(a) Any employee or representative of employees who believe that a violation of the Act exists in any workplace where such employee is employed may request an inspection of such workplace by giving notice of the alleged violation to the Area Director or to a Compliance Safety and Health Officer. Any such notice shall be reduced to writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employee or representative of employees. A copy shall be provided the employer or his agent by the Area Director or Compliance Safety and Health Officer no later than at the time of inspection, except that, upon the request of the person giving such notice, his name and the names of individual employees referred to therein shall not appear in such copy or on any record published, released, or made available by the Department of Labor.
(b) If upon receipt of such notification the Area Director determines that the complaint meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged violation exists, he shall cause an inspection to be made as soon as practicable, to determine if such alleged violation exists. Inspections under this section shall not be limited to matters referred to in the complaint.
(c) Prior to or during any inspection of a workplace, any employee or representative of employees employed in such workplace may notify the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, in writing, of any violation of the Act which they have reason to believe exists in such workplace. Any such notice shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Section 11(c)(1) of the Act provides: “No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this Act.”
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1218-0064)
[36 FR 17850, Sept. 4, 1973, as amended at 54 FR 24333, June 7, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
Raymond J. Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete Co., 693 F.2d 1061 (11th Cir. 1982).
“” In this manner, the Secretary argues that the requirements of section 8(f) are satisfied without requiring that the subsequent search be related to the employee complaint.”
Lynn Martin v. Int'l Matex Tank Terminals--Bayonne, 928 F.2d 614 (3d Cir. 1991).
· cites it 2× “2d at 1325 (inspection need not be limited in scope to the substance of the complaint); 29 C.F.R. § 1903.11 (b) (inspections pursuant to employee complaints “shall not be limited to matters referred to in the complaint.”
West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Raymond J. Donovan, 689 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1982).
“The Seventh Circuit has held that where probable cause to conduct an OSHA inspection is established on the basis of an employee complaint, the inspection need not be limited in scope to the substance of the complaint.”
Robert B. Reich v. Montana Sulphur & Chem. Co., 32 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1994).
“Additionally, 29 C.F.R. § 1903.11 (b), governing § 8(f) investigations, provides that “Inspections under this section shall not be limited to matters referred to in the complaint.”
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Marshall, 610 F.2d 1128 (3d Cir. 1979).
“29 C.F.R. § 1903.11 (a) (1978). If the Area Director determines that the complaint meets the above requirements, “and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged violation exists, he shall cause an inspection to be made as soon as practicable.”
Raymond J. Donovan v. Burlington N. Inc., 694 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1982).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1903.11 (b). In Hern, we concluded that the Facts of the instant case viewed in light of OSHA’s purpose in promoting employee safety persuade us to adopt the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit: “[T]he better view is that which permits, absent extraordinary…”
Texas Steel Co. v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 619 (N.D. Tex. 1982).
“4 conflicts with 29 C.F.R. § 1903.11 . Plaintiff claims that § 1903.”
Reich v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 903 F. Supp. 239 (D.N.H. 1995).
“See also 29 CFR § 1903.11 (“Inspections under this section shall not be limited to matters referred to in the complaint”).”
Marshall v. North Am. Car Co., 626 F.2d 320 (3d Cir. 1980).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1903.11 . The Secretary contends that this regulation is supported by sound policy in that limited enforcement resources are better utilized if there is a wall-to-wall inspection once the inspectors have to go to the plant anyway.”
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.