Discussion:
Review the book: LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW by David P. Twomey
Q: Robin Medlack, an OSHA compliance officer, was driving down Highway 32 toward Cincinnati when he observed workers at an apartment complex under construction near the roadway walking around the site without protective helmets. He also observed scaffolding being used without guardrails at the work site. Medlack reported these violations of OSHA standards to his supervisor, who dispatched Medlack to the Ackermann Enterprises construction site for further investigation. Medlack was told by an office secretary at the site that he would have to await the return of the company president or job superintendent before he could obtain consent to conduct an OSHA inspection. Because the job superintendent was expected back soon, the secretary allowed Medlack to wait by his car in the parking lot. While he was waiting in the lot, Medlack observed three workers riding in the elevated front bucket of a backhoe as it made eight to ten trips between buildings at the work site. Although he could see this occurrence plainly from 300 feet away, Medlack also took photographs of the workers with a zoom lens camera.
On the basis of Medlack's photos and obser vations, the Secretary of Labor cited Ackermann for a violation of Section 5(a)(1)of OSHA. Ackermann appealed this citation, claiming that the evidence obtained by Medlack was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution because Medlack did not have a warrant and Ackermann never consented to an inspection. Was the evidence obtained by Medlack obtained unlawfully without a warrant? Decide. [Ackermann Enterprises, Inc. (Review Comm. Decision), 10 OSHC 1709]