Paper Mill Settles Lockout-Tagout Fatality Case after Years of Appeals

In January 2004, 38-year-old Mark Greenland, an employee of Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging Inc., died after being caught inside a paper cutter when another employee inadvertently started it up. A Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (WSDLI) investigation initially resulted in a proposed penalty of $203,100 and company citations for three willful violations and one "serious repeat" violation of lockout-tagout procedures. The company appealed.

Now a settlement agreement has been reached by WSDLI, Longview Fibre, and the Association of Western Pulp & Paper Workers Union, Local 153, ended the three-year appeals process. The settlement focuses on significant changes at the company, and a substantial commitment from the new owner and the union to work cooperatively to keep the workplace safe.

"This was a devastating event for the workers and the company, but we're gratified that the new owners and managers at Longview Fibre, in full cooperation with the union, are so dedicated to working with us to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again," said Steve Cant, WSDLI assistant director for the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

Longview Fibre COO Frank McShane said, "In addition to our mutual commitment to keep our employees safe, Longview Fibre and our union worked collaboratively to dedicate $50,000 from the company for an educational fund for Mark Greenland's children."

The terms of the agreement include:


  • WSDLI will modify the violations from "willful" and "serious repeat" to "serious," with a total penalty of $201,900.
  • Longview Fibre agrees to pay the penalties, abate the cited violations, and dismiss its appeal of another citation issued in January 2007.
  • The company agrees to establish a schedule for conducting comprehensive safety and health consultations, with the union fully involved.
  • The company will work toward acceptance into the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), a WSDLI program for achieving excellence in workplace safety and health.
  • WSDLI will not schedule the company for inspection for one year, although inspections may by initiated by complaints, injuries, or a death.

"With all the uncertainty of working for new owners and management, one thing has become clear--there's a new attitude and commitment toward safety," said Roger Fisher, president of the union local. "The union is grateful for the change."

 

Share this Page


Comments

Fri, Dec 3, 2010

Yes LFPPI has proceeded with implementing a schedule for safety consultations but has anyone followed up to see how they act upon the safety issues found during these consultations? My husband has worked at the LFPPI Yakima facility for 15+_ years and is constantly complaining to upper mgmt about safety issues yet nothing ever gets fixed. Soon there will be a death or catastrophic injury at this facility due to long works hours and non maintained equipment. When this happens, I hope that Brookfield Asset Mgmt, that owns LFPPI, has to close their doors.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Follow Us

OH&S is on Twitter.

Join OH&S Magazine on SafetyCommunity!
Join us on SafetyCommunity!

Upcoming Webinars

2/29: GHS will happen…are you ready?
We invite you to attend this webinar to see how GHS is being used today in several workplaces to enhance worker comprehension and safety.

3/14: 10 Webinar Best Practices. Step-by-step guide to executing a winning webinar
By attending this webinar about webinars, you will learn the what, why and how’s of this exciting, collaborative marketing tool.

Spotlight

For February, OH&S puts the spotlight on:

Poll

OSHA Region 6 Administrator John Hermanson says the agency assessed the maximum statutory fines, a total of $21,500 for four alleged serious violations, against a small Oklahoma grain company in connection with amputation injuries suffered by two teenage workers. Does this case demonstrate the need to increase the amounts OSHA can issue in penalties?