Employment Law for Business 6th Edition by Dawn Bennett Alexander ,Laura Hartman

تمرين 5

Titanium Metals produces titanium ingots in Nevada. Titanium is a highly flammable substance during processing and can be ignited by heat, sparks, friction, or striking other small particles. To minimize dust accumulation, the company installed a collecting tube on its machines and periodically washed the entire area surrounding the machines. One day, while a machine operator was using the machine in the normal way, an explosion and fire erupted and another employee was burned to death. The company was served with two OSHA violations: (1) for failure to provide nonsparking tools and equipment and (2) for allowing flammable accumulations of titanium. The company claims that the hazard posed by the metal is not a recognized hazard, which would trigger the employer's general duty. The titanium industry is still in its infancy (less than 30 years old) and no precise standards exist respecting the appropriate levels of dust accumulation. Also, never in its eight-year history had the company had such an explosion, so it was unprepared and it would have never expected death or serious injury. Are these acceptable defenses? [ Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Usery, 579 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1978).]