11/20/2007
CONTACT: Melissa Sharp, 202-314-2068
Washington, D.C.--The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a critical victory for small-business last week, overturning a decision by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) that required businesses to complete duplicative hazard assessments at work sites. The National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case, urging the court to realize the unnecessary burdens placed on businesses by the MIOSHA decision.
The court agreed with NFIB's Legal Foundation and held that the specific MIOSHA safety regulation, Rule 408.13308(1), does not require business owners to conduct individual assessments for identical tasks at every workplace facility to determine if hazards are present that require the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
"The Michigan Court of Appeals got it right,” said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "The MIOSHA decision contradicted decisions by 61 other federal and state OSHA jurisdictions. Requiring duplicate assessments was simply not the intent of the law and would have forced business owners to waste precious time and resources assessing workplace functions that have already been evaluated. The court of appeals decision puts businesses in Michigan back on a level playing field with businesses in other states. NFIB is very pleased with the outcome of this case."
The case before the court was UPS v. Bureau of Safety and Regulations. According to MIOSHA, UPS violated the safety regulation, Rule 408.13308(1), when they hired a consulting firm to inspect UPS's aircraft facility workplaces to identify specific job performances that could require the use of PPE. The consulting firm chose to conduct the inspection at UPS's central hub in Louisville, Ky., because every specific job task that occurs in all of UPS's aircraft facilities also occurs at the Louisville location. The firm identified 10 specific job tasks that could require PPE and UPS updated its universal safety and health procedures to mandate the use of PPE for all UPS facilities including two in Michigan, one in Lansing and one in Romulus.
A union official filed complaints against this UPS practice, specifically targeting the Michigan facilities. As a result, UPS evaluated a second facility in Des Moines, Iowa, and found the Louisville assessment to have covered all concerns for health and safety. However, when the state inspected the Michigan facilities, they found no safety violations but still concluded that UPS's assessment practice was inadequate. This finding initiated the judicial proceedings by the parties.
