BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

OSHA proposes fines against Ohio roofing contractor for fall, eye hazards

OSHA proposes fines against Ohio roofing contractor for fall, eye hazards

U.S. federal workplace safety regulators have cited and proposed penalties totaling $91,629 against an Ohio roofing contractor for exposing employees to falls and other safety hazards.

In October 2017, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors observed five roofers working for Holland, Ohio-based Casey Bortles at a Waterville, Ohio, residential site working at heights greater than 8 feet without adequate fall protection and employees using nail guns without eye protection, according to an agency statement published Wednesday.

OSHA also cited the company for failing to train workers on fall hazards and for not developing and maintaining an accident prevention program.

The contractor has been cited for similar violations four times since 2014, according to the agency.

“This employer continues to expose employees to fall hazards by failing to comply with federal safety requirements,” Kim Nelson, OSHA Toledo area office director, said in a statement. “Employers are responsible for ensuring employees are adequately protected from the hazards that exist at their worksites.”

A company spokesperson could not be immediately reached for comment.




Read Next

  • Industry challenge to OSHA silica rule rejected by court

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected industry challenges to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s silica rule and ordered the agency to explain why it omitted medical removal provisions.