Labor: OSHA inspections and complaints
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), unions are welcome to participate in OSHA inspections and complaints, even at union-free work sites where they do not represent employees and there is no active organizing.
July 15, 2013 at 05:00 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), unions are welcome to participate in OSHA inspections and complaints, even at union-free work sites where they do not represent employees and there is no active organizing.
In a letter of interpretation dated Feb. 21 but not publically released until April 5, OSHA said that nonunion employees can select a union official or member of a community organization to act as their “personal representative” in filing complaints on the employees' behalves, requesting workplace inspections, participating in informal conferences to discuss citations, and challenging the abatement period in citations being contested by an employer. The interpretation letter goes on to state that “a person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative can act on behalf of employees as a walkaround representative.”
The position taken in the letter is a clear departure from OSHA's longstanding practice. Previously, union representatives have only been allowed to be the “employee representative” where the facility was unionized.
Although OSHA relied on the language of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), the Secretary's regulations implementing the OSH Act, and OSHA's Field Operations Manual, this new interpretation is directly contrary to OSHA's own regulation (29 C.R.R. §1903.8(c)), which requires the employee representative be an employee of the subject employer. While the regulation allows a third party who is not an employee, such as an industrial hygienist or safety engineer, to participate in inspections, this is only permitted where the OSHA compliance officer determines there is good cause. Arguably, the regulation limits third-party representation to those with expertise in safety and health matters and is not as broad as OSHA's interpretation suggests. The regulation makes no mention of labor unions or groups as employee representatives.
OSHA's new interpretation omits examples of safety and health experts provided in the regulation and also fails to explain when there would ever be “good cause” to allow a nonemployee union representative to represent nonrepresented employees during an OSHA inspection. Even if the nonemployee union official is a safety and health specialist, there is no legal or policy basis for OSHA to intercede on behalf of a union in an organizing campaign or otherwise by allowing union representatives the authority—and apparent power—to assist an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection.
This broad definition of “employee representative” in no way harmonizes with other definitions of “employee representative” contained in OSHA's own regulations and fails to recognize the specific mechanisms for employees to designate a union as their representative under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The letter seems to imply that one employee could request a union official as the walkaround representative either on the individual employee's behalf or on behalf of the entire workforce, even over the objections of co-workers. This approach, however, allows a union to represent workers without a majority vote in an election certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
Beyond the practical issues this interpretation raises but fails to answer, OSHA's policy may encourage unions to use OSHA complaints and inspections as organizing tools to gain access to an employer's facility from which the outside union organizer ordinarily would be excluded. As important, the OSHA inspection would allow the union organizer to have personal contact with employees, which is often invaluable during organizing campaigns. As stated earlier, the presence of a union organizer accompanying an OSHA compliance officer could also convey a message to non-union employees that the union has real power beyond the control of the employer and that is therefore beneficial to their interests.
If a union organizer attempts to participate in an OSHA inspection, employers should consider taking the following steps:
- Make clear to the OSHA compliance officer that the company will cooperate during the inspection, and that the compliance officer is welcome to enter the facility and start the inspection. At the same time, ask the compliance officer why the “employee representative” would be beneficial during the inspection, e.g. what special safety and health expertise does the representative have?
- If OSHA insists that the union organizer participate, the employer may refuse to allow the union organizer to enter the facility. This refusal may cause OSHA to seek a search warrant. To obtain a warrant, OSHA must contact its attorneys in the Office of the Solicitor. At this point, communication between the employer's and OSHA's counsel may be helpful. The employer should explain that OSHA is welcome to inspect, but that the compliance officer has failed to show that the union organizer will add value to the inspection.
If OSHA does obtain a warrant, the employer may move to quash it in federal district court. Given that OSHA's position conflicts with its own regulations, the employer is likely to prevail.
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), unions are welcome to participate in OSHA inspections and complaints, even at union-free work sites where they do not represent employees and there is no active organizing.
In a letter of interpretation dated Feb. 21 but not publically released until April 5, OSHA said that nonunion employees can select a union official or member of a community organization to act as their “personal representative” in filing complaints on the employees' behalves, requesting workplace inspections, participating in informal conferences to discuss citations, and challenging the abatement period in citations being contested by an employer. The interpretation letter goes on to state that “a person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative can act on behalf of employees as a walkaround representative.”
The position taken in the letter is a clear departure from OSHA's longstanding practice. Previously, union representatives have only been allowed to be the “employee representative” where the facility was unionized.
Although OSHA relied on the language of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), the Secretary's regulations implementing the OSH Act, and OSHA's Field Operations Manual, this new interpretation is directly contrary to OSHA's own regulation (29 C.R.R. §1903.8(c)), which requires the employee representative be an employee of the subject employer. While the regulation allows a third party who is not an employee, such as an industrial hygienist or safety engineer, to participate in inspections, this is only permitted where the OSHA compliance officer determines there is good cause. Arguably, the regulation limits third-party representation to those with expertise in safety and health matters and is not as broad as OSHA's interpretation suggests. The regulation makes no mention of labor unions or groups as employee representatives.
OSHA's new interpretation omits examples of safety and health experts provided in the regulation and also fails to explain when there would ever be “good cause” to allow a nonemployee union representative to represent nonrepresented employees during an OSHA inspection. Even if the nonemployee union official is a safety and health specialist, there is no legal or policy basis for OSHA to intercede on behalf of a union in an organizing campaign or otherwise by allowing union representatives the authority—and apparent power—to assist an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection.
This broad definition of “employee representative” in no way harmonizes with other definitions of “employee representative” contained in OSHA's own regulations and fails to recognize the specific mechanisms for employees to designate a union as their representative under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The letter seems to imply that one employee could request a union official as the walkaround representative either on the individual employee's behalf or on behalf of the entire workforce, even over the objections of co-workers. This approach, however, allows a union to represent workers without a majority vote in an election certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
Beyond the practical issues this interpretation raises but fails to answer, OSHA's policy may encourage unions to use OSHA complaints and inspections as organizing tools to gain access to an employer's facility from which the outside union organizer ordinarily would be excluded. As important, the OSHA inspection would allow the union organizer to have personal contact with employees, which is often invaluable during organizing campaigns. As stated earlier, the presence of a union organizer accompanying an OSHA compliance officer could also convey a message to non-union employees that the union has real power beyond the control of the employer and that is therefore beneficial to their interests.
If a union organizer attempts to participate in an OSHA inspection, employers should consider taking the following steps:
- Make clear to the OSHA compliance officer that the company will cooperate during the inspection, and that the compliance officer is welcome to enter the facility and start the inspection. At the same time, ask the compliance officer why the “employee representative” would be beneficial during the inspection, e.g. what special safety and health expertise does the representative have?
- If OSHA insists that the union organizer participate, the employer may refuse to allow the union organizer to enter the facility. This refusal may cause OSHA to seek a search warrant. To obtain a warrant, OSHA must contact its attorneys in the Office of the Solicitor. At this point, communication between the employer's and OSHA's counsel may be helpful. The employer should explain that OSHA is welcome to inspect, but that the compliance officer has failed to show that the union organizer will add value to the inspection.
If OSHA does obtain a warrant, the employer may move to quash it in federal district court. Given that OSHA's position conflicts with its own regulations, the employer is likely to prevail.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 2Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 3Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 4Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250