Occupational Safety and Health Administration Essay

On December 29, 1970 telling passed the Occupational rubber eraser and Health Act. The purpose of this do work as quoted from the act itself is To promise safe and wellnessful working conditions for working men and women by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and wellnessful working conditions by providing for re seem, information, education, and training in the line of merchandise of occupational safety and health and for other purposes. This act requires employers to provide workplaces that ar free from serious recognized hazards and to comply with occupational safety and health standards. The mission of OSHA is to save lives, prevent injuries, and protect the health of Americas workers. Since 1970 OSHA has grown to over 1,130 confabulateors in states under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Personnel alike allow ins investigators, engineers, physicians, educators, standards writ ers and other support personnel spread over more than two hundred offices through tabu the country (OSHA FAQ) .Since 1970 workplace fatalities guard been reduced by half. sluice with this decline fourteen Americans are killed on the put-on every oneness day of the year. In addition, tens of thousands die every year from workplace sickness and over 4.6 million workers are seriously injured on the job (OSHA FAQ). The Department of Labor which conducts the OSHA positioned reviews wants workers to feel safe on the job. Workers have rights that include the right to request an limited review, have a representative present at the follow-up, have dangerous substances identified, be informed about exposure to hazards, and have employer violations posted at the work come in (OSH Act).In section 5 of the Occupational preventive and Health Act of 1970 there is a set of duties that employers and employees are supposed(a) to follow in order to be best assisted by OSHA. This General D uty Clause states (a) Each employer (1) shall furnish to each of his employees manipulation and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to father death or serious physical harm to his employees (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act. (b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all eclipses, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.In section 8 of the OSH Act regarding Inspections and Investigations it states (a) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary, upon appropriate credentials to the owner, operator or agent in spate is authorized- (1) to enter without delay and at rational times any factory, make establishment, construction identify or other area, workplace or milieu where work is performed by an employee of an employer and (2) to inspect and inves tigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to apparent movement privately any such employer, owner operator, agent or employee.In Marshall v. Barlows Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978), this case involved the constitutionality of a provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act that permitted inspectors to enter premises without a stock-purchase warrant to inspect for safety hazards and violation of OSHA regulations. The romance held that this provision violated the Fourth Amendment. In The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the united States, definition is given on this case. One issue in the case was whether a warrant was required. The Court had previously held that no warrant was required to inspect either the premises of a liquor licensee or a licensed g un dealers storeroom. Distinguishing these earlier cases because each concerned a closely regulated industry, the Court in Barlows concluded that requiring warrants in the OSHA context would not impose serious burdens on the superintendence brass or the courts (p. 316). As for the grounds to obtain an reappraisal warrant, Barlows follows the rule in Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) that traditional probable cause is extra if the authorities can show that the inspection conforms to reasonable legislative or administrative standards (p. 538).So, the Court in Barlows concluded that a warrant showing that a specific business has been chosen for an OSHA search on the basis of a general administrative plan for the enforcement of the Act derived from achromatic sources (p. 321) would be sufficient, because it would ensure against arbitrary selection of employers. Marshall v. Barlow did little to alternate the frequency and effectiveness of OSHA inspections. First, OSHA regulations app ly to millions of businesses and are enforced by barely 1,130 inspectors. Obvious principles of good management would send these inspectors to businesses that justified to have an inspection based on accident history and the number of employee complaints. OSHAs managers had already been using this type of plan prior to the Barlow inspection since Barlows Inc. was selected for an inspection based on its accident history.In the AEI Journal on judicature and Society, we are given insight on how the Barlow decision protect business, yet still allowed OSHA inspectors to obtain Ex Parte warrants. Barlow left open the drumhead whether judicial orders for inspections routinely sought under the secretarys quick regulations when employers refuse entry are the functional equivalent of warrants and thus avenge the Fourth Amendment (6). When OSHAs inspectors conduct criminal investigations with the assistance of a U.S. attorney, they may obtain warrants by telephone pursuant to Rule 41(c) of the Federal Rules of crook Procedure (7).The Barlow decision made the point of saying that if the purpose of an OSHA search is to obtain evidence of crime rather than civil infractions probable cause that criminal conduct has occurred must be shown to justify a warrant. OSHA counsel STP 2.18 reiterates that the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for a nonconsensual OSHA inspection. However, the Court recognized the importance of surprise in the conduct of inspections (as reflected in the Acts general prohibition against advance notice of an inspection), in preventing the speedy alteration or disguise of violations so that they escape the inspectors notice.The instruction goes on to say that The Court explicitly noted the Secretary of Labors authority to promulgate a regulation under which warrants could be sought ex parte i.e., without the knowledge or participation of the employer. Such warrants might be sought after refusal of an employer to app ropriate entry for an inspection or, in rough cases, prior to any plan of attack to gain entry. This procedure has helped maximize the effectiveness of criminal enforcement agencies since Barlow did not limit surprise inspections. The only important safeguard that the Barlow decision offered employers was the protection against inspections conducted in bad faith or for purposes of harassment.There are some instances when an inspection requires no warrant. An article titled Warrantless OSHA Inspections by Mark E. Farrell gives an example of how this stain can occur. Farrell summarizes the details in Lake area Enterprises of Rhinelander, Inc. v. Chao, 402 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2005). A sewer and water contractile organ (Lakeland) in northern Wisconsin was performing excavation work at an industrial park when an OSHA inspector, driving by on the public street, decided to bust and perform an impromptu inspection. After walking past traffic cones that were jam street traffic from the p roject site, the inspector observed a Lakeland employee excavating a deep with a choke offhoe while another employee worked at the throne of the dump.The trench was approximately eighteen feet deep and six feet wide at the bottom and did not contain a ladder or trench case. When the avowers project superintendent began conversing with the OSHA inspector, the worker in the trench climbed up one of the walls to exit, which resulted in loose dirt falling back into the trench. The employee performing the excavation work admitted that he knew that the other worker was not supposed to be working in the trench and that he failed to repeal him (Farrell). OSHA ended up issuing three citations and assessed a $49,000 civil penalty against the contractor, including a willful violation for permitting an employee to work in an unprotected trench (in violation of 29 CFR 1926.652(a).During the hearing, the contractor moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the inspection on the basis that the OSHA inspectors warrantless search of the excavation site violated the Fourth Amendment. The administrative law try on denied the motion, finding that the contractor had no right of privacy at the excavation site because the land was located on a public road. The administrative law judge also concluded that any Fourth Amendment claim was waived because the contractor failed to intention to the inspection or ask for a warrant at the site (Farrell).It is important to understand that no advance notice of a worksite inspection needs to be given. Unannounced inspections are an important tool in OSHAs mission to promote safe and healthful working conditions at all times. OSHA has come a long way since 1970 to help American become a safe place to work especially when compared to some parts of the world. With a good budget and better laws there are fewer injuries every year. OSHA truly is one of the administrative agencies that exist for the bettering of the tonicity of life for the workers of our country.Works CitedFarrell, Mark E. Warrantless OSHA Inspections Newsletter Article. Lorman Education Services inveterate Education Seminars. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. .Hall, Kermit L. Marshall v. Barlows Inc. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the unite States. 2005.OSH Act, OSHA Standards, Inspections, Citations and Penalties. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Home. OSHA Office of grooming and Education, May 1996. Web. 2 Mar. 2011. .OSHA and the Fourth Amendment. AEI JOURNAL ON GOVERNMENT AND family (1978) 6-7. AEI JOURNAL ON GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY. Web.United States of America. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. PrintUnited States of America. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Inspections and Investigations Obtaining Warrants on an Ex Parte stem and Prior to Attempting Entry. Bruce Hillenbrand Acting Director, Federal Compliance an d State Programs, 26 Feb. 1981. Web. .United States of America. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Frequently Asked Questions. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. .