The documents released under FOIA show that
OSHA rated Grinnell’s safety program as "inadequate" regarding
their written safety & health program, their communication of hazards
to employees, their enforcement of their own safety & health program
and their own safety training program was also rated
"inadequate."
Grinnell’s own manager confessed to OSHA that the job foreman had not
even been through the company’s hazard communications program.
Documents from another OSHA inspection revealed that in New York three
years earlier Grinnell had received another citation for a similar offense
by failing to provide its employees with information about the hazardous
nature of the materials with which they worked.
Just four months before the New York violations, OSHA cited Grinnell
for again failing to provide information about hazardous materials to
their own employees. OSHA also cited Grinnell for an electrical violation
in Indiana. The Indiana inspection also reviewed Grinnell’s accident
data. Grinnell said it "didn’t know" about the electrical
violation.
|
Grinnell’s
own manager confessed to OSHA that the job foreman had not even
been through the company’s hazard communications program. |
Within a few months OSHA in Indiana cited Grinnell for another
electrical violation and yet another failure to notify its workers about
hazardous materials. This time, OSHA fined Grinnell $900. The inspection
reports noted that the standards "have been in effect for many years.
The employer has been in business for 130 years." OSHA found that the
110-volt temporary light circuit was in contact with the sprinkler piping
on that job site in 24 locations exposing the workers to the danger of a
severe electrical shock. Grinnell was working at the Prairie Elementary
School in Rolling Prairie, Indiana. OSHA noted that a follow-up inspection
was recommended, because "not all alleged violations (were)
abated."
Fifty Grinnell employees at this location apparently had five injuries
during the previous year, for an accident incidence rate of about
"10." This is above the average accident rate for the
construction industry.
Three years later, Grinnell’s total of restricted work days due to
injuries had more than doubled from 12 to 25, according to an OSHA
inspection. During that inspection, OSHA issued a violation against
Grinnell for stacking pipes in an unsecured fashion and endangering
employees.
These documents show that Grinnell had repeatedly violated the
hazardous communications OSHA rules, which are designed to protect its own
employees. Grinnell’s job site supervisors who are obligated to inspect
their job sites were ignorant of hazards that violated the law. Grinnell,
a large company with substantial profits, has not devoted the necessary
resources to keep their accident rate low.
Grinnell’s OSHA problems have continued. In September 1999 OSHA
inspected Grinnell’s production facility and found a host of serious
violations. OSHA gave Grinnell a long list of violations, including
machines were not locked out, proper facilities were not provided for
handing industrial batteries, truck wheels were not chocked, metal bridge
plates over which trucks drove were not secured, abrasive wheels did not
have guards, a pipe measuring machine had illegally exposed parts, and
electrical circuit breakers were exposed. Also, hazardous materials were
not identified for the workers, fire extinguishers were not stored
properly, a defective propane tank was in use on a lift truck, a crane was
not properly designated, compressed gas cylinders and diesel fuels were
not labeled or stored safely, and Grinnell failed to have employees on a
job site who were trained in first aid. OSHA proposed a fine against
Grinnell of $8,100.
Falls are one of the main causes of construction worker deaths.
Grinnell has been cited many times for violations of the OSHA fall
protection rules. In a Chicago area inspection of a condominium job, OSHA
found that Grinnell had committed four serious violations of these rules
and OSHA proposed a $4,000 fine against Grinnell. The OSHA reports stated
the following: "Employees were exposed to the hazard of falling 25-30
feet to the ground below as there were no guard rails, nets or fall arrest
system used." In another area where there was a handrail, OSHA found
that "the handrail would not support 200 pounds of weight."
Employees were exposed to "death or fracture."
Just one year earlier, Grinnell was cited in Oregon for a violation of
fall protection rules. "No fall protection was in use and (the
worker) was exposed to a fall of ... 25 feet," according to the OSHA
citation. A $600 fine was proposed. OSHA also found electrical violations.
Grinnell workers had 36 days of restricted work due to injuries in the
prior year according to accident records provided in the OSHA file.
Meanwhile, in Ohio, Grinnell exposed workers to a burn hazard from the
use of unsafe gasoline containers. OSHA issued a violation notice and
proposed an $875 fine. The Fire Protection Comments is troubled that a
fire protection company such as Grinnell would repeatedly disobey fire
protection regulations.
These documents also reveal than Grinnell did not consistently obey
even the most rudimentary safety rules. In North Carolina, they received
violations for faulty electrical plugs and an unmarked emergency exit in
an area where there was a danger of fire. The Grinnell foreman
"...with reasonable diligence should have known of the (unsafe)
condition because the condition was obvious," wrote OSHA. A month
later, North Carolina OSHA found another electrical violation at a
Grinnell job site.
OSHA in North Carolina ran out of patience for Grinnell when they found
a Grinnell employee exposed to an unguarded part on an air compressor at
the Mt. Olive Pickle Company warehouse. OSHA decided that the worker could
suffer broken bones and other injuries, and "the injuries could be
exacerbated due to the employee working alone in a remote location and he
would not have a person readily available to assist him." OSHA issued
a serious violation and levied a $500 fine against Grinnell.
Perhaps one reason that North Carolina OSHA began to take Grinnell’s
violations seriously was that records show that Grinnell’s accident rate
in North Carolina has risen over 500% in a three-year period. Grinnell
went from only two lost or restricted work days in one year to 78 lost or
restricted work days two years later, even while their man hours fell over
20%.
OSHA also found more electrical violations by Grinnell during an
inspection at the Melrose Apartment Complex. One possible consequence was
"the employee could come in contact with the path to ground,
resulting in serious electrical burns or death." During that same
inspection, workers were exposed to a fall danger.
In 1998 North Carolina OSHA decided to inspect Grinnell’s fabrication
shop. OSHA found violations of rules governing welding shields, improper
use of compressed air guns and flammable materials in the welding area.
"The employer is in the area daily and should have recognized this
hazard," OSHA noted. Fourteen workers had been injured in the shop in
three years.
In 1999 OSHA inspected a Fort Smith, Arkansas job site and discovered
Grinnell had its employees working under an elevated shovel of a front end
loader without the controls being monitored thus exposing the workers to
being crushed. OSHA issued a citation against Grinnell. In September of
1999, OSHA inspected Grinnell again, this time in Springdale, Arkansas.
OSHA cited Grinnell for a serious violation of electrical rules and
proposed a $450 fine. They also found that a fire extinguisher and a fire
protection program were not provided. That’s a fine violation for a fire
protection company!
In Texas, OSHA inspected a Conroe job site of Grinnell’s. They found
highly serious electrical violations. Grinnell had its workers using
temporary outlets that were not grounded. The employer representative
admitted that "YES I knew." OSHA proposed a $2,000 fine against
Grinnell.
