MILWAUKEE, WI —
OSHA Inspection: JM CONSTRUCTION
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of JM CONSTRUCTION in 1200 W. COLLEGE AVE., MILWAUKEE, WI 53221 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 341946366.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- JM CONSTRUCTION
- Site address
- 1200 W. COLLEGE AVE.
- City
- MILWAUKEE
- State
- WI
- ZIP
- 53221
- Mailing
- 7106 RIDGEBROOK DRIVE, FORT MILL, SC 29715
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- 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
- 238160
- Employees
- 12
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
7 citations on file for this inspection.
1903.19 D01
- Issued
- Mar 15, 2017
- Abate by
- Apr 10, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $406 · Current $406
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer did not submit to the Agency documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required. (a) The employer failed to provide documentation to the Agency demonstrating that abatement is completed for serious violations that were issued by the Agency.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (O) $406
1926.20 B01
- Issued
- Jan 18, 2017
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,070 · Current $5,070
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1): The employer did not initiate and maintain such programs as may be necessary to comply with this part. (a) The employer did not ensure a program was implemented that covered safety information such as, but not limited to, fall hazards, electrical hazards and struck-by hazards.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $5070
1926.20 B02
- Issued
- Jan 18, 2017
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s): (a) The employer did not ensure a safety program was maintained that required frequent and regular inspections. Employees were exposed to multiple fall hazards on the day of the inspection.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $0
1926.20 B04
- Issued
- Jan 18, 2017
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,070 · Current $5,070
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(4): The employer failed to permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to operate equipment and machinery: (a) The employer did not ensure that persons who operated an aerial lift were trained in the operation and/or the use of fall protection systems.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $5070
1926.453 B02 V
- Issued
- Jan 18, 2017
- Abate by
- Jan 24, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,070 · Current $5,070
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(v): A body belt was not worn and/or a lanyard was not attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift: Note: As of January 1, 1998, subpart M of this part (1926.502(d)) provides that body belts are not acceptable as part of a personal fall arrest system. The use of a body belt in a tethering system or in a restraint system is acceptable and is regulated. (a) On the northern side of the pool building, the employer did not ensure that employees were using fall protection when conducting work from the work platform of an aerial lift. (b) On the southern side of the pool building, the employer did not ensure that employees were using fall protection when conducting work from the work platform of an aerial lift.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $5070
1926.501 B01
- Issued
- Jan 18, 2017
- Abate by
- Jan 24, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,070 · Current $5,070
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems. (a) The employer did not ensure that employees were using fall protection when conducting carpentry and remodeling work on a residential building.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $5070
1926.503 A01
- Issued
- Jan 18, 2017
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $5,070 · Current $5,070
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards: (a) The employer did not ensure that employees were trained in recognizing fall hazards and implementing fall protection.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $5070
More inspections at JM Construction
View JM Construction's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in WI
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 341946366.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.