WORTHINGTON, OH —
OSHA Inspection: MJ BAUMANN CO.
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of MJ BAUMANN CO. in 8134 WORTHINGTON GALENA ROAD, WORTHINGTON, OH 43085 (NAICS 238220). OSHA activity number 330986118.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- MJ BAUMANN CO.
- Site address
- 8134 WORTHINGTON GALENA ROAD
- City
- WORTHINGTON
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 43085
- Mailing
- 6400 BROUGHTON AVENUE, COLUMBUS, OH 43213
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238220
- Employees
- 2
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
2 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.501 B13
- Issued
- Sep 29, 2011
- Abate by
- Oct 6, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): "Residential construction." Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet(1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provisionin paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it isinfeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets therequirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fallprotection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complieswith 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems. At the worksite, the employer did not ensure/enforce that employee(s) utilize fall protection while working at heights greater than six feet, thereby exposing employees to an approximate 17 foot fall hazard.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2450
- — Z (S) $4900
1926.503 C03
- Issued
- Sep 29, 2011
- Abate by
- Oct 20, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(c)(3): Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of fall protection systems or equipmentindicate that the employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill.Note: The following appendices to subpart M of this part serve as non-mandatory guidelines to assist employers in complying with theappropriate requirements of subpart M of this part.[59 FR 40738, Aug. 9, 1994; 60 FR 5131, Jan. 26, 1995] On the job site where employee(s) were performing flashing task on the roof surface area, the employer had not ensured/enforced that employee(s) had retained knowledge and had a clear understanding on the required use of fall protection systems, when working at heights greater than six feet.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $2100
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238220)
More inspections in OH
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 330986118.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.