b'ary\'sCorner OSHA Controlling Employer New Decision By Gary W.,l Counsel Auman MRCA LegaTheOccupationalSafetyanda ted the language of the appel directandcontrol"the construcdopH thR Commissionlate court th Section 1910.12(a)tion. Summit\'s subcontr with all eal eviewatact (OSHR has just issued its deci of theof Federal Regu Phase indicated that "control of C)Codelationsthe n unambiguousthatuse sion on review of the Summit Co "isinit does notWork Schedule,of the site and tractorscase.TheCommission\'spreclude OSHA from issuing cita coordination of a on-site person , ll previous decisionwasoverturnedtionstoemployers for violationsnelwillbep formedunderthe erbythe EighthCircuitCourtofwhen their ownloyees are notcompletedirectiono Summit\'s emp f" Appeals in itsinexposed to any hazards related tostaff. T subcontract also provided decisionMarch ofhe thisr. Solis v.Contrac the violations." Summit, 558 F.3ddifferentremediesforSummitto yea Summit llhase tors,Inc 558F.3d815(8thCir.at 825.exercise against A P for any 2009).T app tecou Ofconcernaresomeunan failu tocomplywithOSHA. heella rtre remanded the case to the OSHRC tosweredquestions.ToaddressFinally,itfour of its Summ hadown The lesson to bereview its prior ruling.these we must first look at the factsemployees on the site at the time of learned is to knowInits recent decisionissued onin Summit.SummitCon rsthe inspection. tractoJuly2009,OSHRChad athowner of theInitially,theOSHRCconcluded 27,thereversedcontract wi the what responsibilityits prior decision and affirmed theproperty and with its su tractor,thatSummitcouldnotbeheld bconserioussafetycitationissuedtoAllP Constru ion,In ("Allresponsiblefortheemployees of you are assuming ashasect c. Summit C tractors under Phase").In thecontractwith theAllPhasebecauseSummit\'s on the conwere ouemployees, even though they to safety before y trolling employer policy of OSHA.ownerSummitwasassigned In rea its decision theRC"exclusiveauthoritytoman onsite werenotexposedtothe sign a contract.chingOSH age,Co inuednext nt onpage'