Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-401 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Board" means a review board established pursuant to section 23-422.

2. "Commission" means the industrial commission of Arizona.

3. "De minimis violation" means a condition or practice that, although undesirable, has no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health.

4. "Director" means the director of the division.

5. "Division" means the division of occupational safety and health within the commission.

6. "Employee" means any person performing services for an employer, including any person defined as an employee pursuant to section 23-901, except employees engaged in household domestic labor.

7. "Employer" means any individual or type of organization, including this state and all political subdivisions of this state, that has in its employ one or more individuals performing services for it in employment and includes self-employed persons, but does not include employers of household domestic labor.

8. "Interested party" means the commission and the commission's agents, the employer and the affected employees of such employer.

9. "Model system" means an exemplary and voluntary implemented worker safety and health management system that:

(a) Exceeds basic compliance with occupational safety and health laws and regulations.

(b) Meets the requirements adopted by the division pursuant to section 23-432.

10. "Non-serious violation" means a condition or practice in a place of employment that does not constitute a serious violation but that violates a standard or regulation and has a direct or immediate relationship to safety or health, unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of such condition or practice.

11. "Program" means the voluntary protection program or any other program under which the director recognizes and partners with workplaces that have implemented a model system.

12. "Recognized hazard" means an unsafe or unhealthful condition or practice recognized as such with respect to the standard of knowledge in the industry.

13. "Regulation" means any written regulation of occupational safety and health governing places of employment formulated pursuant to section 23-410, exclusive of standards, and shall have the same meaning as and include the term "rule".

14. "Serious violation" means a condition or practice in a place of employment that violates a standard, regulation or section 23-403, subsection A and produces a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result, unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of such condition or practice.

15. "Standard" means any occupational safety and health standard that has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized standards-producing organization or the federal government and shall have the same meaning as, and include the term "code".

16. "Trade secret" means a plan or process, tool, mechanism, or compound not patented, known only to its owner and those of the owner's employees to whom it is necessary to confide it, or other information that the employer treats as confidential and has a reasonable basis for doing so.

17. "Workplace" means a location or site wherein work, either temporary or permanent, is being conducted in connection with an industry, trade or business.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2010 · leading case: State v. Far West Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Far West Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 23-401 to -433 (1995) (“AOSHA”).”

McAfee-Guthrie, Inc. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 627 P.2d 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “The federal statute upon which the federal courts base this conclusion is virtually identical to A.R.S. § 23-401(12). 4 We apply the federal rule to these state proceedings.”

Indus. Com'n v. Superior Court, Etc., 595 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 4× “" Two prohibitions are contained in the statute. First, information and facts developed in the course of any investigation may not be used except for the purposes of the Arizona Safety and Health Act of 1972 (Art.”

Allen v. Sw. Salt Co., 718 P.2d 1021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “We note in that connection the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, A.R.S. § 23-401 et seq. In this case Grott testified that the "OSHA people” objected to some operations at Southwest but made no objection to the auger.”

Arizona Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Superior Court, 863 P.2d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “"This article” refers to A.R.S. §§ 23-401 et seq. . We need not, in the context of this case, decide which party bears the burden of establishing employee misconduct or the lack thereof in the ADOSH citation protest.”

Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The existence of a condition or practice in a place of employment which violated a regulation.”

Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc., 837 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “§ 23-401. Definitions 12. "Serious violation” means a condition or practice in a place of employment which violates a standard, regulation or § 23-403, subsection A and produces a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result, unless the employer did…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-401(12) — 3 cases

McAfee-Guthrie, Inc. v. Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health, 627 P.2d 239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “The federal statute upon which the federal courts base this conclusion is virtually identical to A.R.S. § 23-401(12). 4 We apply the federal rule to these state proceedings.”

Arizona Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Superior Court, 863 P.2d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “"This article” refers to A.R.S. §§ 23-401 et seq. . We need not, in the context of this case, decide which party bears the burden of establishing employee misconduct or the lack thereof in the ADOSH citation protest.”

Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health of the Indus. Comm'n v. Chuck Westenburg Concrete Contractors, Inc., 972 P.2d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “The existence of a condition or practice in a place of employment which violated a regulation.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-401(9) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.