R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC Research Paper

R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC - Research Paper Example After a serious investigation, the company was charged with some Occupational Safety and Health offences, which lead to expensive penalties. Discussion The paper will investigate the Williams construction company in relation to OSHA Act. It seeks to highlight the legal issues in the case, employer’s violation of the Act, and the role of the workers in maintaining the liability under the act. Legal issues The trench collapse that caused the death and serious injury of two Williams Company employees and the company’s violation of the OSHA Act summarizes the main legal issues in the case. Therefore, the legal concerns, who is responsible for upholding the violations of certain Occupational Safety and Health principles? Is it the court or the Williams construction company? The employer’s failures or violations After the investigation, the OSHA Act charged the Williams Construction company with a number of violations. First, the company failed to instruct and equip th e workers and managers with necessary strategies on how to identify and avoid hazardous working environment, as demanded by the OSHA regulations, (Wilshusen, Berg, Brookie, Okizaki & American Bar Association, (2008). The company did not provide any safety training to both the employees and managers in charge. For instance, Secondly, the company failed to make sure that the two workers did not need to move over 25 feet to a secure region, based on the OSHA Act requirements. The Act assumed that the employees were unaware of the depth they should attempt because the company did not issue any instruction about it. The company similarly, broke the law by offering just one safe egress mechanism at the east side of the forty-five deep excavation. Even though, it seems that one pump was stationed over twenty-five feet far from the ramp of the trench, the exact pumps’ position or the exact location of the employees verse the ramp during the collapse of the excavations, is rather imma terial. A person working not more than twenty-five feet away from the exit may prefer to move far away from the point of egress to do his work satisfactorily. Therefore, it is justified to predict that any workers already in the dangerous zone will be automatically exposed to the hazard itself. Therefore, this OSHA regulation applies irrespective of whether workers were exposed to real hazard during the time of trench fall. According to OSHA regulation, a violation is validated if a worker has access to hazardous zones over twenty-five feet away from egress means. Third, the company did not have a competent expert, trained mainly to ensure trench safety. The Act requires that the construction company should have a competent expert with certain knowledge and expertise in analysis of soil and protective mechanisms and able to identify fatal conditions. In additions, the company should have an expert to conduct routine excavation inspections to ensure hazardous conditions are identifie s as required by OSHA regulations, (Genson, Kerezman & American Bar Association, 2006). For instance, John, the supervisor confessed that he had not seen the safety manual of the company located at backside of the trucks seat. Additionally, the company did not train him as an OSHRC competent expert and had no any training apart from his job. Fourthly, the company did not ensure that the trench ways are supported and slopped based on the regulation requirements. Therefore, on the four above violations, the Labor Secretary