OSHA, case from the article

1. State the group’s selected HR Legal topic, as approved by Dr. Gresch: OSHA

The groups HR legal topic in accordance to Dr. Gresch, is to use OSHA so as to save the lives of the employees through protection of their health and also prevention of injuries upon them.

2. Identify the HR functions(s) that is/are the focus of this case. Practices include recruitment, selection, training and development, performance appraisal, compensation (including benefits), internal employee relations (including discipline and termination), and safety.

In this case, the HR of this film firm had the function of ensuring that the right authorization was given prior the shooting of the film on the railroad and since they only had the permission to be on the property and not on the property, the HR had a responsibility of putting the crews ‘safety before through disagreeing with the idea of stealing the shot by being on the rail.

3. Case citation

Secretary of Labor v. Film Allman, LLC

1. Date of verdict (Must be within the last 5 years)

            28^th September 2015

1. Lawsuit legal basis

            CITATION NO: 1Item s 1a and 1b: alleged willful violation of § 5(a) (1).

Item 1a

1. What was/were the name(s) of each of the law(s) upon which the case was based?

            According to the item 1a of the citation no. 1 it claims that Film Allman did not offer safety measures to its employees who were on the trestle. Hence the workers were at risk of falling to hazard on the trestle in 20^th February 2014 (Secretary of Labor v. Film Allman, LLC 2015).

1. Classify each law

State Laws were used in this case.

• What was the claim and argument of the plaintiff (employee/s)?

The employers claimed that Film Allman did not offer safety measures to its employees who were on the trestle shooting.

 

1. What was the argument of the defendant (employer)?

 

The defendant claimed that they had a guarantee from a third party that only two trains were to pass through the trestle and thus they saw no danger in shooting in these trestles as they were safe by then.

 

1. Outline the facts of the case; provide a numbered sequence in the order which actions took place if necessary to help explain a long sequence of events.

 

Though the CSX email on their final decision on not permitting the firm not to work on the trestle arrived late after they had already departed for the filming, the employer failed to inform the crew. Thus only the location manger and his assistant were in knowledge of this. They thus assumed the letter and went on ahead with their plan on stealing the shoot.  They thus did not have the train schedule and they lied to the crew that the trestle was not scheduled to pass by that day. Thus the employer not only failed to obtain the right authorization on the trestle shooting but they also did not have appropriate information on the train traffic. Since the train schedules are always hidden from the public. They did not have an emergency plan on evacuation and had no medics on the site risked the lives of the employees (Secretary of Labor v. Film Allman, LLC 2015).

 

           

1. In which party’s favor did the court rule?

The court ruled in favor of the employees.

1. What rationale (or reasoning) did the court provide for its decision?

The judge stated that in this case the mistake was not simple. This is because of the employer’s increasing action of ignorance to the CSX’s refutation of the allowance to shoot on the tracks. This is neglect on the standard safety procedures and the withholding of the information from the employees reflected pain apathy to the employees’ safety.

1. If the ruling was against the employer, what did the court require the employer to do (what was the penalty)? Include the amount of the monetary awards ($USD).

      The penalty that the Film Allman faced was $70000 which was a penalty on item 1a for the citation No. 1 of the willful violations was affirmed.

5. What were the important factors in determining the outcome of the case? What are lessons learned for employees at other organizations who may be considering bringing a similar case – what should the employee do or not do to increase their odds of winning their case?

For other employees who are planning on bringing forth such a case, they should ensure that they have all the facts right. They should also ensure that they have all the evidence that they require so as to make their claims strong. Employees should also be well aware of the OSHA standards and their rights of protection by their employers. Employers should also have correct information on the extreme dangers that they might be exposed to while at work as provided by their employers their employers.

 

 

1. Based on this decision, what actions do you recommend other employers take to prevent/avoid similar lawsuits or increase their odds of winning a similar lawsuit?

      Firms should employ HRs who will help in ensuring that safety is administered.  The function of the Human resource in this case was to offer training unto the employees and also to ensure that only the professional employees were employed. The HR also has the responsibility of supervising the work that these employees carry out so as to control any mistake that these workers may undertake while operating the machines and also correct on these errors. The HR in this case also has the function of ensuring that safety was paramount and that all the safety procedures were all covered in the safety documentation for all the employees. In doing this employees would have received their compensation coverage especially to those who are deceased, their compensation would have been given to their relatives. All this were the functions of the HR which he failed to completely do.

1. What is your personal reaction to this case? Do you believe the law and the ruling were both fair- why or why not?  How would you change the law or verdict to be fairer?

      The ruling was fair as the Film firm was penalized in accordance to the OSHA standards. They failed to formulate an emergency exits and they also failed to offer medics who take charge in case of any accident and they also relayed the wrong information onto their employees. This showed their lack of concern for their employees’ safety and this behavior led to the involuntary manslaughter of their conduct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Secretary of Labor v. Film Allman, LLC (2015). OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION. Retrieved from: http://www.oshrc.gov/decisions/pdf_2015/14-1385.pdf