OSHA Inspection: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

Issued

Dec 20, 1991

Abate by

Jun 3, 1994

General-duty citation text

The General Motors Corporation, 199 Beekman Ave., North Tarrytown, NY.,
covered by
the General Motors-UAW Corporate-Wide Settlement Agreement on Ergonomics.
The
following terms of the Agreement were not met:
(Instances listed by paragraph section, title and page of Corporate-Wide
Settlement
Agreement)
a)  Section 3.0,Job Analysis Program,page 8:
The written job analysis program provided does not explain how facilities
injury and illness
data were analyzed and who was responsible for doing the analysis.  It
does not state how
priorities were set for job analysis among jobs selected off the GM200
log.  Analysis of
baseline symptoms surveys is not mentioned.  Corrective measures are not
addressed.
b)  Section 3.1,Injury and Illness Analysis,page 8:
All relevant workers compensation records, C-3s and C-4s, are not used in
injury and illness
analysis.
c)  Section 3.3,Priorities and Timetables,page 9:
Priorities and Timetables for corrective action are not reviewed or
revised by the ergonomics
committee (EC).  The line speed increase in August, 1992 should have
prompted a revision
of the timetables for corrective action by the EC.  This did not occur.
None of the first 25
jobs which were analyzed between 2/6/92 and 3/5/92 were corrected.  This
group included
nine jobs which were given three or more stars by the monitor.
d)  Section 4.4,Modification Activity,page 11:
Job analysis tracking forms were provided to the plants from Corporate GM
to document job
modification on an on-going basis.  Job modifications were not tracked
during 1992.  Job
analysis tracking forms were not available for all jobs which were risk
factored.  Tracking
forms which were missing pertinent information such as, but not limited
to; the number of
workers affected, projected completion dates, cost of modification, and
reasons for delaying
abatement.
e)  Section 5.3.4Semi-annual review with employees of the application
of ergonomic principles during safety talks,Page 16.
There are no regularly scheduled safety talks.
f)  Section 6.3Medical department staff periodic workplace
walkthroughs,page 17.
The medical department did not perform the walkthroughs as required by
this section.g)  Section 6.8.3,Re-evaluation in no more than
three working days,page 20.
Re-evaluation of workers with CTDs exceeded the three working day period.
No
appointments are made for follow-up visits; employees are only told to
return
to medical.
There is no tracking system for employees who do not return for
reevaluation.  CTD files
are not all available and are grossly incomplete.  GM standardized
reporting forms for
physical exams, medical histories, and treatment summaries are not filled
out by the medical
staff.
h)  Section 9.1.1,Reports to Local Area Office,page 27:
The quarterly reporting form was changed in April, 1993.  The form used
for all quarterly
reports prior to April does not identify how employees with CTDs were
treated.  It simply
states employees are referred to their private medical doctor for
treatment.  It does not
provide projected engineering controls and a schedule for implementation
of control
measures.
The revised quarterly reports do not identify projected engineering
controls
and a schedule
for implementation of controls.