Home

Practice Areas

    Employment Law

    Labor Law

    Employee Benefits Law

    Commercial Litigation

    Construction Law

    Dispute Resolution

    Harassment Claims

    Wage and Hour Law

    Mediation and Arbitration

    Other Employment Litigation

Newsletters

Links

Contact Us

 

HR Solutions

     

In case you missed it:
OSHA wants you to pay
for safety equipment
-----------------------
Proposed Rule first
published in 1999
was effective 2/13/08

    For example, safety shoes are on your tab, and you must pay for replacements that the employee does not lose or intentionally damage.

Here is the final rule, published near the end of last year:

    Sec.  1910.132  General requirements.

    * * * * *
    (h) Payment for protective equipment.

    (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(6) of this section, the protective equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), used to comply with this part, shall be provided by the employer at no cost to employees.

    (2) The employer is not required to pay for non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear (including steel-toe shoes or steel-toe boots) and non-specialty prescription safety eyewear, provided that the employer permits such items to be worn off the job-site.

    (3) When the employer provides metatarsal guards and allows the employee, at his or her request, to use shoes or boots with built-in metatarsal protection, the employer is not required to reimburse the employee for the shoes or boots.

    (4) The employer is not required to pay for:
        (i) The logging boots required by 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(v);
        (ii) Everyday clothing, such as long-sleeve shirts, long pants, street shoes, and normal work boots; or
        (iii) Ordinary clothing, skin creams, or other items, used solely for protection from weather, such as winter coats, jackets, gloves, parkas, rubber boots, hats, raincoats, ordinary sunglasses, and sunscreen.

    (5) The employer must pay for replacement PPE, except when the employee has lost or intentionally damaged the PPE.

    (6) Where an employee provides adequate protective equipment he or she owns pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the employer may allow the employee to use it and is not required to reimburse the employee for that equipment. The employer shall not require an employee
to provide or pay for his or her own PPE, unless the PPE is excepted by paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(5) of this section.

    (7) This paragraph (h) shall become effective on February 13, 2008.
Employers must implement the PPE payment requirements no later than May 15, 2008. 

              

5/5/08

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

GC Defamation Suit Against

Union Attorney Lays an Egg

----------------------------------

Tile Workers Lawyer Covered

by Special Privilege

 

            There has been another state court ruling on alleged union torts; this one found no liability.

            Kevin Atkinson worked for Dobbins Group as a site superintendent at a project at Fort Sheridan.  Dobbins had subcontracted floor installation to Polco Flooring, a nonunion subcontractor, and Local 67 of the Tile Installers Union picketed the site in July 2003.  During the occasions when picketers were present Atkinson confronted them, particularly the business agent.  Although he claimed they were obstructing workers the picketers claimed that he threw their drinks and food on the ground, insulted them, stabbed their inflatable rat to deflate it, and otherwise harassed them.  On July 28 Atkinson was arrested, and shortly thereafter Frank Marco, union counsel, wrote a letter to Dobbins Group.

            Seeking reimbursement for the damage to union property, Marco’s letter advised that “your employee Kevin Atkinson…as your superintendent, ….has destroyed and damaged property belonging to our local.”  The letter went on to threaten litigation, but a third party covered the cost of the damage. 

            An appellate court has upheld the dismissal of a subsequent defamation claim by Atkinson against individual union officials, including the business agent present during the picketing.   Kevin Atkinson v. Ralph Affronti, et al, No. 1-05-3992 (1^st Dist. Dec. 2006).  Such a letter “is absolutely privileged to public defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding,” the court ruled.  An attorney must be free to “candidly and zealously represent his client in communications to potential opposing parties in litigation or other proceedings,” without the potential dangerf legal exposure because of his efforts.

            Atkinson had argued that the privilege should not apply when such a communication is made in bad faith, but the court ruled that the privilege was absolute.

 

1/23/07