July 31, 2011

Staying Safe on the Job

When the job market is as tight as it is now, few workers are willing to make waves and risk losing their employment. But should workers risk their health and safety or that of their co-workers or the public just to keep a job? There are a number of laws, both on the state and federal level, intended to keep New Jersey workers safe in the workplace and free from reprisal should they refuse to perform an unsafe job.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) are some of the laws that protect workers on the federal level. In New Jersey, workers also have the protection of the New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the Public Employees’ Occupational Safety and Health Act. In additional, there are a number of industry-specific statutes that also aim to protect workers under certain circumstances. (1)

Perhaps the most recognized of these laws is OSHA. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (also called OSHA) protects the employee’s right to a safe workplace by hearing complaints, performing inspections of workplaces and imposing fines on businesses found to be in violation of safety standards. (1) For example this past spring, OSHA found a West Trenton ball-bearings manufacturer guilty of 21 safety violations and fined the company $88,200. (2) Separately a New Jersey general contractor and five subcontractors were fined a total of $95,470 for 20 health and safety violations. OSHA does not, however, grant rights to employees to overtly refuse an unsafe work assignment. (3)

The Protecting America’s Workers Act of 2011 (PAWA), currently pending in Congress, would increase employee protections by broadening the protections of OSHA. If adopted, the new law would, in part, protect employees from punishment for refusing to perform an assignment if the employee had a reasonable concern that the assignment could result in harm to him/her or other employees. (1)

With these protections come various responsibilities for the employees. Simply refusing to perform the job is not an option. The employee must show that he or she refused to do the work in good faith. Also the employee must make the employer aware of potential hazards and request the hazards be resolved. Assuming there is time and danger is not imminent, the employee is responsible for following the proper channels for enforcing the statute. (1)

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202503856313&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(2) http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1301636720142260.xml&coll=5
(3) http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=19875

Bookmark and Share

July 1, 2011

Court Rules Sedentary Job Led to Worker’s Death; Husband Entitled to Benefits

Reminiscent of the question which came first – the chicken or the egg, New Jersey courts recently had to deal with the dilemma of which contributed more to an Edison woman’s death – her less-than-healthy, personal lifestyle or her sedentary work conditions.

This case rose from a workers’ compensation claim filed by the widower of Cathleen Renner, a long-time employee of AT&T who died in 2007 from a pulmonary embolism. According to court reports, on the night of her death Mrs. Renner worked for more than ten hours at the computer in her home office in order to meet a pressing deadline for work. About an hour later she was dead. (1)

Mrs. Renner’s husband, James, filed a claim for death benefits under the State’s workers’ compensation law. In New Jersey, workers’ compensation insurance pays benefits to employees for illness or injury incurred in connection with their jobs. It also pays benefits to dependents of employees who die as a result of employment-related activities. (2)

Mr. Renner contended that his wife’s embolism was the result of the long hours spent in front of the computer as required by her job. (3) Embolisms are blood clots which usually form in the leg after long periods of inactivity. The clots can then break off and travel to the lungs where they can cause a blockage, as in Mrs. Renner’s case. (1)

AT&T argued that other factors may have contributed to Mrs. Renner’s death, namely her weight and the fact that she had recently begun taking birth control pills, which can increase the risk of blood clots. Mr. Renner argued that despite his wife’s weight, which was over 300 pounds, she was active in her personal time. (1)

Medical witnesses for both sides agreed that while other factors could have played contributing roles, the timing of Mrs. Renner’s death in relation to her extended work stint suggested that the death was work-related. As such, Mr. Renner was entitled to the benefits. The lower court ruled in Mr. Renner’s favor and this past week, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s ruling. (1)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/husband_of_att_manager_who_die.html
(2) http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/wc/workers/workers_index.html
(3) http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/husband-of-obese-nj-woman-who-died-at-her-desk-awarded-workers-comp-benefits

Bookmark and Share

August 25, 2010

$7 Million Verdict in Mesothelioma Case Upheld by NJ Appellate Court

On Friday, August 20, the State Appellate Division upheld an earlier jury verdict awarding $7 million to a woman who claimed she contracted peritoneal mesothelioma by washing her husband’s work clothes. (1)

Both Bonnie and John Anderson worked for the Exxon Bayway Refinery in Linden, NJ, for a number of years; she as an electrician and he as a repairman, working on pumps, filters and pipes. While Bonnie Anderson’s job did not put her in direct contact with asbestos insulation, John Anderson’s did. When he first started working at the refinery, John had to remove the insulation from the pipes he was repairing. (2)

Continue reading "$7 Million Verdict in Mesothelioma Case Upheld by NJ Appellate Court" »

Bookmark and Share

August 19, 2010

NJ Worker Injured in Connecticut Explosion Files Suit in Federal Court

A River Vale, NJ, man injured in an explosion at a power plant in Connecticut filed a suit in federal court on August 17, claiming the owners of the plant and several other contractors failed to take safety precautions that may have prevented the accident. (1)

Nicholas Novik, an employee of Instrument Sciences and Technology of Frenchtown, NJ, was calibrating and testing instruments at the Middletown, CT, plant when the explosion occurred. Six people were killed and 50 others injured in the incident. Novik suffered head trauma, which caused a concussion and hearing loss. He still receives medical treatment and has not yet been permitted to return to work. He is seeking $6 million in damages. (2)

Continue reading "NJ Worker Injured in Connecticut Explosion Files Suit in Federal Court" »

Bookmark and Share