The commission for occupational safety and health check underlined four autumn protection quotes last Monday and almost 79,000 US dollars in punishments against a construction company in Missouri.
The judgment, which was decided on June 9th, depended on a single question: Did the crews work without a belt or guardrails of the company who have drawn approval or real independent contractors?
The case that Labor of Labor V..porttengill Family Restoration LLC dates from 2023. After 2023, Osha had quoted inspections in which several crews for the use of the necessary autumn protection equipment, some of which were marked as repetitions and double minimum penalty of $ 13.26.
Business insurance reported that the company named in previous quotations belonged to the same person, but constructed under the name Petttengill, which did not contest the previous quotes.
The administrative judge Eric M. Conn, who uses the agency's economic realities test, found that the administrative rights -judge Eric M. Conn “no evidence … that was present. [the company] Always led to work on a job, supervised an employee or workplace or monitored or inspected or even visited in any way – reacted construction sites. “He added:” Only an “employer” may be cited because of a violation of the law “, a threshold that proved to be fatal in the case.
RELATED
Legal questions with subcontractors
“The OSHA has the burden of proof in the case to demonstrate the violation,” said Trent Cotney, head of the building law group of Adams and Reese and roofer, the legal insights of the columnistic knowledge. “It has not submitted any evidence that were sufficient to show that these 1099s were classified incorrectly.”
Cotney found that Osha could have called his multi -employer -Werker -doctrine -under which a main contractor can be classified as a “controlling employer” if he has contractual or supervisory authority, but did not provide evidence of such control over the subdued crews of Petttengill.
The judge summarized the case in a concise: “Only one” employer “can be cited due to violation of the law.”
The Osha had to prove that the restoration of the Petttengill family was the employer of the employees according to the law. Since the government does not meet the requirements, the quotes were considered invalid.
Roofers should pull two lessons out of the decision. First, in practice, real independent contractor relationships must be reflected: the crews should determine their own schedules, deliver their own tools and only receive minimal supervision.
Second, companies that intend to take on obligations for security compliance, document all the inspections on site, supervisory roles or contractual rights to combat working conditions.
The verdict shows that the OSHA must meet strict tests for status and control before issuing quotations and that roofing companies have to reconcile with the safety standards when connecting to subcontract. It also shows that contractors sometimes take a break when the government does not do its work.