Custom General Clause Duty OSHA essay paper sample
Buy custom General Clause Duty OSHA essay paper cheap
To determine whether the district court held correctly that the purpose and the general chore clause of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970(“OSH Act”), 29 U.S.C & 651-678, pr-empty the amendments that are not strong under obstacle conflict preemption's doctrine.
The case statement
On March 31st 2004, the Oklahoma's governor Brad Henry signed into law H.B 2122, which amends the firearms act of 1971, 21 Oklahoma's, and the self defense act of 1995. this amendments which became effective in November 1st 2004prevent any individual, property owner, employer, tenant or even the business entity from coming up with any policy or a rule that would prevent any individual from transporting and storing firearms in a closed vehicle or any property set aside for a vehicle. The 2004 amendments prevented the appellants from adopting an efficient method of reducing gun related injuries by allowing possession of guns.
On 4th October 2007, the order was issued permanently by the district patio enjoining the complainants from enforcing the amendments. The appeal was initiated by the appellants on 2nd November 2007.
AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENTS
The act of the occupational safety and health requires the employers to provide a conducive environment for their employees. After analysis, however, the district court thought that the conflict arose between this amendment and the OSG act's role of assuring safe healthful working conditions, and the core duty that the act imposes on the employment owners that mandated the employer’s role of ensuring safe work place to their employees. Under the OSH act, the employer is responsible for the definition and evaluation of the potential hazards within the business operations, and implementation of methods of solving dangers that hazard might present. These hazards in the work place often involve the fire arms, which affects the company's stability within every industry.
Amendments that require employers to allow firearms in vehicles on company property thwart an employer’s capability to comply with the duty clause that is very general. This clause states that the employer should provide an employment ground free from recognized hazards that causes or are likely to cause death or even physical injury to the employees.
A danger is considered to exist if its potential danger is common knowledge in the industry of the employer, or he/she had the hazardous condition knowledge. (W.G. Fairfield Co. v. OCHRC, 285 F.3d 499, 505 (6th Cir. 2002). it is the hazard and not just a specified incident that caused the injury, which is helpful in extracting the likelihood of the recognized hazard.
There have been several publicized accidents connoting the inherent danger of availing firearms in the workplace. For example, after leaving the business ethics course held annually, Doug Williams removed a shot gun and a semi-automobile rifle from his truck. He later returned to the training room at the Lockheed Martin's aircraft plant in Meridian, Mississippi. He then proceeded and killed five people, wounding nine, before killing himself.
THE UNDERLYING POLICIES AND CONCLUSION
Human resource professionals ensure that there is improved social interaction of individuals in an industry. Stresses brought by an industry may intensify the personality differences, and this result to confrontations among the employees. Procedures are followed if there is occurrence of violence in an industry setting. In order to provide a conducive working place for the employees, some employers ban the need of weapons in their premises. For example, businesses that provide divorce counseling services have the need to prohibit the need for the weapons in their workplace (Wang, 1993).
It is the employer's and HR professionals’ responsibility to implement the workplace environment safeguards. The prevention programs in the workplace help in early detection of violence and hence coming up with ways of eliminating it. The general duty clause embeds the employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are free from hazards.