OSHA's Complaint Response Policies: OSHA Credits Its Complaint
System with Conserving Agency Resources, but the System Still
Warrants Improvement (18-JUN-04, GAO-04-658).
Each year, OSHA receives thousands of complaints from employees
alleging hazardous conditions at their worksites. How OSHA
responds to these complaints--either by inspecting the worksite
or through some other means--has important implications for both
the agency's resources and worker safety and health. Responding
to invalid or erroneous complaints would deplete inspection
resources that could be used to inspect or investigate other
worksites. Not responding to complaints that warrant action runs
counter to the agency's mission to protect worker safety and
health. Considering OSHA's limited resources, and the importance
of worker safety, GAO was asked: (1) What is OSHA's current
policy for responding to complaints in a way that conserves its
resources, (2) how consistently is OSHA responding to complaints,
and (3) to what extent have complaints led OSHA to identify
serious hazards?
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-658
ACCNO: A10503
TITLE: OSHA's Complaint Response Policies: OSHA Credits Its
Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but the System
Still Warrants Improvement
DATE: 06/18/2004
SUBJECT: Health hazards
Inspection
Occupational health standards
Occupational safety
Policy evaluation
Safety regulation
Safety standards
Working conditions
Complaints processing
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-658
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives
June 2004
OSHA'S COMPLAINT RESPONSE POLICIES
OSHA Credits Its Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but the
System Still Warrants Improvement
GAO-04-658
Highlights of GAO-04-658, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives
Each year, OSHA receives thousands of complaints from employees alleging
hazardous conditions at their worksites. How OSHA responds to these
complaints-either by inspecting the worksite or through some other
means-has important implications for both the agency's resources and
worker safety and health. Responding to invalid or erroneous complaints
would deplete inspection resources that could be used to inspect or
investigate other worksites. Not responding to complaints that warrant
action runs counter to the agency's mission to protect worker safety and
health. Considering OSHA's limited resources, and the importance of worker
safety, GAO was asked: (1) What is OSHA's current policy for responding to
complaints in a way that conserves its resources, (2) how consistently is
OSHA responding to complaints, and (3) to what extent have complaints led
OSHA to identify serious hazards?
The Secretary of Labor should take steps to improve the quality of
information received from complainants and to ensure area offices comply
with complaint practices established by the agency. Labor disagreed with
our recommendation to take additional actions to improve the quality of
complaint information, but generally it agreed with recommendations to
ensure compliance with the agency's complaint practices.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-658.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robert Robertson, (202)
512-7215 [email protected].
June 2004
OSHA'S COMPLAINT RESPONSE POLICIES
OSHA Credits Its Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but the
System Still Warrants Improvement
In general, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
responds to complaints according to the seriousness of the alleged hazard,
a practice that agency officials say conserves inspection resources. OSHA
officials usually conduct on-site inspections for alleged hazards that
could result in death or serious injury. For less serious hazards, OSHA
officials generally investigate by phoning employers and faxing them a
description of the alleged hazard. Employers are directed to provide the
agency with proof of the complaint's resolution. OSHA officials said the
availability of both options allows them to manage resources more
effectively when responding to complaints. However, many agency officials
we interviewed said some complainants provide erroneous information about
the alleged hazard, which can affect the agency's determination of the
hazard's severity. For example, some complainants lack the expertise to
know what is truly hazardous and, as a result, file complaints that
overstate the nature of the hazard. Others, particularly disgruntled
ex-employees, may have ulterior motives when filing complaints and
misrepresent the nature of the hazard.
In the 42 area offices where we conducted interviews (there are 80 area
offices), OSHA officials described practices for responding to complaints
that varied considerably. For example, the degree to which supervisors
participated in decisions about which complaints would result in
inspections and which would not varied across offices. While OSHA requires
annual audits that would identify the extent to which its area offices are
correctly employing the complaint policies, some regions are not
conducting these audits, and agency officials have told us that OSHA does
not have a mechanism in place to address agencywide problems.
To some extent complaints direct inspection resources where there are
serious hazards. At half the worksites OSHA inspected in response to
complaints, compliance officers found serious violations-those that posed
a substantial probability of injury or death, according to OSHA's own data
for fiscal years 2000-2001.
Potential Falls Are One of the Hazards OSHA Tries to Prevent
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Seriousness of Alleged Hazards Drives Complaint Response,
although Erroneous Information Can Affect These Determinations Although
Consistent Handling of Complaints Is a Key OSHA Principle, Practices in
Some Area Offices Varied Complaints Have, to Some Extent, Drawn OSHA to
Serious
Hazards at Worksites Conclusion Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments
1
2 4
8
15
18 23 25 26
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 30
GAO Comments 33
Appendix III Staff Acknowledgments 34
Staff Acknowledgments 34
Related GAO Products
Tables
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Inspected Worksites with Serious
Violations, by Type, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 20 Table 2: National
Average for Hours per Inspection, by Type of Inspection or Investigation,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002 20 Table 3: Most Frequently Cited OSHA Standards
for Complaint-Driven and Planned Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002 21
Table 4: Ten Industries with Highest Rates and Ten Industries with
Lowest Rates of Injuries and Illnesses and Corresponding
Rate of Complaint Inspections, Calendar Year 2001 23
Figures
Figure 1: OSHA's 10 Regions 7
Figure 2: Summary of OSHA's Complaint Protocol 9
Figure 3: Correlation between an Industry's Injury and Illness
Rate
and Its Complaint Inspection Rate, Calendar Year 2001 22
Abbreviations
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
IMIS Integrated Management Information System
NLRA National Labor Relations Act
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
June 18, 2004
The Honorable Chairman, Charles Norwood
Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In 1975, high levels of Kepone, a pesticide linked to liver damage,
sterility,
neurological disorders, and cancer, were found in the bloodstreams of
approximately 70 workers at a company in Virginia. This was followed by
another discovery: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), part of the Department of Labor (Labor), had received a
complaint from a former employee of the company but had assigned it a
low-priority status and had not responded with an inspection. The highly
public controversy that followed led OSHA to focus on being more
responsive to all types of complaints. In the wake of this case, the
agency
has changed and modified its complaint policy more than once. OSHA's
first policy change, in 1975-to conduct an on-site inspection for
virtually
any complaint about unsafe conditions, even anonymous ones-resulted
in a large and overwhelming backlog of complaints awaiting inspection. In
1996, OSHA instituted a new effort to balance resources with the need to
respond to complaints by responding to less serious complaints through
means other than on-site inspections. In view of this reform, and given
OSHA's current ratio of one compliance officer for roughly every 6,000
worksites, you asked us to answer the following questions: (1) What is
OSHA's current policy for responding to complaints in a way that
conserves its resources? (2) How consistently is OSHA responding to
complaints? and (3) To what extent have complaints led OSHA to identify
serious hazards?
To answer these questions, we visited the three OSHA area offices that
handled the largest number of complaints in their respective regions in
fiscal years 2000 through 2002: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas;
and Denver, Colorado. In each of these offices, we examined a randomly
selected sample of case files (34 in Pittsburgh, 30 in Austin, and 38 in
Denver) and interviewed the area director and available compliance
officers. In addition, we randomly selected and interviewed by telephone
52 OSHA officials: 20 of the agency's 80 area directors and 32 of its
1,200 compliance officers, (12 assistant area directors who are
supervisory
Results in Brief
compliance officers and 20 nonsupervisory compliance officers). These
officials represented 42 of OSHA's 80 area offices. We also spoke to OSHA
officials in the agency's 10 regional offices, as well as health and
safety officials in 13 states that run their own programs. Finally, we
examined data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 related to complaints in
OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and looked at data
on injuries and illnesses collected and published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) for calendar year 2001 as they related to complaints. We
interviewed both OSHA and BLS officials to establish the reliability of
the data. In addition, for the IMIS data we obtained and reviewed
documentation of internal controls and manually tested the data. We also
interviewed 15 randomly selected employers who had been the subject of an
OSHA complaint and 6 employees who had filed complaints. For a more
detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We conducted our
work between September 2003 and January 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
In general, OSHA responds to complaints according to the seriousness of
the alleged hazard, a policy credited with conserving agency resources,
although its determinations of whether an inspection is warranted can be
affected by the quality of information complainants provide. Initiated in
1996 to improve its complaint-handling process, OSHA's policy of
prioritization largely requires that an on-site inspection be conducted
when a complainant alleges a serious hazard that could result in death or
serious injury. OSHA will also conduct an on-site inspection if a current
employee provides a written and signed complaint establishing reasonable
grounds that a specific safety or health standard has been violated.
Generally, however, for complainants not alleging a serious hazard, OSHA
officials respond by phone, contacting employers and faxing them a
description of the complaint. For these "phone/fax investigations,"
employers must determine if the complaint is valid and submit
documentation to demonstrate that the hazard has been removed. The
phone/fax option for the less than serious hazards has helped to improve
efficiency, according to OSHA officials with long-standing experience at
the agency, who said it has saved time and also eliminated their
inspection backlog. Most agency officials we interviewed also
acknowledged, however, that this efficiency can be affected by the
accuracy or validity of the information they receive from complainants. A
complainant may misidentify a hazard, for example, or a competitor may
misrepresent conditions at a competitor's worksite to disrupt its
operation, according to OSHA compliance officers. When asked, compliance
officers and supervisors, as well as officials from states that run their
own health and
safety programs, offered some suggestions for improving the validity of
incoming complaints.
Although OSHA has policies for responding to complaints in a systematic
and timely manner, we found inconsistencies in practices across area
offices. Some of these practices involved departures from agency policy,
while others were practices that varied to a degree that could undermine
the agency's goal of consistent treatment of complainants and employers.
In terms of policy, office practices departed, in particular, with regard
to who evaluated complaints and how written and signed complaints were
handled. With regard to uniform practice, we found some variation among
the 42 offices we contacted in terms of their follow-up practices after an
investigation, how they verified the employment status of complainants,
how they treated e-mail complaints, and how they pursued certain
complaints for which the agency has no specific standard. Since issuing
its new directive for handling complaints in 1996, OSHA has issued no
guidance to reinforce, clarify, or update those procedures. And while OSHA
requires the regional administrators to annually audit their area office
operations, only 5 of the 10 regions do so. Furthermore, for the regions
that do conduct these audits, OSHA currently does not have a mechanism in
place to recognize or address problems that have been identified at an
agencywide level.
Complaints have, to some extent, directed OSHA compliance officers to
sites with serious hazards. According to OSHA's own database for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001, compliance officers found serious violations- hazards
that pose a substantial probability of injury or death-at half the
worksites inspected in response to complaints. This 50 percent "success"
rate for complaint-driven inspections is comparable to the agency's
success rate for some of its planned inspections-specifically those
conducted at worksites targeted because of their high injury and illness
rates. However, in one of our earlier reports on how OSHA targets
inspections, we expressed concern that a 50 percent success rate may
indicate that the agency is directing inspection resources to sites that
have no serious violations.1 In addition to this similarity, we also found
that 7 of the 10 violations cited most frequently during complaint-driven
inspections were also among the 10 most frequently cited during planned
1See U.S. General Accounting Office, Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can
Strengthen Enforcement through Improved Program Management, GAO-03-45
(Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002).
inspections. Through our analysis, we also found some correlation between
hazardous industries and complaint inspections. Specifically, those
industries that, according to BLS data, had higher rates of injuries and
illnesses also generally had higher rates of complaint inspections,
according to OSHA's data. For example, industries that fabricate metal
products had the highest rate of complaint inspections and the third
highest rate of injuries and illnesses in 2001. For a handful of
industries, this pattern did not apply, with the number of complaints
being either higher or lower than might have been expected, given the
number of injuries, illnesses, and lost workdays.
We are making recommendations that the Secretary of Labor direct the
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps to
improve the quality of information elicited from complainants and take
steps to ensure that practices carried out by area offices in response to
complaints comply with those procedures established by the agency. In
responding to a draft of this report, Labor agreed that it is important to
screen out unwarranted and ill-founded complaints, but it stated that its
current actions were sufficient and that it would not want to pursue
actions that could discourage employees from exercising their right to
request an inspection when they feel their workplace is unsafe. We
maintain that OSHA could do more to improve the quality of complaint
information and believe that better information could be collected without
discouraging complaints. With regard to our recommendation to revise the
directive on complaint policies, the agency stated that it has initiated a
revision and that our recommendations would be thoroughly considered and
incorporated where appropriate. Labor did not address our recommendations
to develop a system for ensuring the regions complete audits and use the
audit results to improve consistency of the complaint process.
Background OSHA was established after the passage of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act in 1970. In the broadest sense, OSHA was mandated to
ensure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.
The act authorizes OSHA to conduct "reasonable" inspections of any
workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an
employer.2 The act also requires that OSHA conduct investigations in
response to written and signed complaints of employees alleging that a
violation of health or safety standards exists that threatens physical
harm, or that an imminent danger exists at their worksites, unless OSHA
229 U.S.C S: 657(a).
determines that there are no reasonable grounds for the allegations.3 OSHA
inspections fall into two broad categories: those that are "programmed"
and those that are "unprogrammed." Programmed inspections are those the
agency plans to conduct because it has targeted certain worksites due to
their potential hazards. Unprogrammed inspections are not planned;
instead, they are prompted by things such as accidents or complaints.
How OSHA responds to complaints has changed over time. In the wake of the
Kepone case, OSHA started to inspect virtually any complaint, which led to
a backlog of complaint-driven inspections, according to interviewed
officials. In its early response to the backlog, OSHA adopted a complaint
process whereby each complaint was categorized based on whether or not it
was written and signed by complainants. "Formal" complaints met both
conditions, while "nonformal" complaints were oral or unsigned. OSHA
further categorized complaints by the seriousness of the hazard alleged.
Formal complaints were inspected regardless of whether the hazard alleged
was serious, although offices were given longer time frames for responding
to those that were other than serious. The agency generally handled
nonformal complaints by sending the employer a letter.4 Agency officials
said that as a result of these distinctions, the agency was able to reduce
some of its backlog.
A new effort to reform the complaint procedures was made through the
Complaint Process Improvement Project, which was part of the Department of
Labor's overall reinvention effort from 1994 to1996.5 In January 1994, two
area offices were selected as pilot sites to develop and test new
procedures for handling complaints. Their work focused on an effort to (1)
reduce the time needed for handling complaints, (2) speed the abatement of
hazards, (3) allow OSHA to focus its inspections resources on workplaces
where they were needed most, and (4) ensure consistency. The new
procedures placed a greater emphasis on the seriousness of the alleged
hazard as a factor for determining how the office would respond to a
complaint. In addition, they introduced the use of telephones and fax
machines as the means to notify employers of an alleged hazard instead of
329 U.S.C. S: 657(f).
4Nonformal complaints classified as other than serious could also be
investigated by telephone.
5The reinvention was part of Vice President Gore's efforts to streamline
government and better serve customers.
regular mail and provided specific procedures for following up with
employers to make sure hazards were abated. These new policies were
adopted and outlined in an OSHA directive dated June 1996.
Policies regarding complaints are established by the Office of Enforcement
Directorate in Washington, D.C.. Regional administrators in each of OSHA's
10 regional offices oversee the enforcement of these policies within their
own regions (see fig. 1). Each region is composed of area offices-there
are 80 in total-each under an area director. The area directors oversee
compliance officers-there can be as many as 16 in an office-some of whom
play a supervisory role. Compliance officers play a key role in carrying
out the directive. At almost all area offices, compliance officers take
turns answering the phones, and taking and processing complaints, a
collateral responsibility in addition to their duties in the field.
Figure 1: OSHA's 10 Regions
Source: OSHA.
Seriousness of Alleged Hazards Drives Complaint Response, although Erroneous
Information Can Affect These Determinations
OSHA primarily responds to complaints based on the seriousness of the
alleged hazard using a priority system that the agency credits with having
improved its efficiency. However, its determinations can be affected by
inadequate or inaccurate information. OSHA officials usually conduct an
on-site inspection if an allegation is of a serious nature. Agency policy
also requires on-site inspections in cases where a written and signed
complaint from a current employee or their authorized representative
provides reasonable grounds to believe that the employer is violating a
safety or health standard. In general, OSHA officials conduct an inquiry
by phone and fax-referred to as a phone/fax investigation-for complaints
of a less serious nature. Many OSHA officials, especially compliance
officers, told us this priority-driven system has been more effective in
conserving their time and resources. Nevertheless, many of the compliance
officers also said that some inspections may occur that are not
necessarily warranted because complainants have inadequately or
inaccurately characterized the nature of the hazard. On the other hand,
almost everyone with whom we spoke said the agency prefers to err on the
side of caution so as not to overlook a potential hazard. Many of the OSHA
officials we interviewed, as well as officials from states that run their
own safety and health programs, suggested approaches to improve the
validity of the information accompanying the complaints.
OSHA Prioritizes Its Response to Complaints according to the Level of Hazard
According to policy, OSHA initially evaluates all incoming complaints
(whether received by fax, e-mail, phone, letter, or in person) to decide
whether to conduct an on-site inspection or a phone/fax investigation (see
fig. 2). OSHA conducts on-site inspections for alleged serious violations
or hazards and makes phone/fax inquiries for allegations of a less serious
nature. OSHA considers serious violations or hazards to be those that
allege conditions that could result in death or serious physical harm.
Specifically, OSHA initiates on-site inspections when the alleged
conditions could result in permanent disabilities or illnesses that are
chronic or irreversible, such as amputations, blindness, or third-degree
burns. As seen in figure 2, though, OSHA will also go on-site when a
current employee or his representative provides a written and signed
complaint that provides reasonable grounds for believing that a violation
of a specific safety and health standard exists. While immediate risks to
any employee's health or safety are the primary factors driving OSHA's
complaint inspections, additional criteria can also prompt an on-site
inspection. For example, if an employer fails to provide an adequate
response to a phone/fax investigation, OSHA's policy is to follow up with
an on-site inspection.6
Figure 2: Summary of OSHA's Complaint Protocol
Source: GAO, based on OSHA's Complaint Policies and Procedures Directive.
aComplaints are received by phone, fax, e-mail, in person or in writing.
bIn addition, OSHA considers the criteria for an on-site inspection that
are established in the Complaint Policies and Procedures Directive, CPL
2.115.
Area office supervisors or compliance officers may call the complainant,
if needed, to help understand the nature of the hazard. OSHA officials
told us they might ask complainants to estimate the extent of exposure to
the hazard and report how long the hazard has existed. If an area office
supervisor decides that an on-site inspection will be conducted, OSHA's
policy is to limit the inspection to the specific complaint. A violation
or another hazard that is in clear sight may be considered, but compliance
officers cannot expand the scope of their inspection to look for other
violations-a specification that underscores the importance of the
complaint's accuracy.
6Other criteria that would prompt an on-site inspection are (1) the
complaint identifies an establishment or an alleged hazard that OSHA has
identified as a priority, (2) the company that is the subject of the
complaint has a history of violations, (3) an employee alleges that he or
she was discriminated against for complaining about or for refusing to do
a dangerous job, or (4) if an inspection is scheduled or has begun at a
worksite and another complaint is received that would normally be done by
phone/fax is received.
Phone/fax investigations, meanwhile, afford an opportunity to resolve a
complaint without requiring a compliance officer to visit the worksite.
Instead, the compliance officer contacts the employer by telephone and
notifies him or her of the complaint and each allegation. The employer is
also advised that he or she must investigate each allegation to determine
whether the complaint is valid. The employer can resolve the complaint,
without penalty, by providing OSHA with documentation such as invoices,
sampling results, photos, or videotape to show that the hazard has been
abated. Upon receiving documentation from the employer, the area office
supervisor is required to review it and determine whether the response
from the employer is adequate.
For both on-site inspections and phone/fax investigations, OSHA's policy
is to keep the complainants informed of events by notifying them by letter
that an on-site inspection has been scheduled, the outcome of either the
inspection or the phone/fax investigation, and the employer's response. In
the case of a phone/fax investigation, the complainant has the right to
dispute the employer's response and request an on-site inspection if the
hazard still exists. OSHA can also determine that the employer's response
is inadequate and follow with an on-site inspection.
Officials Credited the Option of Phone/Fax Investigations with Improving
Efficiency
Of the 15 officials who told us they worked for OSHA prior to 1996, and
whom we asked about past practices, nearly half said the agency's current
complaint policy has allowed them to better conserve their resources. For
example, one 26-year veteran said phone/fax investigations have relieved
his compliance officers of traveling to every complaint site for
inspections that once averaged as many as 400 per year. Because the
employer investigates the allegation first, the phone/fax inquiry is an
efficient use of time, according to this supervisor. Of the 20 compliance
officers that we asked about this topic, 18 said phone/fax investigations
took less time to conduct than on-site inspections. Nearly one-half of
these compliance officers told us the phone/fax investigation procedures
reduced travel time or eliminated time spent writing inspection reports.
The agency handled about two-thirds of all complaints it received in
fiscal years 2000 through 2002 through phone/fax investigations.
Several OSHA officials we interviewed said OSHA's phone/fax investigation
procedures ease the burden on employers because the employers have an
opportunity to resolve the problem. As a result, these officials told us
that their interaction with employers has improved. While few of the
employers we interviewed had the complaints against them resolved through
phone/fax investigations, the three that did expressed
satisfaction with the way the allegation was handled. These employers
reported that responding to phone/fax investigations required 3 hours, 5
hours, and 2 to 3 days respectively. Only the employer reporting the
greatest amount of time believed that the time he invested was
inappropriate given the nature of the alleged hazard.
A 1995 internal OSHA report, which reviewed the new complaint procedures
implemented in two area offices as part of a pilot project, also credited
phone/fax investigations with improving efficiency, specifically by
reducing the time it took to notify employers of alleged hazards and to
correct them, as well as with reducing the offices' complaint backlog. The
report found that using phone/fax investigations reduced notification time
by at least a week, reduced the average number of days to correct hazards
by almost a month in the two offices, and eliminated one office's backlog
and reduced the other's backlog by almost half during its involvement in
the pilot project. The report attributed these gains to compliance
officers being able to phone and fax employers to inform them of the
allegations instead of relying on mail, promptly contacting employers to
clarify allegations and to offer feasible methods for correcting hazardous
conditions, and more employees choosing to have their complaints resolved
with phone/fax investigations.
Erroneous Information Can Affect OSHA Hazard Assessments
More than half of the 20 nonsupervisory compliance officers we interviewed
told us that complainants' limited knowledge of workplace hazards and
their reasons for filing complaints can affect the quality of the
information they provide, which, in turn, can affect OSHA's determination
of the hazard's severity. They said complainants generally have a limited
knowledge of OSHA's health and safety standards or may not completely
understand what constitutes a violation; consequently, they file
complaints without knowing whether a violation exists. As a result, the
level of hazard can be overstated. For example, one nonsupervisory
compliance officer said he received a complaint that alleged a
construction company was violating the standards for protecting workers
from a potential fall, but found upon arriving at the site that the
scaffolding in question was well within OSHA's safety standard. Over half
of the nonsupervisory compliance officers (13 of 20) said that there were
"some or great" differences between what complainants allege and what is
ultimately found during inspections or investigations, because
complainants may not completely understand what constitutes an OSHA
violation or they have a limited knowledge of OSHA's standards.
Complainants' limited knowledge of OSHA's health and safety standards can
also result in compliance officers not knowing which potential hazards to
look for when conducting on-site inspections. For example, one compliance
officer noted that employees might complain about an insufficient number
of toilets but not about machinery on the premises that could potentially
cause serious injury. In addition, another compliance officer noted that
many times complainants' descriptions of hazards are too vague, a
circumstance that prevents her from locating the equipment that was
alleged in the complaint, such as a drill press, and OSHA's rules preclude
her from expanding the scope of the inspection in order to locate the
hazard.
The quality of the information complainants provide to OSHA can also be
influenced by their motives for filing a complaint. For example, half (27
of
52) of the area office directors and compliance officers we interviewed
said they have received complaints from employees who filed them as
retribution because they were recently terminated from their jobs or were
angry with their employers. Although this practice was described as
infrequent, OSHA officials said that in some instances complainants
intentionally exaggerated the seriousness of the hazard or reported they
were current employees when in fact they had been fired from their jobs.
One official asserted that disgruntled ex-employees have taken advantage
of OSHA's complaint process to harass employers by having OSHA conduct an
on-site inspection. Several of the employers we interviewed (4 of the 15)
also claimed that disgruntled employees have used the complaint process to
harass them. They expressed the view that OSHA should improve its
procedures for evaluating the validity of complaints.
Some of the compliance officers we interviewed said it is not unusual to
experience an increase in the number of complaints during contract
negotiations. One official told us that in a region where he once worked,
union workers filed multiple complaints in order to gain leverage over the
employer. A union official acknowledged that this occurred but noted that
it was infrequent. Other OSHA officials told us that competitors of
companies sometimes file complaints when they lose a competitive bid for a
work contract. One official said that while company representatives do
file complaints against each other to disrupt the other company's work
schedule, such tactics are not typical in his region.
Despite these problems, several of the OSHA officials we interviewed said
OSHA's obligation is to evaluate whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that a violation or hazard exists, rather than trying to determine
a complainant's motives for filing the complaint. In fact, 34 of the 52
officials
we interviewed told us that almost all of the complaints they see warrant
an inspection or an investigation, and as a result, many of the area
offices inspect or investigate most of the complaints that are filed. One
official said he would prefer to conduct an inspection or do a phone/fax
investigation for an alleged hazard, rather than not address the complaint
and have it result in a fatality.
State and Federal OSHA Officials Suggested a Number of Ways to Elicit Better
Information from Complainants
When asked during interviews about ways OSHA could improve its process for
handling complaints, officials from OSHA and from states that run their
own health and safety programs suggested approaches the agency could take
to improve the information they receive from complainants. Although some
offices were actively engaging in these practices, others reported that
they were being used only to some or little extent.
Their recommendations were of three types; the first was in regard to
strategies for improving the validity of complaints that OSHA considers.
Many OSHA area directors and compliance officers said the agency could
warn complainants more explicitly of penalties for providing false
information, which could be as much as $10,000 or imprisonment for as long
as 6 months, or both.7 This warning is printed as part of the instructions
on the complaint form available on OSHA's Web site. However, OSHA's
complaint policies and procedures directive states that area offices will
not mail the form to complainants; consequently, complainants primarily
receive the penalty warning only if they access the Web-based form.8 In
contrast, an official from one of the state programs reported that his
state's program requires complainants to sign a form with penalty
information printed in bold above the signature line. According to the
state official, this policy has reduced by half the number of invalid
complaints.
Several OSHA supervisors and directors expressed reservations about having
compliance officers make verbal warnings to complainants about providing
false information while taking their complaints, saying it could prevent
some complainants who are already fearful from reporting hazards. Of the
52 OSHA officials we interviewed, 23 said the extent to
729 U.S.C. S:666(g)
8In the absence of an OSHA complaint form, complaints can send their
complaints to OSHA as a letter sent through the mail or via e-mail, or by
phone, fax, or in person.
which they remind complainants of the penalty for providing false
information is "little or none at all." Furthermore, several officials
said complainants report hazards based on a perceived violation;
therefore, they doubted a hazard that turned out to be invalid would
result in a penalty.
To further improve the validity of complaints, one official pointed to his
state's practice of generally conducting on-site inspections only for a
current employee or an employee's representative. According to the state
health and safety official, this policy improves the validity of
information because current employees can more accurately describe the
hazard than an ex-employee who has been removed from the environment for
some time and whose relationship with the employer may be strained.
Another state's health and safety official said her state has a policy
that allows its managers to decline any complaint they determine is
intended to willfully harass an employer, which also helps improve the
reliability of complaints. According to this official, however, managers
seldom find that a complaint was filed to willfully harass an employer.
The state also has a policy that allows managers to dismiss any complaint
they determine is without any reasonable basis.
A second approach suggested by many OSHA officials was to improve
complainants' ability to describe hazards accurately. Of the 52 officials
that we interviewed, 14 said OSHA could, for example, conduct more
outreach to educate both employees and employers about OSHA's health and
safety standards. Although OSHA area offices already participate in
outreach activities, such as conducting speeches at conferences or making
presentations at worksites, several of the officials we interviewed said
the agency could do more. For example, one compliance officer suggested
developing public service announcements to describe potential hazards,
such as trenches without escape ladders, and to provide local OSHA contact
information for reporting such hazards. One official expressed the opinion
that if OSHA were to conduct more outreach to employees, the quality of
complaints would likely improve. Another compliance officer suggested that
OSHA engage in more preconstruction meetings with employers to discuss
OSHA's regulations and requirements and share ideas for providing safer
working environments. One interviewee said if employers were more
knowledgeable about hazards, there would be less need for workers to file
complaints.
Finally, OSHA officials said the agency could take steps to improve the
ability of employers and employees to resolve complaints among themselves
before going to OSHA. Many of the officials that we
Although Consistent Handling of Complaints Is a Key OSHA Principle, Practices
in Some Area Offices Varied
interviewed said their offices could encourage employers to form safety
committees or other internal mechanisms to address safety concerns. Ten of
the 52 officials we interviewed told us the extent to which their offices
promote or encourage safety committees was "little to none at all." Only
some of these officials said that this lack of promotion stemmed from the
requirements of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which some
believe may prohibit or hinder the establishment of safety committees.9
OSHA's policy for responding to complaints requires compliance officers to
address complaints in a systematic and timely manner; however, we found
practices used by area offices to respond to complaints varied
considerably. While some of these practices involved departures from OSHA
policy, others were practices that varied to such a degree that they could
result in inconsistent treatment of complainants and employers. In
particular, we found several instances where area offices departed from
the directive by persuading complainants to choose either an on-site
inspection or a phone/fax investigation, and by having nonsupervisory
compliance officers evaluate complaints. We also found several instances
where practices were inconsistent. Among the 42 offices we contacted, we
found that some conducted follow-up inspections on a sample of closed
investigation cases to verify employer compliance, and others did not.
Since issuing its new directive for handling complaints in 1996, however,
OSHA has issued no guidance to reinforce, clarify, or update those
procedures. In addition, while OSHA requires its regional administrators
to annually audit their area office operations, some administrators do
not, and further, for those who do, OSHA does not have a mechanism in
place to review the results and address problems on an agencywide level.
Some Practices and In our interviews with 52 randomly selected supervisory
and Procedures Departed from nonsupervisory officials in 42 of the 80 area
offices, we found practices Agency Policies that appeared to depart from
OSHA's official policies. In particular, agency
policy calls for supervisors to evaluate each complaint. However, 22 of
the 52 officials to whom we talked said nonsupervisory compliance officers
in their offices are sometimes the decision makers for whether complaints
are inspected or pursued through phone/fax investigations. In some of
9Under the NLRA employers may not dominate committees that are considered
"labor organizations." See Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 (1992),
enforced, 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994).
these offices, compliance officers make the decision if the complaint is
less than serious. In addition, some officials told us that if the case
was earmarked for an inspection or was challenging, the supervisor would
then review it. While OSHA's directive addresses supervisory review within
the context of inspections, an OSHA national director informed us that it
is agency policy to have supervisors review each and every complaint. In
addition, agency policy prescribes that compliance officers explain to
complainants the relative advantages of both phone/fax investigations and
inspections, if appropriate. However, 16 of the 52 officials to whom we
spoke said they encourage complainants, in certain circumstances, to seek
either an inspection or an investigation. For example, one official said
that his office "sells" phone/fax investigations because they are faster
to conduct and lead to quicker abatement than on-site inspections.
However, an OSHA national director stressed to us that duty officers
should not attempt to persuade complainants. Another practice that
appeared inconsistent with policy was the treatment of written, signed
complaints. Current employees and their representatives have the right to
request an inspection by writing and signing a complaint, but before an
inspection may take place, OSHA must determine that there are reasonable
grounds for believing there is a violation of a safety or health standard
or real danger exists. Area office supervisors are to exercise
professional judgment in making this determination. Of the 52 officials
with whom we spoke 33 said their offices exercise professional judgment by
evaluating written and signed complaints. However, most of the remainder
were about equally split in reporting that they evaluate these complaints
"sometimes" (7 of 52) or forgo evaluation altogether and automatically
conduct on-site inspections (8 of 52).
Finally, while we found that complaint policy was generally followed at
the three OSHA offices where we reviewed case files, we did find that one
office had not been sending a letter to complainants to notify them of a
scheduled inspection. According to the OSHA directive, complainants should
be notified of inspections.
Some Practices Varied Significantly among Area Offices
During telephone interviews, officials described practices that, while
they did not depart from agency policy, varied significantly from office
to office. For example, offices differed in whether they treated e-mails
as phone calls or as written and signed complaints. Of the 52 officials
with whom we spoke, 12 said they treated complaints received via e-mail as
written and signed complaints, while 34 said they treated them as phone
complaints. While agency policy is silent on how to classify e-mail
complaints, this inconsistency is important because written and signed
complaints are more likely to result in on-site inspections. Offices also
differed in whether or not they performed random follow-up inspections for
phone/fax investigations. While 10 of the 52 officials said they did not
know if their offices conducted follow-up inspections, most of the
remainder were about equally split in reporting that either they did (18
of
52) or did not (20 of 52) do them. Although the directive does not require
follow-up inspections, the OSHA letters sent to employers says they may be
randomly selected for such inspections. This inconsistency in practice
across offices is significant insofar as follow-up inspections can be seen
either as an added burden to employers or as an important safeguard for
ensuring abatement. We also found variation in how offices determined
whether a complainant was a current employee. The employment status of a
complainant is important, as it is often a factor in evaluating the
complaint. Of the 52 OSHA officials with whom we spoke, 30 said their
offices determine whether a complainant is a current employee simply by
asking the complainant; 11 said they asked probing questions of the
complainant, and 5 said they asked the complainant for some type of
documentation, such as a pay stub. While the directive does not specify
how compliance officers are to verify employment status, the methods used
to obtain this information can affect its accuracy.
Finally, we found that some area offices differ significantly in how they
respond to complaints for which OSHA has no standard, specifically those
involving substance abuse in the workplace.10 For example, during a site
visit to one area office, an official explained that his office would not
do a phone/fax investigation in response to complaints alleging drug use
at a workplace, but would refer them to the police instead. However,
another area office conducted a phone/fax investigation for a complaint
about workers drinking alcoholic beverages while operating forklifts and
mechanical equipment. An official in a third area office told us that his
office has sometimes referred complaints about drug use at a workplace to
the local police and at other times has responded to similar complaints
with a phone/fax investigation. An OSHA national director told us that
10Even where there is no established standard, OSHA may determine that a
hazard exists, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act's general duty
clause, and take enforcement action. The general duty clause refers to
section 5(a)(1) of the Act, which generally requires employers to maintain
workplaces that are free of recognized hazards that can result in death or
serious injuries. See 29 U.S.C. S:654(a)(1). So, for example, even though
there is no standard for acceptable levels of mold in the workplace, a
citation might be issued if an inspection determines that the presence of
mold in a particular workplace constitutes a hazard in accordance with the
statutory criteria.
area offices are obligated to do phone/fax investigations for alleged drug
use in the workplace.
Some Regional Administrators Meet OSHA's Requirement to Annually Audit Area
Office Operations, but OSHA Does Not Utilize Results
Complaints Have, to Some Extent, Drawn OSHA to Serious Hazards at Worksites
OSHA policy requires that regional administrators annually audit their
area offices and that audit results be passed on to the Assistant
Secretary. However, this is not current practice. Regional administrators
are required to focus the audits on programs, policies, and practices that
have been identified as vulnerabilities, including the agency's
complaint-processing procedures. However, according to OSHA's regional
administrators, only 5 of the agency's 10 regions conduct these audits
annually, while 3 conduct the audits, but only for a proportion of their
area offices each year, and 2 do not conduct the annual audits at all. In
addition, according to one national director, all of the regional
administrators are to submit the results of their audits to a Program
Analyst in the Atlanta area office for review. The results of this review
are to be reported to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, as
well as to the responsible directorate, and they are responsible for
addressing issues of noncompliance and determining what, if any, policy
changes are needed. However, the Program Analyst in Atlanta said he does
not receive all of the audits from each region as required, and an
official from one of OSHA's directorates told us his office does not
receive such reports.
The findings from the seven audits we reviewed underscore their value for
monitoring consistency. These audits showed that most of the audited
offices were (1) not correctly following procedures for meeting the time
frames for initiating on-site inspections, (2) closing phone/fax
investigation cases without obtaining adequate evidence that hazards had
been corrected, and (3) not including all required documentation from the
case files.
To some extent, complaints have drawn OSHA compliance officers to sites
with serious hazards. According to OSHA's data for fiscal years 2000 and
2001, compliance officers found serious violations at half the worksites
inspected in response to complaints, a figure comparable to inspections
conducted at worksites targeted for their high injury and illness rates.
However, in one of our earlier reports, we expressed concern that for
targeted inspections a 50 percent success rate may raise questions about
whether inspection resources are being directed at sites with no serious
hazards.11 Complaint-driven inspections shared other similarities with
planned inspections; specifically, compliance officers cited similar
standards during both types of inspections. On the other hand, complaint
inspections often required more time to complete. Finally, we found a
correlation between hazardous industries and complaints inspections.
Specifically, those industries that, according to BLS data, had more
injuries and illnesses also generally had a larger number of complaint
inspections according to OSHA data.
From Fiscal Year 2000 to 2001, Half the Worksites Inspected for Complaints
Had Serious Violations
OSHA compliance officers found serious violations in half of the worksites
they inspected when responding to complaints alleging serious hazards
according to OSHA's data for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 combined. These
are hazards that pose a substantial probability of injury or death. During
some planned inspections-those conducted at worksites targeted for their
high injury and illness rates-OSHA compliance officers found serious
violations, such as those involving respiratory protection and control of
hazardous energy, in a similar percentage of worksites. Specifically, as
shown in table 1, OSHA compliance officers found serious violations in 50
percent of the 17,478 worksites they inspected during complaint-driven
inspections. Likewise, they found serious violations in 46 percent of the
41,932 worksites they targeted during planned inspections. In a previous
report we noted that this percentage might indicate that inspection
resources are being directed to worksites without serious hazards.
According to OSHA, many complaints come from the construction industry,
where the work is often dangerous and of a short duration. As a result,
even if an inspection begins immediately, "citable" circumstances may no
longer exist, a fact that according to the agency, might explain why the
number of serious violations that result from complaints is not higher.
11See GAO-03-45.
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Inspected Worksites with Serious
Violations, by Type, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
Percentage of
Number of Number of inspections with
inspections
Inspection type with serious inspectionsa serious violations
violations
Complaints 8,699 17,478
Planned 19,438 41,932
Source: GAO analysis of data from OSHA's IMIS, fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
aNumbers do not include other unprogrammed inspections, such as those OSHA
conducted in response to worksite fatalities.
We found that, in contrast to planned inspections, complaint-driven
inspections require, on average, more hours per case to complete. Table 2
shows that OSHA compliance officers have required about 65 percent more
time for complaint-driven inspections in comparison to planned
inspections-29.7 hours on average compared with 18.1 hours- suggesting
that while outcomes are similar, complaint-driven inspections are more
labor intensive than planned inspections. Compared with planned
inspections, complaint-driven inspections have a higher rate of health
inspections, which, according to an OSHA national director, place extra
time demands on compliance officers to obtain samples, test them, and
document the results. In comparison with inspections, phone/fax
investigations require, on average, far less time than either
complaintdriven or planned inspections.
Table 2: National Average for Hours per Inspection, by Type of Inspection
or Investigation, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002
Response to complaint National average in hours
All complaint-driven inspectionsa 29.7
Phone/fax investigation only 1.4
Planned inspection 18.1
Source: GAO analysis of data from OSHA's IMIS, fiscal years 2000 through
2002.
aThese exclude other unprogrammed inspections, such as those OSHA
conducted in response to worksite fatalities.
In terms of the types of hazards they uncover, complaint-driven
inspections shared some similarities with planned inspections that target
the most hazardous sites. Of the 10 standards OSHA compliance officers
cited most frequently for violations during complaint-driven inspections,
7 were also among the 10 most frequently cited during planned
inspections. Table 3 shows the rank ordering of hazards cited most
frequently during planned inspections and complaint-driven inspections.
However, table 3 also shows that there were some differences in the
frequency with which compliance officers cited particular hazards during
planned inspections, compared with complaint-driven inspections. For
example, the standard most frequently cited during planned inspections,
general requirements for scaffolds, is the 18th most frequently cited
standard during complaint-driven inspections. Likewise, the standard cited
with the second highest frequency in planned inspections, "fall
protection," is not within the 10 standards most frequently cited for
complaint-driven inspections. Such examples indicate that some differences
exist in the type of hazards compliance officers found at worksites about
which workers have complained and at those OSHA targeted for inspection.
Table 3: Most Frequently Cited OSHA Standards for Complaint-Driven and
Planned Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002
Planned Complaint OSHA standard inspections inspections
Rank Rank
General requirements for scaffolds
Fall protection
Hazard communication
Control of hazardous energy
Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use
Respiratory protection
General requirements, for all machines
Electrical, general requirements
Mechanical power transmission apparatus
Bloodborne pathogens
Powered industrial trucks 17
Personal protective equipment, general requirements 26 6
Portable fire extinguishers 31 9
Source: GAO's analysis of IMIS data, fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
Hazardous Industries Had Our analysis found a correlation between injuries
and illnesses reported in a Preponderance of industries and the rate at
which complaints were inspected. As shown in Complaints in Calendar figure
3, industries associated with higher rates of injuries and illnesses Year
2001 also tended to have a higher rate of complaint inspections than did
industries with lower injury and illness rates, according to OSHA's data.
Figure 3: Correlation between an Industry's Injury and Illness Rate and
Its Complaint Inspection Rate, Calendar Year 2001
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers 0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0 0 2 4 6 81012 Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers Source:
GAO's analysis of BLS and IMIS data.
Note: To correct for factors that could influence the relationship between
complaint inspections and injuries and illness, we used rates instead of
numbers.
For example, one industry, transportation equipment, had 12.6 injuries and
illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 2001 and had a relatively high rate
of complaint inspections, .016 per 100 full-time workers. Conversely, the
motion picture industry, which had only 2.5 injuries and illnesses per 100
full-time workers in 2001, had a relatively low incidence rate for
complaint inspections, .0015 complaint inspections per 100 full-time
workers.
For a handful of industries the pattern of high injury and illness rates
associated with high complaint inspection rates did not apply. For these
industries, the number of complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers
was either far higher or far lower than might have been expected given the
number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers. For example,
the air transport industry had the highest injury and illness rate for
2001, but its complaint inspection rate was lower than those for all but 1
of the 10 industries with the highest injury and illness rates. In another
example, while the general building contractors industry had the highest
complaint inspection rate of any industry, over a third of all industries
had higher injury and illness rates. Table 4 shows industries that were
highest
or lowest in terms of injuries and illness and their corresponding rates
of complaint inspections.
Table 4: Ten Industries with Highest Rates and Ten Industries with Lowest
Rates of Injuries and Illnesses and Corresponding Rate of Complaint
Inspections, Calendar Year 2001
Injuries and Complaint illnesses per 100 inspections per 100 full-time
workers full-time workers
Industries with highest injury/illness rates Industries with lowest
injury/illness rates
Transportation by aira 13.3 0.0073
Transportation equipmenta 12.6 0.0160
Fabricated metal products 11.1 0.0383
Furniture and fixtures 11.0 0.0210
Food and kindred products 10.9 0.0157
Primary metal industries 10.7 0.0283
Lumber and wood products 10.6 0.0262
Stone, clay, and glass products 10.1 0.0280
Local and interurban passenger transit 9.8 0.0110
Agricultural production-livestock 9.2 0.0061
Business services 2.7 0.0038
Motion pictures 2.5 0.0015
Insurance carriers 1.7 0.0006
Engineering and management services 1.6 0.0017
Depository institutions 1.4 0.0007 Holding and other investment offices
1.4 0.0004 Nondepository institutions 1.0 0.0006 Insurance agents,
brokers, and service 0.8 0.0011 Legal services 0.8 0.0005 Security and
commodity brokers 0.5 0.0006
Source: GAO analysis of BLS and OSHA's IMIS data for 2001.
aOSHA stated that it does not pursue many of the complaints in these areas
because its jurisdiction is limited.
Conclusion Since 1975, OSHA has had to balance two competing demands: the
need to use its inspection resources efficiently and the need to respond
to complaints about alleged hazards that could seriously threaten workers'
safety and health. In light of this ongoing challenge, OSHA has adopted
complaint procedures that, according to agency officials, have helped
OSHA conserve its resources and promptly inspect complaints about serious
hazards. Nonetheless, in deciding which complaints to inspect, OSHA
officials must depend on information provided by complainants whose
motives and knowledge of hazards vary. Many OSHA officials do not see the
quality of this information as a serious problem. However, considering
that serious violations were found in only half of the workplaces OSHA
officials inspected when responding to complaints, it seems likely that
the agency, employers, and workers could all be better served if OSHA
improved the quality of information it receives from complainants.
When OSHA conducts inspections of complaints based on incomplete or
erroneous information, it potentially depletes inspection resources that
could have been used to inspect or investigate other worksites. In
addition, employers may be forced to expend resources proving that their
worksites are safe when no hazard exists. OSHA should certainly not
discourage workers from making complaints or pursuing a request for an
OSHA inspection. Indeed, the correlation we found between those industries
designated as hazardous and those that generate complaints inspections
suggests that using complaints to locate hazardous worksites is a
reasonable strategy for the agency to pursue. However, to the extent that
OSHA officials could glean more accurate information from complainants,
such as by deterring disgruntled employees from misrepresenting hazards or
their employment status, the agency could benefit in several ways. With
better information, OSHA could better conserve its inspection resources,
minimize the burden on employers, and further enhance the agency's
credibility in the eyes of employers. In addition, if the strategies
described by OSHA officials as effective means to improve the quality of
complaints are not being fully utilized, OSHA may miss opportunities to
maximize the efficiency its complaint process might afford.
Some variation in how OSHA officials respond to complaints is inevitable,
particularly considering that there are 80 area offices with as many as 16
compliance officers in each office. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies that
we found have ramifications when considering the size of the agency and
the judgment that comes into play when handling complaints. Moreover, OSHA
has much to gain by upholding a reputation for fairness among employers.
When employers buy into OSHA's standards and comply voluntarily, the
agency can better use its 1,200 compliance officers to ensure worker
safety at the more than 7 million worksites nationwide. However, OSHA's
credibility could be damaged by procedural inconsistencies if, for
example, they resulted in different treatment and
Recommendations for Executive Action
disposition of similar complaints. While OSHA requires regional audits for
monitoring consistency, the failure to maximize the value of this
information limits the agency's ability to ensure one of the underlying
principles of its complaint policy.
We are making recommendations that the Secretary of Labor direct the
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to instruct area
offices to pursue practices to improve the quality of information they
receive from complainants, such as
o reminding complainants of the penalties for providing false
information,
o conducting outreach to employees regarding hazards, and
o encouraging employers to have safety committees that could initially
address complaints.
We are also recommending that the Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary
for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps to ensure that area
offices are consistently implementing the agency's policies and procedures
for handling complaints. As a first step, the agency should update and
revise the 1996 directive.
In revising the directive, the agency should update and clarify
o who evaluates complaints,
o how complainants are advised of the process,
o how written and signed complaints are evaluated,
o how to verify the employment status of complainants,
o how to treat e-mail complaints, and
o how to address complaints involving hazards for which the agency has
no specific standard.
In addition, we are recommending that the Secretary direct the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to
Agency Comments
o develop a system for ensuring the regions complete audits and
o develop a system for using the audit results to improve consistency of
the complaint process.
We received comments on a draft of this report from Labor. These comments
are reproduced in appendix II. Labor also provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate.
Although Labor recognized in its comments that most complaints are
anonymous and unsigned-a fact that makes it difficult to find employees to
obtain their views about the complaint process-the agency recommended that
we acknowledge in the report the limited number of employees we
interviewed. At the beginning of the report and again at the end, we
acknowledged that we interviewed 6 employees. Further, Labor questioned
whether the number of employees we interviewed was an adequate number on
which to base the conclusions reached in this report. Our conclusions
about OSHA's complaint process were not based solely on employee
interviews but were based on a variety of data, including interviews with
52 OSHA officials. In determining which OSHA officials to interview, we
deliberately included area directors, assistant area directors, and
compliance officers, which resulted in us obtaining information from
officials at various levels in 42 of OSHA's 80 area offices.
Labor also noted that our findings from OSHA's database which showed that
only half of complaint inspections result in citations for serious
violations do not recognize that many complaints come from the
construction industry, where the work is often dangerous and of a short
duration so that even if an inspection begins immediately, "citable"
circumstances may no longer exist. We added language to the body of the
report to reflect this information.
In responding to our first recommendation about improving the quality of
information received through complaints, Labor stated that OSHA has taken
many steps, both in its online and office-based complaint-taking
procedures, to provide guidance to employees to ensure that all complaints
are valid and accurate. We maintain, however, that OSHA can do more to
improve the validity and accuracy of the complaints it receives.
Labor did not comment on our recommendations that OSHA develop a system
for ensuring that the regions complete audits of the complaint process and
for using the results of these audits to improve the consistency of the
process.
We will make copies of this report available upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or any of your staff has any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Revae Moran, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-3863.
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Robertson, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Our criteria for selecting our site visits were geographical diversity and
volume of complaints. We received data from the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the number of complaints each of
its area offices processed in 2000, 2001 and 2002. On the basis of these
data, we selected the three sites with the largest number of complaints
processed in their respective regions and which roughly approximated the
east, south and western regions. Those sites were Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas; and Denver, Colorado. In each of these
offices, we examined a statistical sample of case files. We used a
standard set of questions, pretested on case files in the Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania office, to conduct the case file reviews. In addition, we
interviewed compliance officers-both supervisory and nonsupervisory. We
randomly selected 38 cases in Denver, 30 cases in Austin, and 34 cases in
Pittsburgh from the available list of complaint files processed by these
offices in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Austin and Pittsburgh had disposed of
their case files for phone/fax investigations for 2000, according to area
directors there, who said this was allowed by agency rules for how long
files must be kept. As a result, our random selections for Austin and
Pittsburgh were selected from lists that did not include phone/fax
investigations for 2000.
In addition to our site visits, using standard sets of questions, we
interviewed by telephone randomly selected area directors, assistant area
directors, and compliance officers in 42 area offices. We obtained from
OSHA a list of area directors, assistant area directors (who are
supervisory compliance officers), compliance officers, and regional
administrators. We randomly selected 20 of the agency's 80 area directors
and 32 of its 1,200 compliance officers (12 assistant area directors and
20 nonsupervisory compliance officers). We also interviewed officials in
all 10 regional offices. Additionally, we conducted telephone interviews
with health and safety officials from 13 states that operate health and
safety programs apart from OSHA. We selected these 13 states, in part,
based on discussions with OSHA.
In addition to OSHA officials, we also interviewed employers whose
worksites were the subject of a complaint and employees who had filed
complaints. OSHA provided us with a database of all employers who in 2000,
2001, or 2002 had worksites that were the subject of complaints and
employees who had filed complaints in the same year. From the database we
randomly selected 90 employers and 90 employees. We took steps to make
sure that employers' and employees' contact information was kept separate
from their identity and any information collected from them during their
interviews. We also obtained a guarantee of confidentiality from the
report's requester. Of the 90 employers randomly selected, we
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
succeeded in interviewing 15. Of the 90 employees, we succeeded in
interviewing 6. Some of the employee complaints randomly selected had been
filed anonymously, so contact information was not available. In most
cases, those selected could not be reached.
Finally, we examined data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 related to
complaints in OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and
looked at data on injuries and illnesses collected and published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for calendar year 2001 as they related to
complaints.1 In addition, for the IMIS data we obtained and reviewed
documentation of internal controls and manually tested the data. We
interviewed both OSHA and BLS officials to establish the reliability of
the data. We found the data to be reliable for our purposes.
1These data are collected for the calendar year.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
See comment 1.
See comment 2.
See comment 3.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
See comment 4.
See comment 5.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
GAO Comments The following are GAO comments on Labor's letter dated May
21, 2004.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
We rephrased our recommendations to reflect Labor's administrative
procedures.
Our conclusions are based on site visits to 3 area offices processing
large numbers of complaints, reviews of case files in those offices,
interviews with 52 OSHA officials-area directors, assistant area
directors, and compliance officers- who represented 42 of OSHA's 80 area
offices, interviews with officials in all 10 of OSHA's regional offices,
interviews with the director of the Office of Enforcement, interviews with
officials in 13 states that have their own safety and health programs,
analysis of data on complaints from OSHA's Integrated Management
Information System, analysis of BLS data on injuries and illnesses,
interviews with 15 employees whose companies were the subject of
complaints, interviews with 6 employees who filed complaints, and the
review of agency documents related to the complaint process.
In the appendix on scope and methodology, we corrected the number of
employee interviews, changing it to 6 from 8.
We have included the agency's explanation in the final version of the
report.
We added a note to table 4 acknowledging that OSHA's jurisdiction is
limited in the transportation area and corrected the source of the data in
the table.
On the basis of our interviews with OSHA officials who said the agency
could do more to improve the quality of information received from
complainants, we continue to believe that adopting our recommendation
would help the agency better manage its inspection resources. Moreover, we
believe that the agency could take such actions without discouraging
employees from filing legitimate complaints.
Appendix III: Staff Acknowledgments
Staff Carl Barden, Sue Bernstein, Karen Brown, Amy Buck, Patrick di
Battista, Barbara Hills, Mikki Holmes, Cathy Hurley, Julian Klazkin, Jim
Lawrence,Acknowledgments Luann Moy, Corinna Nicolaou, Sid Schwartz, and
Michelle Zapata made key contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products
Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show
Promising Results, but Should Be Fully Evaluated Before They Are Expanded.
GAO-04-378 March 19, 2004.
Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement through
Improved Program Management. GAO-03-45 November 22, 2002.
Worker Protection: Labor's Efforts to Enforce Protections for Day Laborers
Could Benefit from Better Data and Guidance. GAO-02-925 September 26,
2002.
Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Should Strengthen the Management of Its
Consultation Program. GAO-02-60 October 12, 2001.
Worker Protection: OSHA Inspections at Establishments Experiencing Labor
Unrest. HEHS-00-144 August 31, 2000.
Occupational Safety and Health: Federal Agencies Identified as Promoting
Workplace Safety and Health. HEHS-00-45R January 31, 2000.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***