國立虎尾科技大學 |

Ripe for Appeal : = Who Is Considered an "Employer" When Determining Liability for Multi-Employer Worksite Safety Violations?

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Ripe for Appeal :/
其他題名:	Who Is Considered an "Employer" When Determining Liability for Multi-Employer Worksite Safety Violations?
作者:	Schumacher, John H.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (48 pages)
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 56-05.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International56-05(E).
標題:	Law. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355049992

Ripe for Appeal : = Who Is Considered an "Employer" When Determining Liability for Multi-Employer Worksite Safety Violations?
Schumacher, John H.

Ripe for Appeal :Who Is Considered an "Employer" When Determining Liability for Multi-Employer Worksite Safety Violations? - 1 online resource (48 pages)

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 56-05.

Thesis (M.J.S.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2017.

Includes bibliographical references

This thesis explores the vexing question of whether or when a general contractor in overall control of a worksite could be held liable for the injury or death of an employee belonging to a subcontractor. This substantive issue has been considered by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Hereafter, the Commission) and the courts for more than forty years. Years of legal confusion have followed regarding the definition of "employer" and "employees" and their overall safety responsibilities. This confusion occurs because of language in 29 C.F.R. § 1910(a), which refers to "his" employees. However, under the Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine a general contractor may be liable for all employees on the worksite. In 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted a certain tension between the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12(a) and the Secretary of Labor's multi-employer policy. This thesis reviews the most substantive issues that have been litigated and why this matter is ripe for appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. The issue is whether a "Controlling Employer" theory of liability, defined by the Secretary of Labor as "an enforcement scheme grounded in contract," fits within the full scope and application of this "employment-based" duty under § 1910.12(a) of a construction employer to "protect...his employees" by complying with the 29 C.F.R. Part 1926 standards. Meanwhile, every contractor on a worksite will likely be advised by its corporate counsel to reconsider the language in its contracts, as well OSHA's multi-employer policy, and take "reasonable care" to ensure its "places of employment" are free of hazards.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355049992Subjects--Topical Terms:

671705
Law.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Ripe for Appeal : = Who Is Considered an "Employer" When Determining Liability for Multi-Employer Worksite Safety Violations?
LDR:02950ntm a2200337Ki 4500 001 917969
005 20181022132813.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355049992
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10260642
035 $a (MiAaPQ)unr:12248
035 $a AAI10260642
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Schumacher, John H. $3 1192175
245 1 0 $a Ripe for Appeal : $b Who Is Considered an "Employer" When Determining Liability for Multi-Employer Worksite Safety Violations?
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (48 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 56-05.
500 $a Adviser: James T. Richardson.
502 $a Thesis (M.J.S.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a This thesis explores the vexing question of whether or when a general contractor in overall control of a worksite could be held liable for the injury or death of an employee belonging to a subcontractor. This substantive issue has been considered by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Hereafter, the Commission) and the courts for more than forty years. Years of legal confusion have followed regarding the definition of "employer" and "employees" and their overall safety responsibilities. This confusion occurs because of language in 29 C.F.R. § 1910(a), which refers to "his" employees. However, under the Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine a general contractor may be liable for all employees on the worksite. In 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted a certain tension between the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12(a) and the Secretary of Labor's multi-employer policy. This thesis reviews the most substantive issues that have been litigated and why this matter is ripe for appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. The issue is whether a "Controlling Employer" theory of liability, defined by the Secretary of Labor as "an enforcement scheme grounded in contract," fits within the full scope and application of this "employment-based" duty under § 1910.12(a) of a construction employer to "protect...his employees" by complying with the 29 C.F.R. Part 1926 standards. Meanwhile, every contractor on a worksite will likely be advised by its corporate counsel to reconsider the language in its contracts, as well OSHA's multi-employer policy, and take "reasonable care" to ensure its "places of employment" are free of hazards.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Management. $3 558618
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0454
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a University of Nevada, Reno. $b Judicial Studies. $3 1192176
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 56-05(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10260642 $z click for full text (PQDT)