Federal agencies Recordkeeping

Six states file suit against rollback of OSHA electronic recordkeeping requirements

recordkeeping

Washington — Attorneys general of six states have filed a lawsuit seeking to halt OSHA’s rollback of its electronic recordkeeping requirements for submitting worker injury and illness data, claiming the agency did not provide a “reasoned explanation” for the change.

Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists filed a similar lawsuit on Jan. 25, also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

OSHA’s Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final rule required covered establishments with 250 or more employees or those in certain high-hazard industries with 20 to 249 employees to electronically submit to the agency data from Forms 300, 300A and 301.

Citing privacy concerns, OSHA issued a final rule on Jan. 25 to require submission of only Form 300A, an annual summary of injuries and illnesses, instead of the two more detailed forms.

The states’ joint lawsuit, filed March 6 with New Jersey as the lead plaintiff, contends, “Suddenly, OSHA claimed that reporting of detailed workplace injury and illness information would not do much good, but it failed to adequately consider the benefits to states, employers, workers and researchers that it had laid out in detail in 2016.

“And just as suddenly, OSHA now asserted that collection and disclosure of this information would undermine worker privacy, despite the ways the agency had already planned to address these concerns. Although many commenters – including some of the Plaintiff States – highlighted these fundamental flaws, OSHA dismissed them out of hand.”

Sign up for Safety+Health's free monthly email newsletters and get the news that's important to you. Subscribe now

Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York also claim that this quick reversal without a “reasoned explanation” violates the Administrative Procedure Act and court precedent.

“New Jersey workers – and workers across the country – have the right to know about dangerous conditions on the job,” New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal said in a March 6 press release. “Public reporting of workplace safety information helps states enforce our labor laws, forces employers to remove hazards, and empowers workers to demand improvements. Workers deserve that transparency, and the federal government should not be trying to take it away.”

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)

Title

preferred customer
March 7, 2019
Interesting. These states are all left-leaning. Must be a coincidence.

Title

Brigitte Youngblood
March 8, 2019
My thoughts exactly. But I don't believe in coincidence. But it sure takes a load off my need to do research.

Title

Name
March 8, 2019
I have not heard a single, concise argument from those who support the submission of 300 and 301 forms as to why they need the private details of work-related injuries. 1) These records contain private information. Why would we trust citizen or public (i.e. lobbying) groups to protect worker privacy? 2) Per OSHA, employers are expected to record injuries without the automatic assignment of blame. Initially, OSHA said that this rule change was a "push" to get employers to comply with recording rules. If the government wants further cooperation from employers, making statements that sound like veiled threats is not the way to go about it. 3) Citizen or public groups have their own agendas and can use the information in 300 and 301 forms to "punish" companies who follow said OSHA rules. 4) 300 and 301 forms leave out vital information such as root-cause analysis and corrective actions. Many companies do this as part of injury follow-up. In other words, they are trying to do the right thing and prevent further injuries. In the end, 300 and 301 forms leave out a lot of context. Handing private employee injury information to lobbying groups without the proper context is clearly a case of giving groups just enough information to be dangerous.

Title

preferred customer
March 8, 2019
I have never understood why this extra 300 log and 301 data is needed and agree with the above post that handing out this data to PAC's and lobbying groups is wrong. The free market will address injuries and accidents through workers' compensation costs. No company can stay competitive and pay for high rates of injuries. Pure economics has always driven prevention, not the threat of OSHA. When workers' compensation rates get too high, insurance carriers drop clients and force them into state pools and underwriters demand efforts to mitigate losses in the future otherwise the employer becomes un-insurable. No insurance, no business. Government over-reach is getting ridiculous.

Title

RC
March 10, 2019
Seriously people, you must have never understood the standard to begin with. Ignorance is bliss, I guess

RC
March 10, 2019
I completely agree the left will constantly push to grow the public sector based off of BS like this.

Title

MC
March 18, 2019
OSHA opened this can of worms and allowed the sharks to bite. Some of the AG's that joined this lawsuit are from state run plans that do not support handing over this information. Guess AG's have to find ways to stay relevant!