The Summit Case and its Impact on Employers

March 5, 2009
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that in the case of Elaine Chao v. Summit Contractors, OSHA regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) “is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to ...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that in the case of Elaine Chao v. Summit Contractors, OSHA regulation 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.12(a) “is unambiguous in that it does not preclude OSHA from issuing citations to employers for violations when their own employees are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations.” Therefore, according to the ruling, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) “abused its discretion in determining that the controlling employer citation policy conflicted with the regulation.”

This U.S. Court of Appeals ruling – that OSHA can issue citations to a "controlling" employer on a job site for violations even though that employer's workers are not exposed to any hazards related to the violations – could have significant impact on many employers across the country.

Here's a little history of the case: Summit Contractors Inc. was the general contractor for the construction of a college dormitory in Little Rock, Ark. Summit subcontracted the exterior brick masonry work to All Phase Construction Inc. In June 2003, an OSHA compliance officer observed All Phase employees working on scaffolds over 10 feet above the ground without fall protection or guardrails in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g)(1)(vii).

Although none of Summit’s employees were exposed to any hazard created by the scaffold violation, OSHA cited Summit for the violation based on the “controlling employer” aspect of OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy. The Court of Appeals ruling upholds OSHA's actions.

I have spoken to many safety managers over the years who claim that their employer requires contractors to adhere to safety policies that are just as strict as those of the employer. Many employees at those companies have told me in confidence that they have seen contractor employees working in an unsafe manner with no repercussions. With this ruling, that might change.

What do you think?

About the Author

Sandy Smith Blog | Content Director

Sandy Smith is content director of EHS Today. She has been writing about occupational safety and health and environmental issues since 1990. She has been interviewed about occupational safety and health for national business publications,documentaries and television programs, has served as a panelist on roundtables, has provided the keynote address for occupational safety and health conferences and has won national and international awards for her articles.

Sponsored Recommendations

Free Webinar: ISO 45001 – A Commitment to Occupational Health, Safety & Personal Wellness

May 30, 2024
Secure a safer and more productive workplace using proven Management Systems ISO 45001 and ISO 45003.

ISO 45003 – Psychological Health and Safety at Work

May 30, 2024
ISO 45003 offers a comprehensive framework to expand your existing occupational health and safety program, helping you mitigate psychosocial risks and promote overall employee...

DH Pace, national door and dock provider, reduces TRIR and claims with EHS solution

May 29, 2024
Find out how DH Pace moved from paper/email/excel to an EHS platform, changing their culture. They reduced TRIR from 4.8 to 1.46 and improved their ability to bid on and win contracts...

Case Study: Improve TRIR from 4+ to 1 with EHS Solution and Safety Training

May 29, 2024
Safety training and EHS solutions improve TRIR for Complete Mechanical Services, leading to increased business. Moving incidents, training, and other EHS procedures into the digital...

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EHS Today, create an account today!