Informal Conference with the Area Director
Student’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Informal Conference with the Area Director
Scheduling an informal conference with the area director is one of the ways to fix a problem quickly. Therefore, since the citations and penalties are just proposals, the employer may try to negotiate for a decrease in the fine depending on supporting evidence or information. The employer may not be satisfied with the inspection conducted; hence may the reason for scheduling an informal conference. In this case, there are some citations and penalties that the employer may need to discuss with the area director.
The first issue is citation 1 Item 4b, which states that respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface and interfered with valve function. As a result, two employees, who wore half-mask 3M respirators, had beards that interfered with the face seal. This a matter worth discussing because the employer does not have power over personal preferences as long as they do not interfere with their performance at work. As long as they comply with the dressing and appearance code of the company, interfering with their preferences concerning appearance may be assumed as a violation of the right to privacy they are entitled to (Friend and Kohn, 2018). Besides, the severity of this threat is minimal because of the possibility of minimal or no absorption of air through the beards.
Secondly, Citation 1 Item 11: The employer did not furnish employment and place of work, which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical injury to the employees (US Department of Labor, 2015). Penalty for this is $ 5500. The fine seems to be higher because placing emergency eyewash within 300 feet was not necessary. At the same time, the company has provided Safety Goggles, which are more appropriate in protecting eyes against chemical splash (Friend and Kohn, 2018). Therefore, this penalty should be removed because the employer has the right to choose which control measures are best suited for the workers.
Thirdly, Citation 1 Item 4a states that the employer did not ensure that the employees who are using a tight-fitting facepiece respirators appropriately passed the qualitative fit test (QLFT). The company had issued a memo earlier last year informing the employees that those who the respirators didn’t fit well with their faces had to see the storekeeper to exchange. The employer, therefore, present the memo to the director as evidence and take a sample of some of the extra respirators that are maintained in the store to prove that it is the negligence of the workers. Thus, the $4900 (US Department of Labor, 2015) penalty had to be reduced significantly or be removed entirely. For this reason, the employer may accompany himself with their recruitment officers and the medical examiner.
Finally, the fourth issue for discussion is Citation 1 Item 3, which claims that the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee is fit-tested for the ventilator. The main objective of bringing this up is also to reduce the penalty or prove that the employer was not satisfied with the inspection. The reason for contesting the issue is that during recruitment, the employees are required to submit their medical reports that determine the tasks the manager assigns them. Therefore, a penalty of $3500 is not legible or fair against the company. Thus, the penalty should be reduced to cover for the risk of lead fumes exposure.
References
Friend, M. A., & Kohn, J. P. (2018). Fundamentals of occupational safety and health. Rowman & Littlefield.
US Department of Labor. (2015). Citation and notification of penalty. Denver Company.