Food Manufacturer Agrees to Safety and Health Improvements

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and J&J Snackfoods have reached a region-wide settlement agreement to improve workplace safety and health at the company’s eight food manufacturing and warehouse facilities throughout New Jersey and New York. Under the settlement, the Pennsauken, New Jersey-based company agreed to pay a $152,934 penalty.

OSHA cited the company in September 2018 after inspectors determined that the company exposed employees to serious machine hazards. OSHA issued willful and repeat citations for failing to train employees and utilize procedures to control hazardous energy when they perform servicing and maintenance work on machinery.

"This settlement shows the Department’s enforcement efforts leading to positive changes on important safety issues," said Regional Solicitor Jeffrey S. Rogoff, in New York. "A repeat violator with a history of safety problems related to machine hazards took responsibility and is improving those conditions across the region, beyond the violations identified by a single inspection at a single facility."

In addition to the penalty, J&J Snackfoods agreed to hire a full-time corporate safety director to manage and coordinate safety and health across all facilities, and a full-time site-safety manager to coordinate safety and health onsite at the facility. The company will also hire a qualified safety and health professional as an outside consultant to conduct two comprehensive safety and health inspections per year and implement a written safety and health program consistent with OSHA’s best practices guidelines. J&J Snackfoods will also provide employees with safety and health training in a language they understand and establish a safety and health committee comprised of employees, union representatives and managers to recommend further safety and health improvements.

"This settlement reflects a commitment to comply with required standards and ensure that employees are protected from hazards that pose a risk for injuries," said OSHA’s New York Acting Regional Administrator Richard Mendelson.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for American working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Equifax Battles Unemployed Workers

Today's guest author is Jon Rehm, Esq. of the Nebraska bar.

According to USA Today, thanks to a data breach that effected 143 million Americans, credit reporting company Equifax is the most hated corporation in America. 

But if you think the data breach was bad, just wait until you hear what Equifax does with unemployment claims. 

In 2012 Equifax acquired TALX (pronounced “talks”) which helps employers process unemployment claims. In 2010, the New York Times did some good reporting about how TALX helped delay and even deny unemployment benefits to unemployed workers during the height of the Great Recession with questionable appeals and other tactics. At that time, TALX processed unemployment claims for employers comprising up to 30 percent of the workforce. 

But even as memories of the Great Recession fade from media consciousness, TALX is still up its old tricks as a division of Equifax. The silver lining to the Equifax/TALX dark cloud for newly unemployed is if an employee appeals a denial of unemployment and Equifax/TALX is handling the claim, there is a good chance that Equifax/TALX will not appear for the unemployment appeal hearing. 

The mere fact Equifax/TALX no shows a hearing doesn’t automatically mean an employee wins their unemployment appeal in Nebraska. According to 224 NAC 01 014, an employee appealing a determination still must present evidence as to why the determination was incorrect. This is true whether the employee was alleged to have quit or was fired. The quit/fired distinction is important as the employee has the burden to prove they quit for good cause while the employer has the burden of proof to show the they fired the employee for misconduct in connection with employment. 

In my experience with uncontested unemployment appeals, the quit/fired distinction is less important than it is in a contested hearing. The problem for many employees though is that they don’t appeal their determination within the 20 day period allowed under Nebraska law. Additionally some employees could avoid an initial denial of benefits if they would better communicate with the Nebraska Department of Labor about their unemployment claim. 

Sometimes newly unemployed workers do things to undermine their right to receive unemployment, but I refuse to scapegoat ordinary people when a corporation like Equifax is actively working against unemployed workers pursing unemployment insurance. 

See also:
Taxi cab driver awarded workers compensation benefits

Employment Status: Common Law Tests May Need an Update

The Internet Redefines Jurisdiction

Is Social Insurance in Our Nation's Future?

NJDOL Alerts CPA;s About Employee Misclassification

Governor Conditionally Vetoes NJ Supplemental Benefits Bill

The NJ supplemental workers' compensation bill has been conditional vetoed by NJ Governor Murphy. In the conditional veto message the Governor notes that the legislation's unintended consequences would jeopardize NJ's "reverse offset," shift the cost responsibility and not provide an economic benefit to the injured workers. The NJ Senate then took action.

Verdict: $2 Billion -- Herbicide Occupational Exposures - The Next Wave of Serious Compensation Claims

A jury in California has awarded a couple $2 Billion as a result of cancer contracted after using RoundUp manufactured by Monsanto. This is the 3rd verdict in a row in a series of trials against the pesticide manufacturer.

Limits for Toxic Plastics – No Asbestos Ban

Today, the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm United Nations Conventions concluded, with some major steps taken by parties to control the trade and management of certain toxic chemicals: 

Basel Convention: Countries Take Major Step to Control Plastic Waste Dumping, Stop Major Loophole for Electronic Waste
Today, 187 countries took a major step forward in curbing the plastic waste crisis by adding plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that controls the movement of hazardous waste from one country to another. The amendments, originally proposed by Norway, require exporters to obtain the consent of receiving countries before shipping most contaminated, mixed, or unrecyclable plastic waste, providing an important tool for countries in the Global South to stop the dumping of unwanted plastic waste into their country. The decision reflects a growing recognition around the world of the toxic impacts of plastic and the plastic waste trade.

Because the US is not a party to the Convention, the amendments adopted today also act as an export ban on unsorted, unclean, or contaminated plastic waste for the US towards developing countries who are parties to the Convention and not part of the OECD. The amendment will have a similar effect for the EU, a party to the Convention, whose own internal legislation bans exports of waste included under the Convention to developing countries.

“Today’s decision demonstrates that countries are finally catching up with the urgency and magnitude of the plastic pollution issue and shows what ambitious international leadership looks like,” says David Azoulay, Environmental Health Director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Plastic pollution in general and plastic waste in particular remain a major threat to people and the planet, but we are encouraged by the decision of the Basel Convention as we look to the future bold decisions that will be needed to tackle plastic pollution at its roots, starting with reducing production.”
 
Countries halted a major loophole that would have allowed the continued export of electronic waste (e-waste), without proper controls. The proposed guidelines describing how e-waste is treated under the Basel Convention would have allowed countries to send equipment for repair without the prior informed consent procedure. The guidelines were ready for adoption, with wide support. The African region, India, and other countries, supported by civil society, raised a red flag about the inclusion of this loophole, and countries chose to continue negotiating the guidelines at the next COP, instead of adopting ineffective guidelines.
 
Countries established Low POPs Content Levels (LPCLs), which define the amount of POPs at which waste is considered hazardous waste. Under this designation, the waste must be disposed of in a way that destroys or irreversibly transforms its POPs content. LPCLs are key: Higher values mean that dangerous materials can, in practice, be recycled into everyday products, triggering further exposure to very toxic POPs. Mobilizing against very high values proposed by the EU, African countries and other recipient countries of waste managed to resist the extreme pressure from the EU and other developed countries, and obtained the inclusion of lower values together with the higher values proposed by the EU, opening the way for future work to lower the levels of POPs allowed in waste even further.
 
Parties considered a report on the role of the Basel Convention to regulate waste containing nanomaterials. It recommended the inclusion of certain nano-containing waste under the Basel Convention, and invited further work to identify those wastes that should be covered by the Convention. In a disappointing move, parties adopted a weak decision only requiring the collection of information on national initiatives to address nano-containing waste.

Stockholm Convention: Countries Pass Global Ban on Toxic PFOA
Parties to the Stockholm Convention passed a global ban of PFOA — a suspected carcinogen and endocrine disruptor that has contaminated drinking water in many parts of the world. The Stockholm Convention regulates persistent organic pollutants (POPs), some of the world’s worst chemicals that harm human health and build up in the environment and the body over time.

“While the global ban on PFOA marks an important step forward in protecting the environment and people’s health, we regret that countries undermined the scientific process of the Convention to include unjustified exemptions to the ban,” said Giulia Carlini, Staff Attorney at CIEL.

A number of wide-ranging five-year exemptions were included in the PFOA ban for firefighting foams, medical devices, and fluorinated polymers, among other uses. Though China, the European Union, and Iran participated in the scientific review process, they proposed exemptions that had not undergone scientific review or were reviewed and disqualified by the scientific committee.

“PFOA is one of the world’s worst chemicals, and yet countries have found ways to continue human exposure to its toxic harms. Tellingly, even some industry groups disagreed with some of the exemptions, as there are widely available alternatives to these chemicals,” says Carlini. “Countries’ insistence on including these exemptions — in spite of readily available alternatives and a lack of evidence — reveals a disrespect for the scientific review process at the heart of the Stockholm Convention.”

Rotterdam Convention: Countries Break 15 Years of Gridlock Using Voting Procedure for First Time Ever
In the first-ever vote taken under the Rotterdam Convention, 120 parties to the Stockholm Convention broke through gridlock and disagreement to establish a compliance mechanism for the Convention. The compliance mechanism will allow countries to be held accountable for not respecting their commitments under the Convention. After nearly 15 years of negotiations with little forward movement, countries decided that “all efforts to reach consensus had been exhausted” and opted instead to vote, for the first time in the history of the Convention. The adoption of the new mechanism through a vote means that only those parties in agreement to the provisions will be be subject to this mechanism. A total of 126 Parties voted, of which 120 agreed to the compliance mechanism and only six opposed.
 
Countries listed hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), a toxic chemical used as a flame retardant, and phorate, a pesticide that is extremely toxic to humans, under the Rotterdam Convention’s Annex III, meaning that countries must get the prior informed consent of receiving countries in order to export these chemicals.
 
Unfortunately, countries failed to take action on the five other chemicals up for listing under Annex III of the Convention. In particular, chrysotile asbestos and paraquat, which have been reviewed and identified as chemicals of concerns by the Scientific Chemical Review Committee of the Convention, and have been on the agenda for years. A handful of countries repeatedly blocked the consensus required to list these chemicals under the Convention, undermining the scientific process underlying the Convention.

See also:

 India reverses stand on asbestos at Rotterdam Convention meet

EPA Asbestos Rule Announced: Still Leaves Deadly Carcinogen Legal

NJ Legislature Bans Asbestos

…. 

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900jon@gelmans.com has been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

OSHA Cites NJ Roofer for Violations

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Eastern Contractors LLC for exposing employees to falls and other safety hazards at a worksite in Paterson, New Jersey.

Noise Induced Health Threats

Excessive noise that has dominated the workplace throughout time is now associated as causing a plethora of serious health conditions. A recent article in the New York Magazine by David Owen focusses on occupational induced noise pollution and the ailments it affects.