Case Study:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found the R. L. Sanders Roofing Company in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for its failure to provide a perimeter guardrail on one of its flat-roof projects. The Commission held that the company was obligated to provide the guardrail under the general duty clause of the Act and was liable for the injuries received by an employee in a 13-foot fall from the roof. The company appealed this decision, claiming that the general duty clause was not sufficient notice to the company that it must provide a guardrail. In addition, the company cited a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Labor that requires an employer to install a rail and catch platform below the working areas of roofs with a slope of more than 4 inches. Because a flat roof has a slope of 0 inches, R. L. Sanders maintained that this regulation explicitly exempted it from the duty to provide a safety rail around flat roofs. The Secretary of Labor disagreed and claimed that the cited regulation applied only to sloped roofs and that this employer was obligated to provide a guardrail for a flat roof under the general duty clause of the Act. Should the company be held liable under the general duty clause or be exempt due to the Secretary’s regulation? Decide. [R. L. Sanders Roofing Co. v. OSHRC and Marshall, 8 OSHC 1559 (5th Cir.)]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.