Occupational Safety and Health in Colorado
| Publication year | 1978 |
| Pages | 1134 |
| Citation | Vol. 7 No. 7 Pg. 1134 |
1978, July, Pg. 1134. Occupational Safety and Health in Colorado
John J. Morris, Denver, is an Administrative Law Judge of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
The Colorado General Assembly budget for fiscal year 1978-1979 failed to fund the state program for occupational safety and health.(fn1) This action effectively terminates the Colorado Occupational Safety and Health program (COSH). A high-ranking federal official, Henry C. Mahlman, Associate Regional Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor, states the federal government will "almost immediately" reassert its authority in Colorado. Thus, the purpose of the article is to acquaint the practicing attorney with a broad overview of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970.(fn2)
Senator Harrison Williams, Jr., has described the Act as the most significant piece of legislation affecting the American labor relations scene today. Senator Jacob Javits has stated that the legislation marks "the greatest single contribution to the health and welfare of American workers that has yet been made by Congress."(fn3) Congressman Joseph M. Goydas observed: "It is a fact that in the States today there are 1,600 occupational health and safety inspectors and 2,800 game wardens. Elk and deer are better protected than working men and women."(fn4) No doubt the forty workers who die each day and the six thousand who are injured each twenty-four hour shift helped fashion the Congressional directive that:
The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its power to regulate commerce among the several states and with foreign nations, and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve human resources.(fn5)
Section 652 defines an employer as a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees.(fn6) Further, commerce means "trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several states, or between a state and any place outside thereof, or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States (other than the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands), or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof."(fn7)
The Supreme Court, when previously considering the issue of coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, stated that there is no single concept of interstate commerce which can be applied to every federal statute regulating commerce.(fn8) In this Act, Congress did not rely on the common test of "engaging in interstate commerce," but sought a broader scope under its power to regulate commerce among the several states. The U.S. Courts of Appeals that have considered this issue have concluded that it was the intent of Congress in passing the Act to exercise fully its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause.(fn9) Activities, which have a minimal effect on commerce, are still subject to regulation if similar activities taken as a whole, might have an impact.(fn10)
In Brennan v. OSAHRC & John J. Gordon Company, Inc.,(fn11) Judge Friendly stated:
Throughout the legislative history of the Act, the objective was repeatedly stated to be to make maximum use of the commerce power so that, as was almost as often said, states and employers insisting on a high degree of safety should not be disadvantaged by the failure of others to do so.
The keystone of the federal legislation lies in the statutory mandate of § 654.(fn12) It reads:
(a) Each employer---Duties of employers and employees
To continue reading
Request your trial