Workplace Safety Defense Thwarted by Company’s Own Policy

Amanda M. Jones _________________

ajones@cades.com

A Hawai‘i appellate court recently affirmed a decision upholding a citation for a “serious” violation issued by the Hawai‘i Occupational Safety and Health Division (HIOSH), rejecting a key defense because the employer didn’t follow its own unnecessarily strict safety policy.

Citation issued for lack of personal fall arrest system

In December 2012, HIOSH inspectors observed three employees installing a photovoltaic system on an 18-foot roof without being properly secured in a fall protection system. The company had a “foreman” or “leadman” at the site responsible for safety compliance, but he apparently failed to ensure the workers were properly secured.

The company also had a fall protection policy that required employees to tie off to a full arrest system every time they were on a roof more than six feet above ground. Importantly, the policy reportedly imposed severe consequences, stating violations “will result in immediate suspension or termination of employment.”

‘Serious’ violation results in no suspensions or terminations

HIOSH issued the company a citation for a “serious” violation as a result of findings during the inspection. At the hearing to contest the citation, the company argued it shouldn’t have received the citation because the violation was due to employee misconduct. To avoid liability under the employee misconduct defense, the employer must prove:

(1) It has established work rules designed to prevent the violation;

(2) It has adequately communicated the rules to its employees;

(3) It has taken steps to detect and correct violations, especially if there were incidents of prior noncompliance; and

(4) It has effectively enforced the rules when violations have been discovered.

The Hawai‘i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) ruled the company failed to establish the fourth requirement of the employee misconduct defense, among other problems. The board reasoned the company hadn’t followed its fall protection policy because none of the employees involved was suspended or terminated, although they were all reportedly given corrective counseling.

The company argued to the appellate court this ruling was wrong because employers have the discretion to enforce their own policies as they determine to be appropriate under the circumstances.

Unnecessarily strict policy foils ‘employee misconduct’ defense

The appellate court rejected the employer’s argument. It first explained that adequate enforcement of company safety rules is a “critical element” of the employee misconduct defense. In this case, the company didn’t follow its strict policy that violations “will result in immediate suspension or termination of employment.”

The court explained the company’s “decision to not follow its policy and exercise discretion instead, foreclosed it from establishing the employee misconduct defense.” Therefore, even though there was no legal requirement that employees be suspended or terminated for violating the safety rule at issue, the company’s policy of mandating those consequences undermined its ability to establish a defense to liability. The company could request that the Hawai‘i Supreme Court review the matter further. IES Residential, Inc. v. Director, Dep’t of Labor & Industrial Relations, CAAP-16826 (Haw. App., Jan. 6, 2021).

Bottom line

When drafting policies, you should be careful not to box yourselves into specific disciplinary consequences that might not be warranted in all circumstances. Had the policy stated “violations could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination, as appropriate under the circumstances,” or something similar, the employer may have had a better shot at establishing the fourth element of the employee misconduct defense.

Amanda M. Jones (Partner) regularly advises and represents employers in labor and employment matters as part of her broader commercial litigation practice.

On the Board

Stacey F. Gray was selected to be a part of the Blue Planet Ambassador Board. Blue Planet is a nonprofit community organization that is changing the conversation about clean energy. By creating sustainable models in Hawai‘i, they are fueling the global transformation from fossil fuels to renewable solutions.

John R. Love was selected as an American College of Mortgage Attorneys (ACMA) Fellow. ACMA Fellows are considered to be the best of the best in the mortgage law industry, and they make a point of giving back to the industry. To maintain this high-level of excellence, fellowship in the Association is by nomination only. Grace Nihei Kido is also a long-time ACMA Fellow.

Mallory T. Martin has joined the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii Young Professionals as one of its newest members. Caitlin M. Moon is also a member.

Imran Naeemullah was recently appointed as a Director for the Hawai‘i Chapter of the CCIM Institute. The CCIM (Certified Commercial Investment Member) Institute serves as a focal point for quality education, networking and market services for the commercial investment real estate specialist. Maui Hub IRS Approval as Non-profit Trever K. Asam represented Maui Hub, an organization providing fresh Maui-grown affordable produce to low income residents, food banks, and community kitchens established in April 2020 in response to the pandemic, in receiving IRS approval as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization.

Probate Court Victory Our Litigation and Trusts & Estates team represented a small liberal arts university in Los Angeles, California, in receiving a ground-breaking favorable ruling in probate court. The dispute was regarding a $1 million pledge made by a university alumnus and Hawai‘i real estate developer who had prematurely terminated in 2011 without paying $900,000 in installment payments, despite the university naming a campus building after the donor and relying on his pledge to raise other funds. The Cades Schutte team included litigation attorney John P. Duchemin and trusts and estates attorneys Summer G. Shelverton, Pōhai Nu‘uhiwa Campbell, and Caitlin M. Moon.

Motion to Dismiss in First Circuit Court A Cades Schutte team, led by Jeffrey S. Portnoy successfully defended multi-national law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by a former client in the First Circuit Court. Judge Gary W.B. Chang has granted Orrick’s Motion to Dismiss based on forum non conveniens and has stayed the Hawai‘i action to permit the plaintiff to refile in California.

MEET OUR NEWEST TEAM MEMBER AT CADES SCHUTTE

Hawai‘i Community Foundation 2020 Outstanding Professional Advisor in Philanthropy Trever K. Asam was named a 2020 Outstanding Professional Advisor in Philanthropy by Hawai‘i Community Foundation. The Professional Advisor in Philanthropy Award recognizes professional advisors in the community who have demonstrated a personal and professional commitment to philanthropy.

Sale of Parcel Adjacent to Middle Street Transit Center We represented Yee Hop Realty, Ltd. in the sale of a 1.9 acre parcel that is adjacent to the City and County of Honolulu’s Middle Street Transit Center in Kalihi-Kai. The sale closed on December 4, 2020 for a purchase price of $20.6 million. Michele S. Loudermilk led the transaction, with the assistance of Gail M. Tamashiro.

Lindsay N. McAneeley

Of Counsel | Litigation | Environmental Law (808) 521-9343 lmcaneeley@cades.com

Cades Schutte Building 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813

Our attorneys think outside the box when it comes to your legal issues