Gary Findley, Safety Director for Grand Package Corp., was concerned when he heard that the company’s workers compensation insurance carrier wanted to conduct a safety audit of the plant. “Don’t worry,” the president of Grand Package reassured him. “It’s not as if we’re having an OSHA inspection. The insurance company is coming here to help us with our safety program. If we follow their advice, we might even get a lower rate on our workers comp premiums.”
Findley, however, was not so sure about the benefits of such an audit. If anything, it would just point up the deficiencies of their safety program—which would make him look bad. It was with great reluctance then that he showed the insurance auditors around and provided them with access to the safety records.
Just as Findley feared, the insurance company followed up with a 30-page list of recommendations for correcting safety hazards and violations. One of the findings concerned the high noise levels in certain areas of the plant. The audit report advised the company to institute a formal hearing conservation program as required by OSHA. Such a program would include baseline and annual audiograms, a written program, employee training, and various types of hearing protection.
Findley quickly issued a company safety rule that required employees in the noisy band saw area to wear hearing protection. He then dashed off a response to the auditors for the noise violation.
The insurance company responded with a second letter, explaining that issuing hearing protectors was not good enough. The company was still not in compliance with the OSHA hearing conservation regulation.
Findley suddenly had a brainstorm. The company was holding a health fair for its employees. Why not provide audiograms for them at the same time and use them as a baseline for the hearing conservation program?
Findley thought he had found a way to get the insurance company off his back, but he still continued to receive letters warning that Grand Package did not meet some of the OSHA requirements of a formal hearing conservation program. Findley was finally too exasperated and busy with other safety problems to pay attention to the warnings.
Two years later, Findley came to regret his inattention to the hearing program. OSHA conducted an inspection and cited the company for “willfully” failing to provide annual audiograms. A willful citation is used when the company knows it is violating an OSHA regulation and still does not comply. Such citations carry hefty penalties — in this case, $44,000. As proof that the company knew it was not in compliance, OSHA pointed to the recommendations of the insurance company, which included five letters over a period of a year.
Grand Packaging contested the citation:
- We did not purposely avoid complying with the OSHA hearing conservation requirements.
- We offered audiograms to our employees at the health fair and required hearing protection for employees in the band saw area.
- Don’t these actions show good faith?
DECISION: The willful citation stands, ruled the Review Commission, in agreeing with OSHA that it couldn’t ignore the recommendations of the insurance company. Grand Package’s failure to respond to the many warnings and “offers of assistance from its insurer established that the company intentionally disregarded its obligation to conduct annual audiometric testing,” said the Commission.
COMMENT: Using voluntary audits to cite an employer for safety violations has stirred up controversy: opponents say that such methods discourage employers from conducting their own safety and health assessments if OSHA can come in and use them against the employer.
As a result of these criticisms, OSHA issued a policy that states that it will not ask for voluntary self-audits at the beginning of an inspection and will not use them to identify hazards. Also, if the employer is in the process of correcting the conditions found during a self-audit, it will not receive a willful citation. In this case, however, instead of rectifying the safety problems, the company ignored them.
Should you conduct self-inspections if OSHA can use them against you? Most experts would say yes. The chances of OSHA using your safety findings against you are small, and there are significant benefits to conducting a self-audit: namely, preventing costly accidents before they occur and lowering your workers compensation insurance rates.