OSHA's Multi-Employer
Worksite Citation Policy
The OSHA Multi-Employer Worksite Citation
Policy provides instructions for OSHA
Compliance Officers detailing when more than
one employer on a worksite might be citable
under OSHA regulations.
The policy describes the two-step process for
determining responsibility.
VIII
[
II
CPL O2-00-124 - CPL 24E124 - Multi-Employer Citation Policy. - Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by 051 -IA
1CP http:Uwww.osha.goviplsioshawebiowadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVESUild=2024
X
Live Search
File E dit V ie w Fa vor it e s T ools H e lp
Page - r Tools
d?01, CPL 02-00-124 - CPL 2-0.124 - Multi-Employer Citatio...
U.S. Department of
Labor
Occupational Safety Re Health Administration
www.osha.gov
Directives
CPL 02-00-124 - CPL 2-0.124 - Multi-Employer Citation Policy.
Directives - Table of Contents





Record Type:
Directive Number:
Old Directive Number:
Title:
Information Date:
Instruction
CPL 02-00-124
CPL 2-0.124
Multi-Employer Citation Policy.
12/10/1999
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Multi-Employer
Worksite Policy
Directive
(DIRECTIVE NUMBER:CPL 2-0.124 (EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10. 1999
SUBJECT: Multi-Employer Citation Policy
Local intranet
Done
>>
CPL 111;_ P:ti,
n 2 Microsoft
Document]. - M...
®inbox -micros_PM
%,100%
1
Jut- 4:23 P
On multi-employer worksites (in all
industry sectors), more than one
employer may be citable for a
hazardous condition that violates an
OSHA standard.
A two-step process must be followed
in determining whether more than one
employer is to be cited.
Step1 : Does the employer fall into one or
more of these employer categories;
Creating
Exposing
Correcting
Controlling
Step 2 : If the category applies, did the
employer meet OSHA obligations.
“The employer that caused a hazardous
condition that violates an OSHA standard ”
Actions : Employers must not create a
condition that violates the law or creates a
hazard.
◦ This is citable by OSHA even if the
only employees exposed work for
another company.
> An employer whose own employees are
exposed to a hazard.
> Actions: If the exposing employer
created the violation, it is citable as a
creating employer.
> If the violation was created by another
employer, the exposing employer is citable if:
>It knew of the hazardous condition or failed
to exercise due diligence to discover the
condition, and
>Failed to take steps to protect its employees
> If the exposing employer has the authority,
it must correct a hazard.
If the exposing employer does not have the
authority to correct a hazard, it must:
Ask the creating and/or controlling
employer to correct the hazard,
Inform its employees of the hazard, and
Take reasonable alternative measures to
protect employees.
In imminent danger situations, the
exposing employer is citable for not
removing its employees from the job.
An employer engaged in a common undertaking
on the same worksite as the exposing employer,
responsible for correcting a hazard.
Usually occurs where an employer is given
responsibility of installing and/or maintaining
particular safety/health equipment or devices.
Actions: The correcting employer must exercise
reasonable care in preventing and discovering
violations and meet its obligations of correcting
the hazard.
An employer who has general supervisory
authority over the worksite, including the
power to correct safety and health
violations itself or require others to
correct them.
Actions: A controlling employer must exercise
“ reasonable care” to prevent and detect
violations. The extent of the measures a
controlling employer must implement to
satisfy this duty of reasonable care is less
than required with respect to protecting its
own employees.
This means that the controlling employer is
not normally required to inspect for hazards
as frequently or to have the same level of
knowledge of the applicable standards or of
trade expertise as the employer it has hired.
Scale of the project
Nature and pace of work
How much the controlling employer knows
about safety and health practices
Implementation of controlling employer’s
safety and health management system
Frequency of inspections when a subcontractor has a history of non-compliance
An employer cannot shift its responsibilities
for safety and health through a contract
with subcontractors
C o n t r o l e s t a b l i s h e d b y c o n t r a c t : Th e emp lo y er
has a specific contractual right to require
another employer to adhere to safety and health
requirements and to correct violations it
discovers.
Control established by a combination
other
contract rights: Give the employer broad
responsibilities in almost all aspects of the job,
necessarily involving safety.
of
Architects, Engineers and other entities:
Controlling employers, if their involvement
brings them within the parameters discussed
above.
Control
without
explicit
contractual
authority:
An employer with no explicit contractual rights
with respect to safety, but in actual practice
exercises broad control over subcontractors
which may affect safety and health.
A creating, correcting or controlling
employer will often be an exposing
employer. OSHA will determine whether
the employer has exposed workers to a
hazard first, before evaluating other roles.
Exposing, creating and controlling
employers can also be correcting
employers if they are authorized to correct
the hazard.
MEWP Scenarios for
Upstream
An operator hires a contractor to install a new
flowline but fails to identify a live line in the dig
zone after agreeing to locate lines.
The contractor strikes the line and two workers are
severely injured.
The operator may be citable as the creating employer
The back-up alarm on a drilling contractor’s
forklift is not working.
A sub-contractor employee is struck by the
forklift and severely injured
The drilling contractor may be citable as the
creating employer
A wireline contractor supervisor asked the
operating company to install a cellar cover or
barricades during the planning stages of the job.
The Operator did not install them.
> One of the wireline company employees lost his
balance and fell into the cellar and was killed.
> The wireline company is citable as an exposing
employer because they have the obligation to
follow the OSHA fall protection standard.
The Operating Company might be cited as the
Creating Employer for failure to install the cover.
A contractor is hired to perform periodic tests and
repair PSV’s as necessary throughout an operator’s
fields and facilities.
In the course of its duties it discovers several valves
which were not properly blocked open and missing
weep holes. The contractor fails to report the
additional issues. An explosion occurs during the
testing killing one of the operator’s employees. The
OSHA inspector discovers the issue during
investigation interviews. The operating company
may be cited as the creating and exposing employer,
and the contractor may be cited as the correcting
employer.
Scenario: A roustabout company’s welder was
called to repair a tank.
 The operator’s employee stated that the tank
was clean but even though asked to by the
welder, did not perform atmospheric
monitoring or issue a hot work permit.
 As the sub-contractor’s welder began welding
the damaged area, the tank exploded killing
the welder and severely injuring his helper.
 The operator company may be citable as the
controlling employer, creating employer and
correcting employer.
While rigging up, a company man representing
the operating company pushed the drilling
contractor’s crew to work late without adequate
lighting. The drilling contractor’s truck pusher
protested but continued working.
A spotter tripped and was run over by the pole
truck driver he was helping.
The operating company may be citable as the
creating and controlling employer, the drilling
contractor is citable as the exposing employer
for not removing its employees from the
condition.
A contractor had been performing HF for an operator
for several months.
The Operating Company Safety Advisor had visited
the site conducting walkthroughs and assisting with
safety meetings including respirator use and
Respirable Silica hazards.
During an OSHA inspection, the inspector documented
that most workers wearing 1/2 mask respirators ,
were not clean shaven, and none understood when to
change filters, and replacement cartridges were not
available. During interviews with HF employees and
sub-contractor sand truck drivers, workers said that
neither the operating company or their employers
provided training for respirators provided.
Although the operator conducted some inspections
and had RCS exposure data from similar jobs, it
allowed work to continue on its site knowing HF crew
and subcontracted proppant truck drivers were likely
being exposed over the PEL.
OSHA performed personal RCS sampling on HF crew
members and Proppant truck drivers during an
inspection due to a call from a worker, and checked
training and fit testing records.
The HF contractor performed monitoring
simultaneously with OSHA.
RCS levels were found by OSHA to be above
the OSHA PEL.
The HF Contractor was cited as the
creating/exposing employer, and the trucking
company hauling proppant was also cited as
an exposing employer.
The Operator could be cited as the controlling
employer for failure to require the contractors
to reduce the silica exposure.
A Drilling Co. had multiple previous
citations/fatalities
Drill pipe became stuck
The Drilling Co. began pulling but stopped when
reaching limits
The Contract Company man contacted the
Operator VP
The Company man directed the crew to keep
pulling upon advise from the VP
Rig cables parted and dropped blocks.
One rig employee was killed
The drilling company was cited as an
exposing employer due to wire rope damage
and repeat violations – $49,000
The Company Man’s employer was cited as an
exposing employer
The Operator could have been cited as a
controlling employer, and is susceptible to a
civil lawsuit
All citations were settled
Operator hires a contractor for PM Services
◦ Instructed to use operator LOTO & PM
Procedure for a contractor managed job
Contractor performed PM on a compressor
Start-up procedure was not followed
Worker killed due to detonation and shrapnel
Contract Company cited as the Exposing
Employer
Operator cited by OSHA as the Controlling
Employer due to a lack of reasonable care
Operator exposed to civil lawsuit
Host employer was Iowa Beef Packers ( Operator)
Sanitation contractor cleaned meat mixers.
IBP performed regular evaluations/verifications.
IBP issued repeated warnings to LOTO machines
Contractor took limited action.
A contractor was caught in a machine and killed.
IBP did not terminate the contract since it would have
shut down the operation.
OSHA lost the case due to IBP demonstrating
reasonable care.
Contractor or Subcontractor (C/S) does not have the
authority or ability to correct the hazard.
Feasible measures have been taken to minimize the
hazard.
Feasible measures have been taken to minimize the
C/S employees’ exposure to the hazard.
C/S has asked the controlling employer (Operator)
to correct the hazard.
◦ In imminent danger situations, the employer has
removed its employees from the job or area to
avoid the hazard.
◦ Documents to prove attempts to get hazard(s)
corrected make the most convincing case.
◦ Host Company is exposed.
Enforcement Memo - February 11, 2015
Subject: Inclusion of Upstream O&G Hazards to the High-emphasis
Hazards in the SVEP
This policy is targeted to upstream oil and gas drilling and well servicing
employers
Going forward, a non-fatality inspection of an employer with
the NAICS code 211111, 213111 and 213112 (Oil and Gas
Production Services, Drilling and Well Servicing/ "Upstream Oil and
Gas Industry") in which OSHA finds two or more willful or
repeated violations or failure-to-abate notices(or any
combination of these violations/notices), based on high
gravity serious violations related to upstream oil and gas
activities, will now be considered a severe violator
enforcement case.
US District Courts and US Courts of
Appeals
DE
MD
D.C. Circuit Ferle im ICircuit