Employers name and location: Imagine Screen Printing & Productions LLC, which imprints graphic design images onto apparel such as t-shirts and sweatshirts. Central Mills Inc., doing business as Freeze, sorts, packs and distributes the apparel to some of the nation's largest retailers, including Walmart, Macy's and Target.
Both companies are located at 473 Ridge Road in Dayton, New Jersey, and have the same management, maintenance employees and safety departments.
Date investigation initiated: The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration initiated an inspection of Imagine Screen Printing & Productions LLC on Oct. 1, 2014, in response to a complaint alleging workplace safety and health hazards. The inspection was expanded to include Freeze on Nov. 6, 2014, when inspectors discovered that company employees were also exposed to observed hazards.
Investigation findings: Imagine was cited for 15 serious citations including:
Not providing and maintaining a hearing conservation program for employees exposed to excessive noise;
Blocked exits*;
Tripping and fall hazards;
Not training workers on chemical hazards;
Not providing lockout/tagout training to all employees who work in an area where energy control devices are used on equipment; and
Not providing eyewash facilities.
Freeze received seven serious citations for blocked aisles and exit routes, energy control deficiencies, failure to train workers on chemical hazards, unsecured storage racks, and damaged electrical connections on forklift battery chargers. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
"The safety and health hazards found in both inspections put workers at risk of being seriously injured or worse, and should be immediately corrected," said Patricia Jones, director of OSHA's Avenel Area Office. "Employers are legally responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for employees."
The companies have 15 business days from receipt of citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Proposed penalties: $43,200 for Imagine Screen Printing & Productions LLC, and $21,000 for Freeze.
View the citations: http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/ImagineScreenPrintingandCentralMills_1002842_0327_15.pdf*
Monday, April 6, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Companies Cannot Stifle Whistleblowers in Confidentiality Agreements: SEC v KBR Settlement
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced its first enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements with the potential to stifle the whistleblowing process.
The SEC charged Houston-based global technology and engineering firm KBR Inc. with violating whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act. KBR required witnesses in certain internal investigations interviews to sign confidentiality statements with language warning that they could face discipline and even be fired if they discussed the matters with outside parties without the prior approval of KBR’s legal department. Since these investigations included allegations of possible securities law violations, the SEC found that these terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action to impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.
KBR agreed to pay a $130,000 penalty to settle the SEC’s charges and the company voluntarily amended its confidentiality statement by adding language making clear that employees are free to report possible violations to the SEC and other federal agencies without KBR approval or fear of retaliation.
“By requiring its employees and former employees to sign confidentiality agreements imposing pre-notification requirements before contacting the SEC, KBR potentially discouraged employees from reporting securities violations to us,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “SEC rules prohibit employers from taking measures through confidentiality, employment, severance, or other type of agreements that may silence potential whistleblowers before they can reach out to the SEC. We will vigorously enforce this provision.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, there are no apparent instances in which KBR specifically prevented employees from communicating with the SEC about specific securities law violations. However, any company’s blanket prohibition against witnesses discussing the substance of the interview has a potential chilling effect on whistleblowers’ willingness to report illegal conduct to the SEC.
“KBR changed its agreements to make clear that its current and former employees will not have to fear termination or retribution or seek approval from company lawyers before contacting us.” said Sean McKessy, Chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. “Other employers should similarly review and amend existing and historical agreements that in word or effect stop their employees from reporting potential violations to the SEC.”
Without admitting or denying the charges, KBR agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of Rule 21F-17.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jim Etri and Rebecca Fike and supervised by David L. Peavler of the Fort Worth Regional Office.
Related reading:
"Indefensible" - More than $20 million for military incinerators up in smoke
The SEC charged Houston-based global technology and engineering firm KBR Inc. with violating whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act. KBR required witnesses in certain internal investigations interviews to sign confidentiality statements with language warning that they could face discipline and even be fired if they discussed the matters with outside parties without the prior approval of KBR’s legal department. Since these investigations included allegations of possible securities law violations, the SEC found that these terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action to impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.
KBR agreed to pay a $130,000 penalty to settle the SEC’s charges and the company voluntarily amended its confidentiality statement by adding language making clear that employees are free to report possible violations to the SEC and other federal agencies without KBR approval or fear of retaliation.
“By requiring its employees and former employees to sign confidentiality agreements imposing pre-notification requirements before contacting the SEC, KBR potentially discouraged employees from reporting securities violations to us,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “SEC rules prohibit employers from taking measures through confidentiality, employment, severance, or other type of agreements that may silence potential whistleblowers before they can reach out to the SEC. We will vigorously enforce this provision.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, there are no apparent instances in which KBR specifically prevented employees from communicating with the SEC about specific securities law violations. However, any company’s blanket prohibition against witnesses discussing the substance of the interview has a potential chilling effect on whistleblowers’ willingness to report illegal conduct to the SEC.
“KBR changed its agreements to make clear that its current and former employees will not have to fear termination or retribution or seek approval from company lawyers before contacting us.” said Sean McKessy, Chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. “Other employers should similarly review and amend existing and historical agreements that in word or effect stop their employees from reporting potential violations to the SEC.”
Without admitting or denying the charges, KBR agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of Rule 21F-17.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jim Etri and Rebecca Fike and supervised by David L. Peavler of the Fort Worth Regional Office.
"Indefensible" - More than $20 million for military incinerators up in smoke
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
The Relationship Between Workplace Stressors and Mortality and Health Costs in the United States
"Even though epidemiological evidence links specific workplace stressors to health outcomes, the aggregate contribution of these factors to overall mortality and health spending in the United States is not known.
"In this paper, we build a model to estimate the excess mortality and incremental health expenditures associated with exposure to the following 10 workplace stressors: unemployment, lack of health insurance, exposure to shift work, long working hours, job insecurity, work–family conflict, low job control, high job demands, low social support at work, and low organizational justice.
"Our model uses input parameters obtained from publicly accessible data sources. We estimated health spending from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and joint probabilities of workplace exposures from the General Social Survey, and we conducted a meta-analysis of the epidemiological literature to estimate the relative risks of poor health outcomes associated with exposure to these stressors. The model was designed to overcome limitations with using inputs from multiple data sources.
"Specifically, the model separately derives optimistic and conservative estimates of the effect of multiple workplace exposures on health, and uses optimization to calculate upper and lower bounds around each estimate, which accounts for the correlation between exposures. We find that more than 120,000 deaths per year and approximately 5%–8% of annual healthcare costs are associated with and may be attributable to how U.S. companies manage their work forces.
"Our results suggest that more attention should be paid to management practices as important contributors to health outcomes and costs in the United States.
"In this paper, we build a model to estimate the excess mortality and incremental health expenditures associated with exposure to the following 10 workplace stressors: unemployment, lack of health insurance, exposure to shift work, long working hours, job insecurity, work–family conflict, low job control, high job demands, low social support at work, and low organizational justice.
"Our model uses input parameters obtained from publicly accessible data sources. We estimated health spending from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and joint probabilities of workplace exposures from the General Social Survey, and we conducted a meta-analysis of the epidemiological literature to estimate the relative risks of poor health outcomes associated with exposure to these stressors. The model was designed to overcome limitations with using inputs from multiple data sources.
"Specifically, the model separately derives optimistic and conservative estimates of the effect of multiple workplace exposures on health, and uses optimization to calculate upper and lower bounds around each estimate, which accounts for the correlation between exposures. We find that more than 120,000 deaths per year and approximately 5%–8% of annual healthcare costs are associated with and may be attributable to how U.S. companies manage their work forces.
"Our results suggest that more attention should be paid to management practices as important contributors to health outcomes and costs in the United States.
Joel Goh
Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163
jgoh@hbs.edu,
Jeffrey Pfeffer
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
pfeff@stanford.edu,
Stefanos A. Zenios
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
stefzen@stanford.edu
Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163
jgoh@hbs.edu,
Jeffrey Pfeffer
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
pfeff@stanford.edu,
Stefanos A. Zenios
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
stefzen@stanford.edu
Sunday, March 29, 2015
National Asbestos Awareness Week, April 1 to 7, 2015
Designating the first week of April 2015 as ‘‘National Asbestos Awareness Week’’
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.
CARDIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. REID, Mr. TESTER, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr.
SCHUMER, Ms. WARREN, Mr. DAINES, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. CRAPO, and
Mrs. GILLIBRAND)
RESOLUTION
Designating the first week of April 2015 as ‘‘National
Asbestos Awareness Week’’.
Whereas dangerous asbestos fibers are invisible and cannot
be smelled or tasted;
Whereas the inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers can cause
significant damage;
Whereas asbestos fibers can cause cancer such as mesothelioma,
asbestosis, and other health problems;
Whereas symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take 10
to 50 years to present themselves;
Whereas the projected life expectancy for an individual diagnosed
with mesothelioma is between 6 and 24 months;
Whereas generally, little is known about late-stage treatment
of asbestos-related diseases, and there is no cure for such
diseases;
Whereas early detection of asbestos-related diseases may give
some patients increased treatment options and might improve
their prognoses;
Whereas the United States has substantially reduced its consumption
of asbestos, yet continues to consume hundreds
of metric tons of the fibrous mineral each year for use
in certain products throughout the United States;
Whereas asbestos-related diseases have killed thousands of
people in the United States;
Whereas while exposure to asbestos continues, safety and prevention
of asbestos exposure already has significantly reduced
the incidence of asbestos-related diseases and can further reduce
the incidence of such diseases;
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Mesothelioma Award for Household Contact of Talc Worker Upheld for $1.6
A $1.6 Million award for a household contact of an asbestos worker was affirmed by a NJ Court of Appeals. The child of a Shulton employee was exposed to talc (Old Spice Talcum Powder) containing asbestos when the father brought home asbestos dust.
"In July 2012, plaintiffs Steven G. Kaenzig and Linda Kaenzig filed an asbestos litigation complaint asserting claims of negligence and products liability against several defendants, including Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (defendant).1 Defendant was the primary supplier of raw talc to Shulton, Inc., the company that owned the Mays Landing facility (the facility) where the asbestos-contaminated Old Spice and Desert Flower talcum powder was produced. Plaintiffs alleged that Steven contracted mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to the talc, through contact with his father, who worked at the facility from 1967 to 1975.
"Defendant filed several pretrial motions, including a motion to compel plaintiffs to produce testing data and reports prepared by an expert, whom plaintiffs had consulted but did not intend to call at trial, on three "vintage" samples of Old Spice and Desert Flower talcum powder products. The judge denied the motion, but ordered plaintiffs to provide defendant with the samples. The judge also denied defendant's motions to exclude testimony by plaintiffs' experts Sean Fitzgerald, a geologist, and Jacqueline Moline, M.D., but barred Fitzgerald's testimony as to his testing of the "vintage" samples he had received from the non-testifying consulting expert.
"Following a trial in October and November 2013, a jury awarded plaintiffs $1.6 million in compensatory damages. On appeal, defendant challenges several pretrial and trial evidentiary rulings, and the denial of its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
STEVEN G. KAENZIG v. CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY INC.
"In July 2012, plaintiffs Steven G. Kaenzig and Linda Kaenzig filed an asbestos litigation complaint asserting claims of negligence and products liability against several defendants, including Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (defendant).1 Defendant was the primary supplier of raw talc to Shulton, Inc., the company that owned the Mays Landing facility (the facility) where the asbestos-contaminated Old Spice and Desert Flower talcum powder was produced. Plaintiffs alleged that Steven contracted mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to the talc, through contact with his father, who worked at the facility from 1967 to 1975.
"Defendant filed several pretrial motions, including a motion to compel plaintiffs to produce testing data and reports prepared by an expert, whom plaintiffs had consulted but did not intend to call at trial, on three "vintage" samples of Old Spice and Desert Flower talcum powder products. The judge denied the motion, but ordered plaintiffs to provide defendant with the samples. The judge also denied defendant's motions to exclude testimony by plaintiffs' experts Sean Fitzgerald, a geologist, and Jacqueline Moline, M.D., but barred Fitzgerald's testimony as to his testing of the "vintage" samples he had received from the non-testifying consulting expert.
"Following a trial in October and November 2013, a jury awarded plaintiffs $1.6 million in compensatory damages. On appeal, defendant challenges several pretrial and trial evidentiary rulings, and the denial of its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
STEVEN G. KAENZIG v. CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY INC.
Ebola Test Vaccines Appear Safe in Phase 2 Liberian Clinical Trial
The National Institutes of Health has announced the advancement of two experimental vaccines for Ebola. This is a major announcement that will provide additional safety for healthcare workers and populations exposed to this deadly disease. niaid.nih.gov/
Liberia-U.S. Partnership Planning Phase 3 Trial and Study of Ebola Survivors
Two experimental Ebola vaccines appear to be safe based on evaluation in more than 600 people in Liberia who participated in the first stage of the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines in Liberia (PREVAIL) Phase 2/3 clinical trial, according to interim findings from an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board review. Based on these findings, the study, which is sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, may now advance to Phase 3 testing.
“We are grateful to the Liberian people who volunteered for this important clinical trial and encouraged by the study results seen with the two investigational Ebola vaccine candidates,” said NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “Now we must move forward to adapt and expand the study so that ultimately we can determine whether these experimental vaccines can protect against Ebola virus disease and therefore be used in future Ebola outbreaks.”
The PREVAIL trial, which began on Feb. 2, 2015 in Monrovia, Liberia, is testing the safety and efficacy of the cAd3-EBOZ candidate vaccine co-developed by NIAID scientists and GlaxoSmithKline, and the VSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada and licensed to NewLink Genetics Corporation and Merck. Volunteers are assigned at random to receive a single injection of the NIAID/GSK (cAd3-EBOZ) vaccine, the VSV-ZEBOV vaccine, or a placebo (saline) injection. The trial is also double-blinded, meaning that neither study subjects nor staff know whether a vaccine or placebo was administered. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is considered the “gold standard” in clinical research.
While the initial enrollment goal in the Phase 2 study has been met and the vaccines proven safe, the researchers are continuing Phase 2 study enrollment at Redemption Hospital in Monrovia, Liberia, through late April 2015. This would boost enrollment in the Phase 2 portion of the trial to approximately 1,500 people and would be done, in part, to increase the percentage of women (currently, about 16 percent) in the study for a more robust data set overall. The study follow-up period would be at least one year, and two additional blood samples would be obtained from all volunteers at six and 12 months post-vaccination to determine the durability of the immune responses. These proposed changes will be discussed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and are under review by the institutional review boards in Liberia and the United States.
Investigators planned to enroll 27,000 people in Liberia at risk of Ebola infection in the Phase 3 portion of the trial. However, there has been only one new confirmed case of Ebola infection in the country since Feb. 19, 2015. Given this decline in Ebola infection incidence, the trial leaders—H. Clifford Lane, M.D., NIAID deputy director for clinical research, and Liberian co-principal investigators Stephen Kennedy, M.D., and Fatorma Bolay, Ph.D.—have determined that it is scientifically appropriate to expand the trial to additional sites in other West African countries. Discussions are underway to explore that possibility.
The Liberia-U.S. research team also plans to launch a separate natural history study of Ebola survivors to better understand the after-effects of Ebola virus disease. Four sites in Monrovia, Liberia and locations in the United States may begin enrollment into this study in the coming months, pending regulatory review and approval. More information on this study will be provided when the trial launches.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Does Workers' Compensation Really Have a Place in the iEverything World?
I started my day watching the video of the launch of Apple's iWatch. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, and his team never disappoints with the rollout of amazing new technology. Even the non-believers will be enthralled.
The implementation of Apple's technology is based upon widespread adoption. In the case of linking the iPhone and the iWatch to an iEverything platform they are relying upon the basic instinct for humans to survive and live healthier and longer.
Apple is making a massive move into medicine on a global basis. They are expanding internationally on all fronts including research projects with the world's top medical facilities and training institutions. It is awesome.
Apple is adopting to the changing world. It is helping to change the world simultaneously. The tech company is not stagnated by old technology or systems.
The nation's workers' compensation program is a century old. The system was a good fit for an old market. The system created in 1911 worked well in times that no longer exists today.
I can't get onto my computer without reading about the workers' compensation system being pounded by all factions and stakeholders. The elements and issues that created the nation's workers' compensation program for the most part no longer exist.
Robert Reich wrote this week that technological advancements have automated the workplace. Fewer people are required to do tasks and that number decreases daily. "New technologies aren’t just labor-replacing. They’re also knowledge-replacing."
Last week I had the opportunity to hear Thomas Friedman, Foreign Affairs Columnist of the NY Times, speak about how the world has changed only in the last couple of decades. He talked about what must be done today to meet the realities of the future.
The implementation of Apple's technology is based upon widespread adoption. In the case of linking the iPhone and the iWatch to an iEverything platform they are relying upon the basic instinct for humans to survive and live healthier and longer.
Apple is making a massive move into medicine on a global basis. They are expanding internationally on all fronts including research projects with the world's top medical facilities and training institutions. It is awesome.
Apple is adopting to the changing world. It is helping to change the world simultaneously. The tech company is not stagnated by old technology or systems.
The nation's workers' compensation program is a century old. The system was a good fit for an old market. The system created in 1911 worked well in times that no longer exists today.
I can't get onto my computer without reading about the workers' compensation system being pounded by all factions and stakeholders. The elements and issues that created the nation's workers' compensation program for the most part no longer exist.
Robert Reich wrote this week that technological advancements have automated the workplace. Fewer people are required to do tasks and that number decreases daily. "New technologies aren’t just labor-replacing. They’re also knowledge-replacing."
Last week I had the opportunity to hear Thomas Friedman, Foreign Affairs Columnist of the NY Times, speak about how the world has changed only in the last couple of decades. He talked about what must be done today to meet the realities of the future.
Friedman reflected on Moore's Law, named after the co-founder of Intel Corporation, Gordon E. Moore. Moore observed that the speed and power of microchips will double every 24 months.
"The really big thing that just happened" Thomas Friedman observed is that, "the Market, Mother Nature and Moore's Law, just went into hyper-acceleration."
When you apply the observations of both Reich and Friedman to a century-old social remedial program operating as workers' compensation, a basic question arises. Does the present workers' compensation system really have a place any longer in the iEverything world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)