Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,196,991Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-24 Last loaded 2026-08-27

OSHA Inspection: E GLOBAL LLC.

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of E GLOBAL LLC. in 144 TRESSEL RD., BEREA, OH 44017 (NAICS 236220). OSHA activity number 334199247.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch E Global LLC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for E Global LLC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
E GLOBAL LLC.
Site address
144 TRESSEL RD.
City
BEREA
State
OH
ZIP
44017
Mailing
55 LOU GROZA BLVD., BEREA, OH 44017
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Complete (A)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
236220
Employees
2
Ownership type
Private (A)

7 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.20 B01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 12 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Abate by
Oct 3, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1):     The employer did not initiate and maintain accident prevention programs as necessary to comply with this part:    On or before April 12, 2012, during construction activities, the employer did not provide programs that identify and eliminate the hazards, such as eye protection, head protection, fall protection, and other hazards associated with the work being performed at the worksite. An effective safety and health program was not implemented on the worksite. Hazards observed, to which employees were exposed, reflect deficiencies in site inspections, training, and enforcement of federal safety and health regulations.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1680
  • · Z (S) $2800

1926.50 D01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 12 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Penalty
Initial $1,200 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.50(d)(1):     First-aid supplies were not easily accessible when required:      On or before April 12, 2012, during construction activities, the employer did not ensure that employees and sub-contractor's employees had access to a first aid kit on the worksite.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $1200

1926.50 G

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.50(g):     Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    On or about April 12, 2012, during construction brick laying activities, the employer did not ensure that quick drenching  eye washing facilities were provided.       NOTE: ANSI Z358.1-1990 5.4.4: Eyewash units shall be in accessible locations that require no more than 10 seconds to reach from the hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1200
  • · Z (S) $2000

1926.95 A

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 7 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Penalty
Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.95(a):     Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, was not provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it was necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact:    On or about April 12, 2012, during construction brick laying activities, the employer did not ensure that a sub-contractor's employees were provided appropriate PPE, effectively used, and maintained. The employer did not ensure that gloves and eye protection, such as safety glasses with side shields or goggles, in some circumstances were provided.  The employer did not ensure such equipment was maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition when not in use, and employees were able to clean or exchange their equipment.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $720
  • · Z (S) $1200

1926.100 A

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Penalty
Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.100(a):     Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:    On or about April 12, 2012, during construction activities, the employer allowed sub-contractor's employees to work under other employees working on a ladder above them and did not protect them from the overhead hazards such as falling tools, material etc
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $720
  • · Z (S) $1200

1926.102 A01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Penalty
Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1):     Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents.    On or before April 12, 2012, during construction activities, the employer did not ensure that sub-contractor's employees using air nailers and circular saws were protected from eye and face injuries
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $720
  • · Z (S) $1200

1926.501 B11

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Sep 18, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11):     Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:    On or about April 12, 2012, during carpentry activities, the employer allowed a sub-contractor's employees to work on a roof that was approximately 16 feet high with a 6/12 pitch and did not ensure that the employees were protected from falls.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1680
  • · Z (S) $2800

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 334199247.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.