Employees general duty

Section 2 General duties of employers to their employees... 

Section 4 General duties of persons concerned with premises to persons other than their employees. 

The General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 states that "Each employer. shall furnish to each of his employees, employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees ... More specifically, Section (e)(3) of 29 CFR 1910.119 states that process hazard analysis shall address facility siting. OSHA has recognized and pointed out the... 

The statute covers all employers and their employees in all the states and federal territories, with certain exceptions. Generally, the statute does not cover self-employed persons, farms employing solely family members, and those workplaces covered under other federal statutes. Refiners must evaluate whether the chemicals they manufacture and sell are hazardous. Under the General Duty Clause of OSHA, employers are required to provide an environment that is free from recognized hazards that could cause physical harm or death. 

One of the easiest types of situations to resolve was the case where the employee was an ordinary employee engaged in carrying out general duties within the company, who made an invention in the course of his employment on company time and at company expense. The shop-right rule in such a case is well set out by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. (8) ... 

The basis for health and safety law in the United Kingdom is provided under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), which sets out the general duties that employers have to their employees, and members of the public, and that employees have to themselves and each other. The legislation helps to fulfil wider European requirements for health and safety and places a general duty on manufacturers to ensure that substances are safe when properly used and to carry out such tests as are necessary. 

PL 91-596, section 6(a), the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, requires employers to protect their employees from all recognized hazards in the workplace and is a general requirement applicable to all operations/activities involving chemicals. 

The general duty clause of the OSHA Act requires that employers provide a workplace free from hazards likely to harm employees. This clause is important because it applies when there is no specific OSHA standard for a given situation. This clause can be used when a hostile environment exists, such a worker threatening another worker. Where OSHA standards do exist, employers are required to comply with them as written. It is the responsibility of employers to become familiar with standards applicable to their businesses. Table 19-1 lists the ten most frequently cited standards. 

Meet the general duty responsibility to provide a workplace free from hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees, and comply with standards, rules, and regulations issued under the OSHA Act. 

One in six violent crimes in the United States occurs at work. Death and injury from workplace assaults can be cited under the OSHA Act of 1970, which obligates the employer to address workplace violence under the General Duty Clause, which states that employers shall furnish their employees employment and place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that can cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to their employees. Most workplace incidents of violence are caused by stress that causes a worker to react with uncontrolled rage. 

For OCS workplace safety, OCSLA proclaims that any company holding an offshore lease or permit is required to protect the health and safety of their workers and contractor employees by complying with occupational safety and health standards, the general duty to maintain workplaces free fi om recognized hazards, relevant health and safety regulations of other agencies, and additional safeguards that may be required as a condition for approval of the company s work plan (s.1548). 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) clearly states that the general duty of all employers is to provide their employees with a work place free from recognized hazards. 

The General Duty Clause may be applied to all covered employees. 

Back safety and lifting techniques is a topic that is not specifically regulated. The General Duty Clause, while not specifically requiring back safety as a topic for safety programs in any way, has been used as a means of enforcement against employers whose employees were subject to repetitive injiuies due to poor safety practices relative to a safety or health topic. 

Each hazmat employer must establish a training program for each hazmat employee that includes general awareness, function-specific, safety, security awareness, in-depth security, and modal-specific training (such as driver training), as appropriate, given the nature of the employee s duties. The type and amount of training that each employee must receive will be dictated by his/her hazmat responsibilities. 

Employers have a general duty under the HSWA to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees . The HSWA specifies five areas which in particular are covered by the employer s general duty. 

Duties of employees are already in place under HSWA and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Manual Handling Operations Regulations supplement these general duties as they apply to manual handling. 

This guide concentrates primarily on chemical reaction hazards, but it must be emphasized that these process hazards must not be considered in isolation. Attention should be paid to all sources of hazard and the statutory requirements and the appropriate measures taken. What follows refers in most cases to relevant UK legislation similar statutory requirements apply in many other countries and readers should make appropriate mental adjustments as they progress through the book. The Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 and subsidiary legislation controls health and safety at work in the UK. The Act imposes general duties on employers for the safety of employees and persons who may be affected by their undertakings. 

Several points about the OSHA Laboratory Standard deserve special mention. The intention of the standard is to supersede existing OSHA health standards, but other OSHA mles on topics not specifically addressed in the standard remain applicable. The so-called "general duty" clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires an employer to "furnish to each of his employees. .. a place of employment... free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. .. " and requires an employee to "comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules. .. issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct" continues to be applicable and, indeed, is one of the most commonly cited sections in cases of alleged OSHA violations. Other OSHA standards relating to possible eye or skin contact must continue to be observed. There are dozens of chemicals in this category. They are listed in 29 CFR 1910 as well as in specific standards following Section 1910.1000, such as the vinyl chloride standard, 29 CFR 1910.1017, which prohibits direct contact with liquid vinyl chloride. 

U.S. federal and state occupational safety and health administrations place responsibility for a safe work environment on the employer. These regulations, which include legal consequences to the employer, require general as well as detailed safety conditions. The general requirement is contained in the U.S. federal law and requires employers to provide their employees with a place of employment that is free of recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. Within this general duty clause is the requirement that the employer do everything that is reasonably possible to protect the life, safety, and health of employees. 

Finally, employees are under a general duty not to disclose confidential information relating to their employer s affairs that they might obtain in the course of their work. Employees are also under a general duty not to assist a competitor of their employer. This is one aspect of the employee s duty to ensure that the relationship between employer and employee is one of trust. Even when an employee has left an employer, confidential information is not to be disclosed. 

Outlines the general duties placed on employers, landlords, tenants, employees and suppliers. 

There are no speciflc employee training requirements on ergonomics, or on any of the three ergonomic issues identified as most likely to affect construction workers (back safety and lifting, equipment and tool vibration, and repetitive motion) but because OSHA has issued ergonomic guidelines, OSHA may cite construction companies under the General Duty Clause. 

OSHA is committed to requiring that employees overexposed to radiation be protected however, the agency does not have an established exposure limit for UV radiation from the sun. In order to cite you for an overexposure, OSHA must be able to show that the exposure violates the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act of 1970). An exposure that violates this clause is one that coidd lead to death or serious physical harm. 

While that language clearly explains the employer s general duty to provide training, OSHA believes it is appropriate to provide more specific training necessary for employees who work on scaffolds. Accordingly, 1926.454 sets certain criteria allowing employers to tailor training to fit their workplace circumstances. 

In using the number of exposed employees as a multiplier, 08HA was following its so-called egregious policy, which instructs enforcement offices that, for violations that are not merely "willful" but "egregious" (a term nowhere used in the Occupational afety and Health Act). Under the egregious approach, a penalty will be proposed as to each exposed employee. OSHA claimed that this was lawful under the General Duty Clause, which states that an employer must furnish safe employment to "each" employee. 

The Fifth Circuit unanimously upheld the Commission s decision, holding that OSHA could not multiply penalties by the number of exposed employees under the General Duty Clause. The court held that violations of the General Duty Clause are based on the hazardous condition, not the number of employees affected. 

---