OSHA Inspection: JULIO GALINDO

Issued

Mar 8, 2016

Abate by

Mar 25, 2016

Penalty

Initial $440 · Current $440

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): The employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:  Julio Galindo dba Julio Galindo:  On or about March 8, 2016 the employer did not submit documentation certifying that abatement has been completed, for citations that became a final order on January 15, 2016.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Dec 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $4,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): Such programs do not provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employers.  A. The employer does not ensure frequent and regular inspections were conducted by a competent person. The violation was most recently observed at 8454 Willow Glen Ct., Holland, Ohio, where employees were exposed to serious safety hazards. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure frequent and regular job site inspections are performed to ensure employees are not exposed to serious safety hazards.  Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.20, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1012351, citation number 1, item number 1a, and was affirmed as a final order on May 6, 2015, with respect to a workplace located at Toledo, Ohio.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Dec 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2): The employer did not instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or injury.  A. The employer does not instruct employees to recognize and avoid unsafe conditions. The violation was most recently observed at 8454 Willow Glen Ct., Holland, Ohio, where employees were not trained to recognize and avoid hazards commonly seen in the roofing industry. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure employees are trained to recognize and avoid unsafe conditions.   Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.21, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1012351, citation number 1, item number 1b, and was affirmed as a final order on May 6, 2015, with respect to a workplace located at Toledo, Ohio.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Dec 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $8,800 · Current $8,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Employees are not provided with eye and face protection equipment when machines or operations present potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents.    A. The employer does not ensure employees are provided with proper eye protection while operating pneumatic nail guns to fasten asphalt shingles. The violation was most recently observed at 8454 Willow Glen Ct., Holland, Ohio, where employees are exposed to potential flying object hazards while operating pneumatic nail guns. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure employees exposed to this hazard are provided with and utilize an adequate form of eye protection.    Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.102, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1079535, citation number 2, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on May 6, 2015, with respect to a workplace located at Toledo, Ohio.

Issued

Dec 21, 2015

Abate by

Dec 31, 2015

Penalty

Initial $15,400 · Current $15,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure.    A. The employer does not require the use of any form of fall protection during roofing work. The violation was most recently observed at at 8454 Willow Glen Ct., Holland, Ohio, where employees were not protected from a 9.50 foot fall to the ground below. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure that its employees performing roofing work are protected from falls, and no employees are allowed onto a roof more than 6 feet high without adequate fall protection.  Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.501, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1012351, citation number 2, item number 3, and was affirmed as a final order on May 6, 2015, with respect to a workplace located at Toledo, Ohio.