OR OSHA v. CBI Services, INC.

Under a reasonable diligence standard, the “agency must show why the employer could, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been aware of the violation that the agency inspector observed.” OR-OSHA v. Tom O’Brien Construction Co., Inc. 148 Or App 453, 459, 941 P2d 550 (1997), aff’d, 329 Or 348, 986 P2d 1171 (1999).

The Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division (OR-OSHA) sought judicial review after the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that OR-OSHA had failed to prove that CBI Services, Inc (employer) was liable for workplace safety violations. OR-OSHA assigned error to the Board’s interpretation of the term “reasonable diligence.” On appeal, OR-OSHA argued that the Board should have deferred to their definition. Under a reasonable diligence standard, the “agency must show why the employer could, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been aware of the violation that the agency inspector observed.” OR-OSHA v. Tom O’Brien Construction Co., Inc. 148 Or App 453, 459, 941 P2d 550 (1997), aff’d, 329 Or 348, 986 P2d 1171 (1999). The Court of Appeals found that OR-OSHA’s definition was incorrect. However, the Court also held that OR-OSHA had satisfied their burden in proving a violation. Reversed and remanded.