November 05, 2013 - 1. The Additional Notice Plan is APPROVED, contingent upon sending the following groups either a paper or electronic copy of the Dual Notice.
2. The Dual Notice is APPROVED, provided that the Agency completes the blanks contained in the Notice of Hearing section.
October 31, 2013 - The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Appellant committed a violation of Minn. Stat. § 84D.10, subd. 4(b), and, that a civil penalty of $100 is an applicable penalty under Minn. Stat. § 84D.13, subd. 5(a)(6). Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge respectfully recommends that the Commissioner AFFIRM the citation and fine.
October 31, 2013 - THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that this matter will be scheduled for a telephone prehearing conference and an evidentiary hearing to be held at the Office of Administrative Hearings, 600 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.
October 31, 2013 - (1) The Complaint alleges prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. § 211A.02 in claim #2 and claim #5. These claims will proceed to a probable cause hearing;
(2) All of the other claims alleged in the Complaint are DISMISSED;
(3) This matter is scheduled for a probable cause hearing on the alleged violations of Minn. Stat. § 211A.02, to be held by telephone before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, November 4, 2013. The hearing will be held by call-in telephone conference.
October 25, 2013 - 1. According to Minn. Stat. § 62U.06, subd. 3, the Department has the statutory authority to adopt these proposed amendments to rules using the expedited rulemaking process.
2. The proposed amendments to rules were adopted in compliance with the procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 14, and Minnesota Rules, chapter 1400.
3. The proposed amended rule parts are APPROVED.
October 22, 2013 - The Commissioner established that Gateway employees violated Minn. R. 5207.1100, subp. 2, on January 4, 2012, by working on an elevated platform supported by an all-terrain forklift without using fall protection devices, as required by the state and federal Occupational Safety and Health standards. A violation of fall protection standards creates a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result. Gateway, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violation. Therefore, the violation of Minn. R. 5207.1100, subp. 2, is correctly classified as a serious violation.
Gateway has failed to establish the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. The Commissioner stipulates that Gateway had established work rules which required the use of fall protection when working on an elevated lift and that it adequately communicated those rules to its employees. However, Gateway failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it took steps to discover incidents of noncompliance or that it effectively enforced fall protection rules whenever employees transgressed them. As a result, the citation issued for the violation of Minn. R. 5207.1100, subp. 2, is AFFIRMED.
In addition, the penalty imposed for this offense, which is 60 percent of the maximum penalty allowed by law for a serious violation, is reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, the penalty of $2,800 is AFFIRMED.