Case Study:
The Philadelphia area office of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration obtained a warrant to conduct an inspection of the premises of Metal Banks of America, Inc. The OSHA area director had received numerous complaints regarding unhealthy and hazardous employee exposure to lead at the plant. The warrant entitled the OSHA inspectors to enter Metal Banks’ premises and engage in an extensive inspection, including “the questioning privately of any owner, operator, agent, employer, or employee of the establishment” and the inspection of “any area in the establishment where there is an occupational exposure to lead and copper.” When the OSHA inspectors arrived at the plant, they were not allowed to conduct private interviews with employees on the premises and were denied access to shower facilities, lunchrooms, and change rooms provided for employees exposed to lead. The Secretary of Labor asked the U.S. district court to find Metal Banks in contempt of court for impeding the OSHA investigation. Metal Banks defended its denial of private interviews by citing Section 657(e) of the Act, which guarantees the right of employer representatives to accompany the OSHA team during its inspections. Metal Banks contended, therefore, that private interviews were in conflict with its right to accompany the OSHA inspector. Metal Banks also contended that OSHA need not inspect the lunchrooms, shower facilities, and change rooms, as there was no danger of lead exposure in those areas. Has Metal Banks unlawfully impeded the OSHA inspection? Decide. [Establishment Inspection of Metal Banks of America, Inc., 9 OSHC 1972]
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.