SafetyS t a r t Wi t h

V O L 9 , I S S U E 9 S E P T 2 0 1 5

RiskManagement

Jim GreavesDirector of RiskManagement

Jesse VeraSafetyConsultant

John CorneliusClaims Manager

Jevon MasonClaims Associate

Crystal EstradaRisk Analyst

210.222.2161800.399.6059www.catto.com

Employee’s Weapon, Employer’s PremisesFederal and state job safety laws require employers tomake reasonable efforts to provide a safe workplace.Unfortunately, America’s workplaces have becomevenues for virtually all forms of violence. Identifyingpossible vulnerabilities to workplace violence andways to prevent or reduce the risk of violence hasbecome a key part of crisis planning for businesses.From this, many employers have consideredweapons-free workplace policies, which include workrules prohibiting the possession of knives, guns orother firearms on the work premises.

Yet, while violence by employees can create liabilityfor negligent hiring, retention, supervision or trainingif their conduct was reasonably foreseeable,employers and business property owners also facepotential liability for failing to address an increasedrisk of violence from the outside, such as a threat ofnighttime assaults or robberies in a high-crime area.Employers are in a tough position when determiningwhether their employees are safer with or withoutweapons on the workplace premises.

However, in Texas this decision was partially takenout of employers’ hands — at least to the extent ofemployees’ personally owned locked vehicles withinthe company parking lot.

Updated Comprehensive Guide to OSHA TrainingOSHA has posted a fully updated version of its guide to agency

training requirements for general industry, maritime, construction,

agriculture and federal employee programs.

To view the guide, visithttps://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha2254.pdf

Texas Labor Code § 52.061-062:“A public or private employer may not prohibit anemployee who holds a license to carry a concealedhandgun, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, orwho lawfully possesses ammunition, from transporting orstoring that firearm or ammunition in a locked, privatelyowned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage orother parking area the employer provides for employees.The employer can, however, otherwise still prevent theemployee from carrying the weapon or ammunition ontothe employer’s premises.”If you want your workplace to be free of guns andweapons, you must address this from all sides: existingemployees, new employees, visitors and vendors:

Make the necessary changes to your employeehandbook,

Have the employees sign an acknowledgement ofthe revised policy.

Include the no weapons/gun as part of your NEOand new employee onboarding plan

Post the Texas 30.06 signs in English and Spanishat your entry doors.

And strictly enforce your policy with all employeesincluding your management team.

Active Shooter Incidents on the Rise:Is Your Company Prepared?

Join us for Safety Academy on Friday, September 4, to learnwhat a successful emergency plan includes to handle anactive shooter incident. Register now at www.catto.com

OSHA Sues Texas Company for Wrongful FiringFederal officials have sued a Texas-based company for violating the whistleblower provisions ofthe Occupational Safety and Health Act. The lawsuit against Continental Alloys and Services Inc. in

Spring, Texas, maintains an investigation found sufficient evidence to support a former employee’sallegation that Continental Alloys and Services wrongfully fired the worker after she complained to management

about OSHA 300 log reporting deficiencies. The law requires employers to record on-the-job injuries.

The former employee reported several alleged instances where injuries were not reported, OSHA said. In an attempt to gatherevidence of the reporting deficiencies, the employee recorded a meeting with the individual responsible for reporting the injuries.These actions led to the employee’s termination. OSHA has asked the judge to issue an injunction prohibiting Continental Alloysand Services from engaging in any further retaliation. It is also asking the judge to order the company to pay the complainant backpay, reinstate the complainant, and pay her any other damages she sustained as a result of the illegal termination.

The House ofRepresentatives

voted overwhelmingly385-34 on 7/29/15 to

shore up federal highway aidbefore heading out of town for itsAugust recess.

The bill extends spending authorityfor transportation programsthrough October 29th and willreplenish the federal HighwayTrust Fund with $8 billion. Thatwill keep highway and transit aidflowing to states through October.

SuretySpot

Surety

Becky LandrySurety Practice

Leader

Anna TomesAccount Manager

210.222.2161800.399.6059www.catto.com

Merck Bottles Containing Temodar orTemozolomideRisk of Poisoningwww.merck.com

Trane & American Standard Accessory HeatersFire Hazardwww.trane.com/residentialwww.americanstandardair.com

American SportWorks Off-Road Utility VehiclesRisk of Injurywww.amsportworks.com

Viking Range Dishwasher (expanded)Fire Hazardwww.vikingrange.com

John Deere Riding Lawn TractorsCrash Hazardwww.deere.com

OSHA’s New Electrical Safety InterpretationsIn July OSHA responded to questions on selecting clothing to protect employees exposed to electric arcs and theuse of flexible cords and cables. In response to a question about the difference between a cable and a cord,OSHA provided the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) definitions from NFPA 79-2012:

Flexible Cable — A cable or special cable manufactured with flexing or constant flexing properties.

Cable — A combination of conductors insulated from one another with a common covering that is not acord.

Cord — Two or more flexible insulated conductors enclosed in a flexible covering that provides mechanicalprotection.

OSHA noted that unless specifically permitted otherwise in 29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(ii), the use of flexible cordsand cables is prohibited as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.

In a second letter OSHA was asked if an employer could use Table 410-1 of the 2012 National Electrical SafetyCode (NESC) to select protective clothing and equipment. OSHA responded that many of the values listed inTable 410-1 are acceptable for compliance with 29 CFR 1910.269(1)(8)(ii) because the notes to the table makeclear that those values are based either on testing data or on calculations performed using methods described inIEEE Std 1584-2002 (IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations).

The text of notes 7 and 8, however, suggest that the values to which those notes apply are not based on testingdata or generally recognized calculation methods. Therefore, at this time OSHA will accept the use of Table 410-1 in the 2012 NESC only with respect to the values in that table to which notes 7 and 8 do not apply.