Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor v. Action Electric Company
868 F.3d 1324
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Action Electric employees were working at Gerdau’s steel mill to replace cooling-bed fans; an apprentice (Lanier) was struck and killed by a falling counterweight during the visit.
- Gerdau’s cooling bed is an integrated process with fans, rakes, counterweights, drive chains, and other components; Gerdau required a full lockout of the cooling bed before basement work.
- The two Action employees entered the basement without the required work permit or personal locks on the group lockout box while a Gerdau technician was performing lockout; the counterweight was de-energized and fell.
- OSHA cited Action under the LOTO (lockout/tagout) standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(D), for failing to affix personal lockout devices; Action contested applicability, conceding the failure to affix locks but arguing the counterweights were not part of the machine being serviced (the fans).
- The ALJ vacated the citation, concluding the fans and counterweights were separate machines and the employees were not servicing the fans; the Review Commission adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Secretary petitioned for review.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted review, held the Secretary’s administrative interpretation reasonable, concluded the cooling bed components constitute one “machine” for LOTO purposes, found the employees were engaged in servicing/maintenance-related activity, vacated the Commission’s order, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the citation.
Issues
| Issue | Secretary's Argument | Action's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cooling bed components (fans and counterweights) constitute a single "machine" under the LOTO standard | The cooling-bed components that operate together and serve no independent function are a single machine; thus all sub-systems that create hazardous stored energy must be controlled when servicing any part | Fans and counterweights are separate, independently functioning pieces of equipment; LOTO applies only to the specific equipment being serviced | The court held the Secretary’s interpretation reasonable: because the fans and counterweights serve no purpose in isolation and operate together, the cooling bed is one machine for LOTO purposes |
| Whether the employees were "servicing and/or maintenance" when observing the fans (triggering LOTO) | Observing/inspecting/setting up to decide which fans to replace is a workplace activity directed at the machine that exposed them to hazardous energy and falls within the LOTO definition | Employees were merely looking from a distance (not performing servicing) and thus outside the regulation’s scope | The court held the employees’ observation qualified as servicing/maintenance (e.g., inspecting/setting up) because it was a work activity directed at the machine that exposed them to hazardous energy |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144 (exercise of deference to Secretary’s interpretations in OSHA adjudications)
- Fluor Daniel v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 295 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for Commission legal/factual determinations)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretations of its own regulations entitled to deference when regulation ambiguous)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (weight given to agency interpretations depends on persuasiveness)