Firm Fined for Mismanagement of Industrial Trucks
The bulk of the proposed total penalty involves two repeat violations for failing to provide proper load backrest extensions and to take trucks with safety defects out of service, which together carry a potential fine of $50,000.
OSHA has cited Elk Grove, Ill.-based Ceva Freight LLC, a logistics and freight management solutions company for national and multinational companies, and proposed $64,000 in penalties for alleged serious, repeat, and other-than-serious violations of workplace safety standards. Following a January 2010 inspection, OSHA cited the company with two serious violations and proposed a $10,000 penalty for not ensuring industrial trucks were properly inspected before use and for failing to provide legible name plates on the trucks. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.
The company also received two alleged repeat violations and a proposed $50,000 penalty for failing to provide proper load backrest extensions and to take trucks with safety defects out of service. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously was cited for the same or similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facilities in federal enforcement states within the last three years.
Additionally, the company has been cited with two other-than-serious violations carrying a proposed $4,000 penalty for failing to record injury and illness on OSHA 300 forms and to provide those forms to OSHA when requested. "Employees that work with and around powered industrial trucks face serious injury or even death if proper OSHA safety regulations are not followed," said OSHA Area Director Diane Turek in Des Plaines, Ill. "Those who ignore these safety regulations are inviting tragedy into the lives of their workers."
The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the case at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.