OSHA: Employers need not pay for safety gear
Question: Clients are asking whether they must pay for all the necessary safety gear for employees, or whether it’s OK to require workers to provide their own. I thought the rule was that the employer had to pay for any personal protective equipment (PPE) required by federal standards. Is that true?
Answer: The issue used to be more clear-cut. As things currently stand, it appears the employer could make a good argument that federal rules do not require paying for all the necessary PPE.
In past years, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in Washington, DC, has interpreted its safety rules to mean the employer must provide all required safety gear. But a company recently challenged a citation based on that interpretation, and it won the argument.
Union Tank Car Company in Cleveland, TX, had been cited for failing to purchase PPE for employees, as it apparently was required to under 29 CFR 1910.132(a). The company did require employees to use the metatarsal guards, safety shoes, and welding gloves called for in the rule, but it did not provide them to workers. Instead, the company picked up some of the cost of the metatarsal guards and just told workers they had to bring their own safety shoes and welding gloves.
When the company was inspected by OSHA, it was cited for failure to comply with the PPE rule because it did not provide the safety gear. Though the company protested, OSHA officials explained that to provide the gear meant the company had to pay for it. Union Tank Car contested that interpretation before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission [Secretary of Labor v. Union Tank Car Co., OSHRC No. 96-0563, (Oct. 16, 1997)].
Judge agreed with employer’s interpretation
The Administrative Law judge sided with the employer, saying OSHA’s interpretation of what it means to provide the PPE was overly strict. He noted that the rules on foot and hand protection, 1910.1362 and 1910.1383, did not specify that the safety gear had to be purchased and provided by the employer, only that it be used in certain situations. The citation was thrown out.
While certainly providing ammunition for any employer who wishes to use the same interpretation, the ruling does not necessarily mean OSHA’s previous position on paying for PPE is negated. OSHA still is capable of arguing the issue in other situations, and the eventual rulings may hinge on details of the particular rule that applies in the citation.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content