Federal Contractors: Historical Perspective on Noncompliance With Labor
and Worker Safety Laws (Testimony, 07/14/1998, GAO/T-HEHS-98-212).
Federal contracts worth billions of dollars have been awarded to
employers that have been found in violation of labor and worker safety
laws. GAO found that the 80 firms that had violated the National Labor
Relations Act during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 had received $23
billion, or about 13 percent of the total dollar value of federal
contracts awarded during fiscal year 1993. GAO also identified 261
federal contractors that had work sites at which the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration assessed proposed penalties of $15,000 or more
for noncompliance with health and safety regulations. These firms
received $38 billion in federal contracts awarded during fiscal year
1994. Both of these totals probably underestimated the number of
violators and contract dollars received during both years. In both
cases, most of the contract dollars were awarded to violators that were
large firms--with annual sales of more than $500 million--and a majority
of these firms were in manufacturing industries. About 75 percent of the
dollar value of these awards came from the Defense Department, although
many dollars also came from the Energy Department and NASA. Agencies can
consider an employer's labor-management relations and health and safety
records when awarding contracts under current procurement regulations,
but agency officials have generally not taken action against contractors
with safety and health or labor-relations law violations. This is, at
least in part, because they lack adequate information to determine
contractor noncompliance with these laws.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-HEHS-98-212
TITLE: Federal Contractors: Historical Perspective on
Noncompliance With Labor and Worker Safety Laws
DATE: 07/14/1998
SUBJECT: Contractor violations
Fines (penalties)
Federal procurement
Labor law
Occupational health standards
Noncompliance
Working conditions
Occupational safety
Safety regulation
Industrial relations
IDENTIFIER: OSHA Integrated Management Information System
GSA Federal Procurement Data System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
GAO/T-HEHS-98-212
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 1:00 p.m.
Tuesday, July 14, 1998
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS - HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE ON NONCOMPLIANCE WITH
LABOR AND WORKER SAFETY LAWS
Statement of Cornelia M. Blanchette, Associate Director
Education and Employment Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division
GAO/T-HEHS-98-212
GAO/HEHS-98-212T
(205383)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
FPDS - Federal Procurement Data System
GSA - General Services Administration
IMIS - Integrated Management Information System
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NLRA - National Labor Relations Act
NLRB - National Labor Relations Board
OFCCP - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSH - x
ULP - unfair labor practices
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS: HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE ON NONCOMPLIANCE WITH
LABOR AND WORKER SAFETY LAWS
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to assist the Subcommittee in its
examination of issues involving federal contractors' noncompliance
with federal labor laws. The consideration of a contractor's
compliance with federal laws during an agency's procurement procedure
remains a controversial issue. In 1995, the administration issued an
executive order, struck down in 1996 by the courts, that barred
federal contractors from receiving contracts if they hire permanent
replacements for striking workers.\1 In 1996, the administration
issued an executive order that would bar contractors from hiring
illegal immigrants. In early 1997, the administration had planned to
issue an executive order requiring federal agencies to use Project
Labor Agreements on their construction projects.\2 After considerable
industry opposition, the administration issued an executive
memorandum encouraging, but not requiring, agencies to use Project
Labor Agreements on larger federal construction projects. Some
representatives of the business community have voiced concern that
efforts to encourage federal agencies to consider contractors'
labor-management relations and health and safety records in awarding
contracts could lead to the inappropriate "blacklisting of some
employers as well as inflated procurement costs at the taxpayers'
expense.
Today, we would like to shed some light on these issues by presenting
information on the extent to which federal contractors have not
complied with federal labor laws in the past. In particular, I will
review our key findings from recent reports exploring federal
contractors' noncompliance with the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 and with the Occupational
Safety and Health (OSH) Act during fiscal year 1994.\3 Because we
have not had an opportunity to update our findings with data from
fiscal year 1995 to the present, we are not in a position to revise
the amount of contract dollars firms in noncompliance currently
receive. I will also review the status of recommendations we made to
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in those reports involving
the use of information on federal contractors to enhance work place
health and safety and workers' rights to bargain collectively.
In summary, we found that federal contracts worth many billions of
dollars had been awarded to employers who had been found in violation
of the NLRA or the safety and health regulations issued under the OSH
Act. We found that the 80 firms that had violated the NLRA during
fiscal years 1993 and 1994 had received $23 billion, or about 13
percent of the total dollar value of federal contracts awarded during
fiscal year 1993. We also identified 261 federal contractors that
had work sites at which OSHA assessed proposed penalties of $15,000
or more for noncompliance with health and safety regulations. These
firms received $38 billion in federal contracts awarded during fiscal
year 1994. Both of these totals probably underestimate the number of
violators and contract dollars received during both years for reasons
on which I will elaborate. In both cases, most of the contract
dollars were awarded to violators that were large firms--with annual
sales over $500 million--and a majority of these firms were in
manufacturing industries. About 75 percent of the dollar value of
these awards came from the Department of Defense, although many
dollars also came from the Department of Energy and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Although agencies can consider employers' labor-management relations
and health and safety records in the awarding of contracts under
current procurement regulations, agency officials responsible for
awarding contracts and debarring contractors from receiving future
contracts have generally not taken actions against contractors with
safety and health or labor-relations law violations. We found that
this is at least partially because they do not have adequate
information to determine those federal contractors in noncompliance
with these laws, even when the contractors have been assessed severe
penalties or remedies under the respective acts. In our reports, we
made recommendations to both NLRB and OSHA that could enhance the
effectiveness of their enforcement through the use of information on
federal contractors. Although NLRB has taken action in implementing
our recommendations, OSHA has not yet done so.
--------------------
\1 Executive Order 12954, barring federal contractors from hiring
permanent replacements, was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia.
\2 Project Labor Agreements are a form of pre-hire collective
bargaining agreement between contractors, or owners on behalf of
contractors, and labor unions in the construction industry. They are
pre-hire agreements because they can be negotiated before the
employees vote on union representation or before the contractor hires
any workers. See Project Labor Agreements: The Extent of Their Use
and Related Information (GAO/GGD-98-82, May 29, 1998).
\3 See Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of
Labor Law (GAO/HEHS-96-8, Oct. 24, 1995) and Occupational Safety and
Health: Violations of Safety and Health Regulations by Federal
Contractors (GAO/HEHS-96-157, Aug. 23, 1996). See list of related
GAO products at the end of this statement.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
Private sector companies receive billions of dollars annually in
federal government contracts for goods and services. The General
Services Administration (GSA) reports that federal contracts in
fiscal year 1997 for $25,000 or more were valued at $165 billion.
Approximately 17 percent of the labor force--23 million workers--is
employed by companies with federal contracts and subcontracts,
according to fiscal year 1996 estimates of the Department of Labor's
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
Federal law and an executive order place greater responsibilities on
federal contractors, compared with other employers, in some areas of
work place activity. For example, federal contractors must comply
with Executive Order 11246, which requires a contractor to develop an
affirmative action program detailing the steps that the contractor
will take and has already taken to ensure equal employment
opportunity for all workers, regardless of race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin. In addition, the Service Contract Act and
the Davis-Bacon Act require the payment of the area's prevailing
wages and benefits on federal contracts in the service and
construction industries, respectively. Furthermore, Labor may debar
contractors in the construction industry under the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act for "repeated willful or grossly
negligent" violations of safety and health standards issued under the
OSH Act.
Under federal procurement regulations, agencies may deny an award of
a contract, or debar or suspend a contractor, for a variety of
reasons, including safety and health compliance problems.\4 Before
awarding a contract, an agency must make a positive finding that the
bidder is "responsible," as detailed in federal procurement
regulations. Also, federal agencies can debar or suspend companies
for any "cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects
the present responsibility of a government contractor or
subcontractor." In determining whether a federal contractor is
"responsible," agency contracting officials can consider compliance
with applicable laws and regulations, which could include the OSH Act
or the NLRA.
To help foster consistency among agency regulations concerning
debarment and suspension, Executive Order 12549, issued in February
1986, established the Interagency Committee on Debarment and
Suspension, which consists of agency representatives designated by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This committee meets
monthly and provides the opportunity for agency debarment officials
to share information about companies that they are trying to either
debar or suspend, or to bring into compliance, in order to avoid
having to take an adverse contracting action. At its monthly
meetings, the committee also helps interpret regulations on debarment
or suspension issued by OMB and determines which agency will take
lead responsibility for any actions taken against a federal
contractor.
Most firms--regardless of whether they are federal contractors--must
comply with safety and health standards issued under the OSH Act of
1970, which was enacted "to assure safe and healthful working
conditions for working men and women." The Secretary of Labor
established OSHA to carry out a number of responsibilities, including
developing and enforcing safety and health standards; educating
workers and employers about work place hazards; and establishing
responsibilities and rights for both employers and employees for the
achievement of better safety and health conditions.\5 The NLRA
provides the basic framework governing private sector
labor-management relations. This act, passed in 1935, created an
independent agency, NLRB, to administer and enforce the act. Among
other duties, NLRB is responsible for preventing and remedying
violations of the act--unfair labor practices (ULP) committed by
employers or unions. NLRB's functions are divided between its
general counsel and a five-member Board. The Office of the General
Counsel investigates and prosecutes ULP charges, while the Board
reviews all cases decided by administrative law judges in NLRB's 33
regions.
Before I review our findings, I would like to discuss the methodology
we used in our 1995 and 1996 reports to identify federal contractors
that violated either the NLRA or the OSH Act. For both laws, we used
a similar manual matching procedure. To obtain information on firms
that had violated the NLRA, we used the NLRB Executive Secretary's
database because it tracks all cases that go before the Board,
excluding all cases that are dismissed, withdrawn, or settled
informally. We reviewed these data for the 1,493 decisions that the
Board reviewed and issued on ULP cases against firms. This was about
4 percent of all ULP cases received by NLRB over a 2-year period
(fiscal years 1993-94).\6 To obtain data on firms with significant
violations of OSHA regulations, we used OSHA's Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS), which contains detailed information on all
OSHA inspections conducted by federal OSHA or the state-operated
programs. It includes detailed data on penalty amounts, the severity
of the violation, the standards violated, whether fatalities or
injuries occurred, and other information. In using OSHA's IMIS
database, which includes many thousands of inspections annually, we
focused only on those inspections resulting in significant
penalties--proposed penalties of at least $15,000--regardless of the
amount of the actual penalty recorded when the inspection was
closed.\7 Using this definition, inspections involving significant
penalties represented only 3 percent of the 72,950 inspections closed
in fiscal year 1994.
We matched the NLRB case data and OSHA's IMIS inspection data with
the database of federal contractors maintained by GSA, the Federal
Procurement Data System (FPDS). FPDS tracks firms awarded contracts
of $25,000 or more in federal funding for products and services.
Although it is difficult to estimate the number of federal
contractors, GSA reports there may be as many as 60,000 federal
contractors because this is the number of unique corporate
identification codes in FPDS. FPDS contains a variety of
information, including the contractor's name and location, agency
awarding the contract, principal place of contract performance, and
the dollar amount of the contract awarded. FPDS does not contain
information on contractors' safety and health or labor relations'
practices.
Because the lack of corporate identification numbers in both the NLRB
and OSHA databases precluded our use of an automated matching
procedure, we had to manually match these data. We manually compared
each firm name from the Executive Secretary and IMIS databases and
with the larger FPDS file, identifying those firms that were
identical or nearly identical. After this manual match, to ensure
that the firms listed in the Executive Secretary or IMIS databases
were the same as those listed in the FPDS, we telephoned the firm at
the location the OSHA or labor violation occurred. We then verified
that the firm number and location identified in the Executive
Secretary or IMIS database and the FPDS database referred to the same
firm.
Several federal contractors we identified as OSHA violators have
expressed concerns about the information we obtained from IMIS,
particularly with regard to OSHA's characterization of information on
its corporatewide or individual facility settlement agreements
negotiated with employers. In response, we recommended to the
Secretary of Labor that the quality of the IMIS data be assessed as
they relate to settlement agreements, and that steps be taken to
correct any detected weaknesses.\8 Since that time, OSHA has taken
some action to address these concerns, including its introduction of
a special code to identify administrative actions taken under
corporatewide settlements in IMIS, the inclusion of an additional
field to flag cases that are atypical, and additional information
added to the IMIS "report explanation" field about the treatment of
penalties in certain cases.
It should be noted that our approach probably understated, in a
number of ways, the number of federal contractors violating the laws.
In some cases, firms had gone out of business or relocated, or the
location information in the IMIS or FPDS databases was inaccurate or
incomplete, or the employer refused or was unable to confirm or deny
key information over the telephone, preventing us from verifying a
potential match. In other instances, firms may have split, merged,
changed names, or operated subsidiaries, so that different names
would have appeared among the three databases, thus resulting in
matches escaping our detection. We also focused our analysis on
violations committed by primary contractors. We did not determine
the extent to which contract dollars were awarded by primary
contractors to subcontractors with violations, or the degree to which
the contractors we identified were also subcontractors on other
awards. Concerning IMIS in particular, many employers we identified
as violators in OSHA's database were construction companies. Because
construction work sites are temporary, the employer could not always
remember whether the work place existed or when the inspection was
conducted. Regarding the NLRB data, many firms were involved in
cases that were withdrawn or settled and our analysis does not
include such cases in assessing violations committed, remedies
ordered, and number of workers affected.
--------------------
\4 A list of the hundreds of firms on the federal debarment lists is
issued monthly by GSA. See List of Parties Excluded From Federal
Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs, as of May 15, 1998
(Washington, D.C: Office of Acquisition Policy, May 1998).
\5 The act also authorized states to operate, with up to 50 percent
federal funding, their own safety and health programs, and 23 states
have chosen to do so. OSHA, however, is responsible for approving
state programs and monitoring their performance to make sure they
remain "at least as effective" as the program operated by OSHA.
\6 It is important to note that the violation itself may have been
committed more than a year before the Board decision because of the
time it takes for cases to be processed by NLRB. We have found that
the Board decided most cases within 1 year from the date the case was
assigned to a Board member. However, about 10 percent of the cases
have taken from over 3 to over 7 years to decide. See National Labor
Relations Board: Action Needed to Improve Case-Processing Time at
Headquarters (GAO/HRD-91-29, Jan. 7, 1991).
\7 The proposed penalty reflects an OSHA compliance officer's initial
assessment of the seriousness of the violations. According to OSHA
officials, proposed penalties were a better reflection of the
severity of the citations than the actual penalties because actual
penalties are a product of other factors, such as negotiations
between the company and OSHA to encourage quicker abatement of work
place hazards. Cases may be closed either because the employer
accepted the citation or a contested citation was resolved.
\8 See OSHA's Inspection Database (GAO/HEHS-97-43R, Dec. 30, 1996).
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS LAW
VIOLATORS RECEIVED OVER $23
BILLION IN FEDERAL CONTRACTS IN
FISCAL YEAR 1993
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
A total of 80 firms that violated the NLRA received over $23 billion
from more than 4,400 federal contracts during fiscal year 1993--about
13 percent of total fiscal year 1993 contract dollars. These
contract dollars were concentrated among only a few violators, with
six such firms receiving about $21 billion. Firms receiving more
than $500 million each in contracts got about 90 percent of these
federal contract dollars. About 73 percent of the $23 billion was
awarded by the Department of Defense, with NASA and the Department of
Energy as the other major sources of these contract moneys. About
two-thirds of these dollars went to manufacturing firms. Most of the
violators were large firms. Of the 77 violators for which data on
workforce size were available, 35 had more than 10,000 employees. Of
the 64 violators for which sales data were available, 32 had over $1
billion in sales, and 10 firms had over $10 billion in sales.
In 35 of the 88 NLRB-related cases we identified as involving the 80
federal contractors, the Board required firms to reinstate workers or
restore workers to their prior positions as the remedy for
violations. In 32 of these 35 cases, firms were ordered to reinstate
unlawfully fired workers. In 6 of the 35, firms were ordered to
restore workers who had been subjected to another kind of unfavorable
change in job status. An unfavorable change in job status could mean
that the worker, for example, was suspended, demoted, transferred, or
not hired in the first place because of activities for or association
with a union. Some cases involved both an order to reinstate fired
workers and an order to restore workers who were subjected to another
kind of unfavorable change in job status.
These remedies affected a sizable number of specific individual
workers and a far larger number of workers who were part of a
particular bargaining unit. The Board ordered firms to reinstate or
restore 761 individual workers to their appropriate job positions.
In 44 of the 88 cases, the Board ordered the firm to pay back wages
to 801 workers and ordered the firm to restore benefits to 462
workers in 28 cases. In most cases, back wages or benefits were owed
to individual workers who had been illegally fired or subjected to
another kind of unfavorable change in job status. However, in 12
cases, wages or benefits were ordered restored to all workers in the
bargaining unit because the firm failed to pay wages or benefits as
required under its contract with the union. Some cases involved both
a remedy for individual workers owed back wages or benefits as well
as the same type of remedy for the entire bargaining unit.
The Board also ordered other types of remedies in many of these 88
cases. For example, in 33 cases, the Board ordered the firm to
bargain with the union.\9 In 24 cases, firms were ordered to stop
threatening employees with the loss of their jobs or the shutdown of
the firm. Firms were ordered in 33 cases to stop other kinds of
threats, such as interrogating employees and circulating lists of
employees associated with the union. To facilitate the bargaining of
a contract, the Board ordered firms to provide information to the
union in 16 cases.
--------------------
\9 The Board's decision might also declare that the firm must
recognize the union or honor the bargaining agreement.
CONTRACTORS WITH OSHA
VIOLATIONS RECEIVED $38 BILLION
IN FISCAL YEAR 1994
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
We found 261 federal contractors that were the corporate parents of
facilities that had received proposed penalties of $15,000 or more
from OSHA for violations of safety and health regulations in fiscal
year 1994. These contractors received $38 billion in contract
dollars, about 22 percent of the $176 billion in federal contracts,
valued at $25,000 or more, awarded that year. About 75 percent of
the total dollar value of these contracts was awarded by the
Department of Defense, with large amounts of contract dollars also
awarded by the Department of Energy and NASA. About 5 percent of
these 261 federal contractors (12 firms) each received more than $500
million in federal contracts in fiscal year 1994. In total, this
group received over 60 percent of the $38 billion awarded to
violators.
A majority of the 345 work sites (56 percent) penalized for safety
and health violations were engaged in manufacturing. An examination
of the violators' standard industrial classification codes showed
that many of these work sites manufactured paper, food, or primary
and fabricated metals. Although most violators were engaged in
manufacturing, a significant percentage of work sites (18 percent)
were engaged in construction. Many (68 percent) of the work sites
where the violations occurred were relatively small, employing 500 or
fewer workers. Just over 15 percent of the work sites employed 25 or
fewer workers. Although few work sites employed large numbers of
workers, the federal contractors that own these work sites often
employed large numbers of workers in multiple facilities across the
country.
The number and nature of the violations for which these 261 federal
contractors were cited, the fatalities and injuries associated with
their 345 inspections, and the high penalties assessed, suggest that
workers were at substantial risk of injury or illness in the work
places of some federal contractors. The 261 federal contractors were
cited for 5,121 violations. Most of the inspections of the work
sites involved at least one violation that OSHA classified as serious
(88 percent)--posing a risk of death or serious physical harm to
workers, or willful (69 percent)--situations in which the employer
intentionally and knowingly committed a violation. At work sites of
50 federal contractors, a total of 35 fatalities and 85 injuries
occurred. Most of the violations (72 percent) were of general
industry standards, including failure to protect workers from
electrical hazards and injuries resulting from inadequate machine
guarding.
OSHA compliance officers assessed a total of $24 million in proposed
penalties and $10.9 million in actual penalties for all violations in
these 345 inspections. In some cases, these federal contractors were
assessed proposed penalties that were especially high. In 8 percent
of the 345 inspections, the contractor was assessed a proposed
penalty of $100,000 or more. In addition, some of these 261 federal
contractors were assessed a significant penalty more than once in
fiscal year 1994 for violations that occurred at different work sites
owned by, or associated with, the same parent company. Finally, a
search for prior inspections of the same work sites that had been
assessed significant penalties for safety and health violations
revealed a number of additional inspections of parent company
facilities, including some additional significant penalty
inspections.
We did not evaluate the general safety and health inspection records
of federal contractors. However, some of the contractors who were
assessed significant penalties also operated facilities with
exemplary health and safety records, while others maintained
facilities that participated in other OSHA-sanctioned voluntary
compliance programs that suggest a proactive approach to work place
safety and health.
NLRB IMPLEMENTED GAO
RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT OSHA HAS
NOT YET TAKEN ACTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
In our report on federal contractors who violate the NLRA, we noted
that NLRB could improve its enforcement efforts by obtaining
information on violators who receive federal contracts. In
particular, the NLRB could withhold contract payments from federal
contractors who have failed to comply with a Board order to restore
wages or benefits. This means of collection is referred to as an
administrative offset. However, NLRB does not currently use a
corporate identifier in any of its databases that could be recognized
by GSA to identify federal contractors, although agency officials
acknowledged the usefulness of such an identifier. Consequently, we
recommended that NLRB coordinate with GSA to identify violators with
federal contracts. Since that time, the enactment of the Debt
Collection and Improvement Act has permitted NLRB to take advantage
of administrative offset through coordination with the Treasury's
Financial Management Services Department, which is developing its
comprehensive database on federal contractors.
In our report on federal contractors who violated OSHA regulations,
we concluded that contracting agencies could use information on a
contractor's safety and health record during the procedure for the
awarding of federal contracts as a vehicle to encourage a contractor
to undertake remedial measures to improve work place conditions.\10
However, agency contracting authorities have not done so, at least
partially because they did not have the information to determine
those federal contractors who are violating safety and health
regulations, even when they have been fined significant penalties for
willful or repeated violations. Thus, we recommended that the
Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to develop and implement policies, in
consultation with GSA and the Interagency Committee on Debarment and
Suspension, on how safety and health records of federal contractors
could be shared to better inform agency awarding and debarring
officials in their decisions. We noted, however, that OSHA should
work closely with the contracting agencies to help them interpret and
use inspection information effectively. We also recommended that
OSHA consider the appropriateness of extending these policies and
procedures to cover companies receiving other forms of federal
assistance such as loans and grants. Finally, we urged OSHA to
develop procedures on how it will consider a company's status as a
federal contractor in setting its own priorities for inspecting work
sites. At this time, OSHA officials have stated that the agency has
conducted discussions with members of the Interagency Committee on
Suspension and Debarment regarding possible policies and procedures
for sharing safety and health records, although no final decisions
have yet been made.
--------------------
\10 Occupational Safety and Health: Violations of Safety and Health
by Federal Contractors (GAO/HEHS-96-157, Aug. 23, 1996), p. 34.
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
Project Labor Agreements: The Extent of Their Use and Related
Information (GAO/GGD-98-82, May 29, 1998).
Beverly Enterprises, Inc. (GAO/HEHS-97-145R, June 3, 1997).
OSHA's Inspection Database (GAO/HEHS-97-43R, Dec. 30, 1996).
Occupational Safety and Health: Violations of Safety and Health
Regulations by Federal Contractors (GAO/HEHS-96-157, Aug. 23, 1996).
Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of Labor Law
(GAO/HEHS-96-8, Oct. 24, 1995).
National Labor Relations Board: Action Needed to Improve
Case-Processing Time at Headquarters (GAO/HRD-91-29, Jan. 7, 1991).
*** End of document ***