Secretary Of Labor V. Garden Ridge Case Summary

Megan Staton

OSHRC Case Study

Secretary of Labor v. Garden Ridge, Store #46

SAFE 4025

Case Introduction-

On February 17, 2010, OSHA’s area office was obligated to send a compliance officer, David Bryan, to inspect a small home decor retail store named Garden Ridge, which was located on Chenal Parkway in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had received an employee formal complaint in regards to a number of safety violations within their store. Bryan and his team had arrived at the store and was unfounded by the employee's complaints and did not notice any serious conditions at first site. Bryan made an opening conference with the General Manager named Michael McCullough, to introduce and explain

the topic and reasoning for the inspection as well as requesting a copy of the stores OSHA 300 log forms. As the inspection is ongoing and Bryan is doing his normal walk through he notices one specific detail with the interlock device on the hatch door to the garbage compactor that catches his eye. The interlock device did not have all of its components in order to fulfill its tasks and fully complete the circuit. Bryan began to discuss this specific topic with McCollough about the missing component of the interlock and realizes that he is aware that the machine was not properly working. McCollough then shows Bryan how he operates the garbage compactor as it is activated while the door is open. Bryan was able to build up enough evidence by taking pictures of the compactor and then began to look at the rest of the store. Bryan wanted more evidence from not only the employee who sent in the formal complaint but other employees around this unsafe working hazard. As he built up enough information he then proceeded to request a copy of the OSHA 300 log forms. McCollough then told Bryan that he did not have them in the store and needed to request them from Green Ridge’s Corporate Office. After Bryan had returned the following day and still did not successfully receive the OSHA 300 log forms he departed from the store and later received the copies via email. Based upon the inspection from Bryan, the secretary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued two citations on May 10, 2010, to Garden Ridge retail store. The first citation was a serious violation of 29 CFR 1910.212 (a)(1), stating that there was a failure to adequately guard the garbage compactor against employees. The second citation was under as “other” violation of the 29 CFR 1904.40 (b)(2), which is failing to provide the OSHA 300 logs of the employee's incidence and did not successfully give them to the compliance officer “Bryan” within four business hours. Between the two citations, there was a total of $3,150 in penalties for the court to resolve. Garden Ridge retail store accepted the citations and there was later a hearing in court held on October 8, 2010, in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Parties-
The Secretary of Labor, filed a complaint against Garden Ridge retail store to assert an inspection after receiving a formal complaint from an employee. The Secretary’s complaint discussed the importance of workers safety by using Lockout/Tagout procedures as a resource for workers to keep the employees safe and healthy. The Secretary’s complaint also incorporates the two cited violations that dealt with the reasoning in this case that was mentioned in the above paragraph.
Plaintiff and Defendant-
The plaintiff, in this case, was the Secretary of Labor, Complainant, who had proceeded to uphold the formal complaint made by an employee of Garden Ridge. The Defendant in this case, as well as the respondent, was Garden Ridge home decor retail store.
Arguments-
There were many arguments that were recognized within this particular case from notice of failure for the defendant.

The Secretary stated that “under citation No. 1, Garden Ridge contends 1910.212 (a)(1) does not apply to the cited conditions. The company asserts OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout standard, at 1910.147, is the applicable standard. Garden Ridge also argues the Secretary establish its employees were exposed to a hazard while operating the garbage compactor. Under Citation No. 2, Garden Ridge concedes it violated 1904.40(b)(2), but contests the proposed penalty”( Secretary of Labor v. Garden Ridge pg. 2). Garden Ridge argued to the judge that they believed that the Lockout/Tagout standard was being intertwined with the issue that Bryan had on the guarding of the compactor. There was proof of the LOTO standard shown to McCollough that states that if there is any type of servicing or maintenance on equipment then there is a possibility that there could be an injury to the employees. Bryan had then began to testify to the court that he had asked McCollough for a copy of the LOTO for the garbage compactor and McCollough proceeded to tell him that they did not have a LOTO procedure in place for employees because the employees did not do any maintenance work on that specific piece of equipment and so this is why OSHA’s Secretary cited Garden Ridge for the guarding standard rather than the LOTO procedure/standard. McCollough later testified in court that he did not state that there was not LOTO procedure in their store to Bryan and that it was posted on the door near the machinery. “Garden Ridge is correct when it states the Secretary has “intertwined” the issues of LOTO and machine guarding. This intertwining began with the Secretary’s inartfully drafted alleged description violation for item 1 of Citation No. 1. Generally, machine guarding violations create conditions that expose employees to injuries from points of contact during the machine’s normal production

function. Secretary cites the machine guarding standard, 1910.212 (a)(1), for an alleged violation that created conditions which exposed the employee to crushing hazards in the event of an unexpected startup”( Secretary of Labor v. Garden Ridge pg 5).
Other Cases-
There were no other cases that the court had referred to but they did use evidence from the interview that Bryan had with two of the co-workers at Garden Ridge, named Kendrick Jones and Michael Graham. Graham had actually given a testimony at the court and testified that he has been inside of the garbage compactor more than once. He also stated that he had to clear out a jam so that the machine would work correctly and that states that this is a form of servicing and maintenance while being inside of the machinery. As Jones was called to the stand he had also testified a similar scenario such as Graham. Jones stated that Graham and himself does enter the machine more than other employees and as Jones was giving his statement Bryan had noticed that he was being exposed to the crushing hazard of the machinery by using a pole to push down the refuse (hydraulic ram).
Final Ruling-
The final ruling of the violations stated that Garden Ridge had more than 3,500 employees nationwide before the time of the inspection. Prior to Bryans inspection with Garden Ridge the company had no previous violations and no history of being proposed citations. “Garden Ridge had demonstrated good faith in these proceedings. The gravity of Garden Ridge’s violation of 1904. 40(b)(2) is slight” (Secretary of Labor v. Garden Ridge pg.10). Bryan was able to receive the company's OSHA 300 logs around 24 hours after he proposed to have them. Bryan felt as if he did not need to propose a closing conference with the company until after almost 10 weeks that he had received the OSHA 300 log forms. The stated penalty of Garden Ridge was $100.
Significance to EHS Professional-
This case shows significance to an EHS Professional because even though citations may not be valid or appropriately given, it is always important for OSHA to demonstrate how workers should be treated. Employees deserve to stay healthy and safe even in a challenging aspect and their employers should give them that right to have. Employers should also not put their employees in any situation that will hurt them.
My Opinion-
In my opinion, based on the facts and arguments that were provided within this case, I do not agree with the final ruling from what had occurred. I believe that the Secretary did not take the citations too far and should not have changed the argument at the very end. Even though the company did not have any history of violations does not mean that this could not happen in the future. I don't believe that things like this case should be taken more serious and I feel like they should have gone through with their first plead.

Works Cited
Secretary of Labor v. Garden Ridge. (2010, November 19). Retrieved October 04, 2017, from http://www.oshrc.gov/decisions/html_2011/10-1082.htm