Protecting Workers from Heat Illness

Summer is upon us. As the temperatures rise, it is important to remember that employees must be protected from heat illness. Employers must protect their outdoor workers from heat illness and to encourage their workers to take preventative cool-down breaks in the shade and encouraging workers to drink water frequently. This involves employers closely monitoring their workers for signs of heat illness.

California's heat illness prevention regulation requires employers with outdoor workers to take the following four steps to prevent heat illness:

(1) Plan: develop and implement an effective written heat illness prevention plan that includes emergency response procedures.

(2) Training: train all employees and supervisors on heat illness prevention.

(3) Water: provide drinking water that is fresh, pure, suitably cool and free of charge so that each worker can drink at least 1 quart per hour, and encourage workers to do so.

(4) Shade: provide shade when workers request it and when temperatures exceed 80 degrees. Encourage workers to take a cool-down rest in the shade for at least five minutes. They should not wait until they feel sick to cool down.

Please contact us to learn more. As experienced labor lawyers, we can help.

- Eric A. Boyajian, Esq., Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC. www.loeab.com

Comments

Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes

In a recent case, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have to reimburse its employees for requiring them to buy and wear slip-resistant shoes. To avoid slip-and-fall accidents, BJ’s adopted a safety policy that required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, closed-toed shoes. The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoe. The policy also did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work. Because the employees were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing these shoes, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2014, seeking reimbursement for such costs under California Labor Code section 2802. California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her...

Joint Employers: The Employer and the Temp Agency

In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc ., plaintiff Elvia Jimenez was hired through a temp agency to work for a manufacturing company, U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. (USCM). Jimenez was ultimately fired by USCM, and she filed a wrongful termination case against USCM. At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant soley because the jury believed that USCM was not Jimenez' employer. This decision was based on the defense argument that the temp agency had relatively more control over Jimenez than did USCM. The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the decision and the stage is set for a new trial. The Court of Appeal ruled that USCM was Jimenez' employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Jimenez was, in almost all respects, treated like an employee of the USCM, except that the USCM did not hire her, pay her, provide her benefits, or track her time. The temp agency did those things. But the Court of Appeal held that under F...

US Supreme Court: Employers Can Require Workers to Accept Individual Arbitration Agreements

Should employers be allowed to insist that disputes be handled in one-on-one arbitration, or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions? This issue was raised in the case titled Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (together with other cases which raised the same issue: Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al.). The workers' argument was that such arbitration agreements violate employees' rights to act in concert and violates the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act). The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 today that companies may require workers to accept individual arbitration for wage and other workplace disputes rather than banding together in collective actions. US Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch wrote that as a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable, but as a matter of law, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration a...

Barrister Boyajian's Blog

Search This Blog