Allegations of tip-offs about OSHA inspections prompt lawmakers’ letter

Washington — A pair of House Democrats are calling on acting Labor Secretary Julie Su to address recent allegations that officials from two State Plan agencies are giving employers advance notice of workplace safety inspections.

The practice is prohibited under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which also governs OSHA’s program allowing individual states and territories to develop and operate – with federal OSHA’s approval – their own programs.

In a letter sent Aug. 20 to Su, Reps. Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and Alma Adams (D-NC), ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, note that a recent legislative hearing in California included “multiple allegations from farmworkers and their advocates that the state’s OSHA plan agency, known as Cal/OSHA, may be providing advance notice of inspections to employers.”

The lawmakers also point to a series of New York Times reports on child labor featuring an interview with an employer “who apparently admitted violations of not only federal child labor rules but also OSHA standards that are notionally enforced by South Carolina’s State Plan agency.”

The letter includes passages from the reports, including:

“[Construction crew boss Itzel] Sánchez does not worry about getting in trouble for hiring minors. She said workplace inspectors do not often come around. ‘They only visit certain neighborhoods, and sometimes they let you know when they’re going to show up,’ she said.”

In the letter, Scott and Adams request that Su provide answers to the following questions by Sept. 20:

1. If the Department of Labor became aware of credible allegations that one or more OSHA officials provided prohibited advance notice of inspections to an outside party, how would DOL address such allegations?
2. If a State Plan agency became aware of credible allegations that one or more state officials provided prohibited advance notice of inspections to an outside party, what kinds of responses should the State Plan agency take to remain compliant with the OSH Act’s requirement for State Plans to be at least as effective as the federal program?
3. If officials of a State Plan agency routinely provide advance notice of inspections to employers without consequence, would OSHA determine that the plan is compliant with the OSH Act?
4. What challenges does DOL face when attempting to monitor and enforce State Plans’ compliance with the OSH Act?
5. Is it an appropriate use of federal funds for a State Plan agency to enable an employer to evade detection for child labor trafficking or oppressive child labor violations? If the answer is no, to what extent does DOL have sufficient tools to address such an improper use of federal funds?

“Workers deserve to be protected, not exploited,” Scott and Adams said in a press release. “If these allegations are true, it means that our federal funds, meant to ensure safe and fair workplaces, might be enabling exactly the opposite. It is crucial that we get to the bottom of this and hold those responsible accountable.”