On August 20, 2015, the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division (OR-OSHA) conducted an inspection at a United Parcel Service (UPS) delivery terminal in Albany, Oregon. The compliance officer observed an unguarded projecting shaft end on a conveyor system. The shaft end, adjacent to a walkway, protruded from the conveyor with an attached collar and extended beyond the stationary bearing. The officer measured the shaft’s projection as exceeding one-half of its diameter, in violation of 29 CFR § 1910.219(c)(4)(i), a federal workplace safety standard adopted by OR-OSHA.
UPS challenged the citation, arguing that OR-OSHA’s method of measurement was inconsistent with the regulation’s plain language. UPS contended that the shaft end should be measured only from the point beyond the collar, not from the stationary bearing. An administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed and vacated the citation, finding that OR-OSHA’s interpretation was implausible and that UPS lacked knowledge of the violation because OR-OSHA did not publish its measurement guidance until 2016, after the inspection.
OR-OSHA petitioned for review in the Oregon Court of Appeals. The court examined whether OR-OSHA’s interpretation of 29 CFR § 1910.219(c)(4)(i) was plausible and whether UPS had knowledge of the violation.
The court concluded that OR-OSHA’s interpretation was plausible. It reasoned that the rule addressed shafts as components of machinery, such as conveyors, and that measuring from the machine’s stationary surface, including portions under a collar, aligned with the text and safety purpose of the regulation. The court emphasized that the hazard stemmed from the shaft’s rotation, not merely its length, and that including the collar in the measurement was consistent with the rule’s intent to minimize entanglement risks.
On the knowledge issue, the court held that UPS was aware of the existence of the protruding shaft and that this satisfied OR-OSHA’s burden of proof. It rejected the ALJ’s view that UPS lacked knowledge because OR-OSHA had not published its guidance. The court stated that employers are presumed to know the law and that OR-OSHA did not need to prove UPS’s knowledge of its specific measurement method.
On June 16, 2021, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case. The court upheld OR-OSHA’s interpretation of the regulation and concluded that UPS had knowledge of the violation.
If your business is facing challenges related to OSHA inspections, workplace safety compliance, or disputes with regulators, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with OSHA and safety law matters. Contact us to learn how our team can support your workplace safety and compliance needs.