances for 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A) — Lockout/tagout training for authorized employees.
- Two instances for 1910.28(b)(6)(i) — Using a guardrail or travel restraint system to protect each employee less than four feet above dangerous equipment from falling into the equipment.
In fact, OSHA proposed $161,323 for each instance. This added up to $1.77M. Instances could mean each worker or each machine. Remaining citations and penalties went to other paragraphs under 29 CFR 1910 and the OSH Act.
Steel fabricator’s alleged failure to heed auditor findings
OSHA began an inspection of a New Jersey fabrication shop in response to a complaint. A few months prior to the inspection, the shop hired a safety consultant. That consultant identified multiple safety and health hazards at the location. Yet, OSHA inspectors found that the company failed to correct those hazards. The company now faces almost $349,000 in proposed penalties for alleged failure to:
- Medically evaluate new workers required to use respirators (1910.134(e)(1));
- Annually inspect overhead cranes (1910.179(j)(3));
- Ensure proper use of welding screens (1910.252(b)(2)(iii));
- Train new hires in chemical hazard communication (1910.1200(h)(1));
- Label containers and maintain safety data sheets for chemicals (1910.1200(f)(6)(i) and (g)(1));
- Ensure grounding/bonding of a spray finishing process (1910.106(e)(6)(ii)); and
- Install the correct circuit breakers to operate lights (1910.303(b)(2)).
This case relates to an OSHA policy published in the July 28, 2000, Federal Register. The policy says the agency will not routinely request self-audit reports at the start of an inspection. Nor will the agency use self-audits to identify inspection focus areas. Where the corrective steps are incomplete at the time of an inspection, OSHA says it will treat the self-audit report as evidence of good faith. In other words, it will NOT be evidence of a willful violation. However, this relaxed treatment applies only if the employer has responded promptly with appropriate corrective action to the violative conditions identified in the audit.
Key to remember
OSHA-related cases offer important lessons to employers by shining a light on what they should NOT do.