OSHA Letter of Interpretation

Today, OSHA issued long over due guidance relating to the recordability of COVID-19 cases for employers.  In short, OSHA has stated that it will not enforce the recordkeeping standard,29 C.F.R. Part 1904, against the majority of employers due to the difficulty in determining whether an employee contracted COVID-19 at work unless there is objective evidence

On September 6, 2019, OSHA issued a letter of interpretation in response to an employers question regarding the use of headphones to listen to music on construction sites. The employer stated that some headphones are advertised as “OSHA approved” and asked whether OSHA had any specific regulation that prohibits the use of headphones to listen

In a memorandum to Regional Administrators dated October 11, 2018, OSHA clarified the agency’s position as to whether certain drug testing policies or safety incentive programs would be considered violations of part 29 C.F.R. § 1904.35(b)(1)(iv). Part 29 C.F.R. § 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee for reporting a work-related injury

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a new enforcement policy that excludes monorail hoists from regulations on cranes and derricks in constructions.

Stakeholders had argued that monorail hoists are not the same as cranes and derricks in construction, pointing out that these hoists are attached to fixed monorails mounted on trucks, trailers, scaffolding

Employers do not have to report a worker as having an injury if they instruct the worker to do regular stretching exercises for a “minor discomfort,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has concluded in an interpretation letter released on May 24, 2017.

In the letter, OSHA responded to a question on whether “an employee’s

In February 2013, OSHA issued an interpretation letter in response to a request from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, which clarified that employees at a non-union worksite could elect to have a non-employee who is “affiliated with a union” or with a “community organization”

On October 19, 2016, OSHA published a memorandum interpreting the new anti-retaliation provisions in Section 1904.35 as part of the new final rule – “Improve Tracking of Workplace of Injuries and Illnesses.” In conjunction with the memorandum, OSHA also provided example scenarios of incentive, disciplinary and drug-testing programs and how the new rule

OSHA is being criticized for a recent interpretation letter clarifying who is responsible for recording illnesses and injuries in what the agency considers a “joint employer relationship” where supervision is shared between a host employer and a staffing agency. In deciding whether the host employer or the staffing agency is responsible for recording injuries and

In a recent interpretation letter, OSHA responded to an employer’s request for “clarification on whether an employee’s laceration and subsequent fainting at the sight of blood constitutes a recordable case on the OSHA Form 300.”

The employee had scratched his finger on a vinyl saw clamp at work. The injury was minor and the only

In an interpretation letter dated June 1, 2015, OSHA answered the question “Under OSHA regulations 29 CFR 1926.95(a) who is responsible for the laundering of fire retarding clothing that is provided to employees?” The section states that protective equipment “shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition” but does not elaborate