In his December 2018 decision, the ALJ found that OSHA’s PPE standard did not require Schaad to use vests. The lack of prior incidents and the use of an unmarked van didn’t matter to the agency. Schaad voluntary providing vests for its guards.Īccording to OSHA, a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would recognize that an armed robbery hazard existed.Schaad’s policy requiring armed guards to call police in the event of an attempted robbery, and.The guard’s purpose of deterring robberies,.Schaad’s policy regarding proper use of weapons,.The requirement that the security guards carry a gun, wear a uniform similar to a police officer, and be former law enforcement personnel,.The transportation of large sums of money,.It alleged that Schaad recognized that a “shooting was a realistic possibility,” especially given these circumstances: OSHA argued that the risk of an armed robbery created a hazard of being shot. That provision requires that PPE “shall be provided… whenever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment… encountered in a manner capable of causing injury… in the function of any part of the body… through… physical contact.” According to a 2013 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA considers bulletproof vests to be protective equipment that may be required under §1910.132(a). OSHA contends that Schaad violated 29 CFR §1910.132(a). OSHA’s position: Bulletproof vests = required PPE Schaad also had never experienced an armed robbery or violent assault in 45 years of providing its services, including 20 years providing armed guards for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Many, but not all, of Schaad’s armed security guards often wore the vests.Įxpert testimony established that the security industry as a whole did not generally require guards to wear bullet proof vests and that Schaad had gone above and beyond industry norms by providing custom vests for its armed guards. At the Turnpike site, the armed guards’ purpose was to deter armed robberies, not to fight off attackers. Schaad had purchased bulletproof vests voluntarily and had encouraged – but did not require – its armed guards to use the vests. The armed security guard had not been wearing a bulletproof vest. The attacker was unusually dangerous – a former state trooper, equipped in combat gear and carrying a high-powered assault rifle. The security guard exited the van to apprehend the suspect. The teller had just disarmed the suspect and escaped, but the robber was on the loose. On March 20, 2016, a Turnpike employee and one of the private security guards arrived at a toll booth and learned of a robbery in progress. The guards accompanied Turnpike drivers in an unmarked van as they collected money at toll booths. What happened in this case? Schaad Detective Agency provided armed security guards to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Years of safe operation and protective measures above and beyond If OSHA prevails on its appeal, the impact could extend far beyond the security industry. And in the Schaad case, OSHA ignores a 45-year track record without any shootings. Significantly, OSHA takes this position despite evidence that the security industry as a whole does not require employees to wear vests. OSHA’s argues that an armed security guard working where armed robberies could occur could be the victim of a shooting. §1910.132(a) to include bulletproof vests. OSHA’s petition in the Schaad case seeks to expand PPE requirements under 29 C.F.R. At stake: whether certain employers must require employees to wear bulletproof vests as personal protective equipment (PPE). OSHA has an appeal pending before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. An ALJ tossed out the citation, but the story’s not over. In 2016, OSHA issued a serious citation to a private security guard firm that did not require its armed security guards to wear bulletproof vests.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |