On March 5, 2007, the NAM joined with other business groups to urge a federal court to reject an attempt by the AFL-CIO to force OSHA to issue a new regulation that would require employers to pay for nearly all personal protective equipment (PPE) on the job. While many companies already pay for safety equipment, new OSHA rules would establish another regulatory and litigation labyrinth for those and other employers to navigate. OSHA has the authority to require safe working conditions, but our brief argues that the agency does not have the authority to issue an economic regulation that transfers costs and that interferes with collective bargaining. Who pays for safety equipment is irrelevant to whether the employer is providing a safe workplace.
In a related development, on March 6, Rep. Roybal-Allard (D-) introduced H.R. 1327, called the Protective Equipment for America’s Workers Act, which would require that OSHA issue essentially the 1999 version of a proposed rule within 30-days of enactment.
On March 14, the Secretary of Labor told the court that she would publish a final PPE payment rule in November 2007, and moved the court to hold the case in abeyance pending that action. The AFL-CIO promptly supported the Secretary's motion, and the Court agreed.
In our amicus brief, we argued that even if OSHA does have the authority to issue a regulation, it had the discretion to tackle much more significant safety issues on its regulatory agenda first. The proposed rule would have a serious negative impact on all employers.
On 11/15/07, OSHA published a final PPE payment rule, 29 CFR 1910.132, which requires employers to provide certain personal protective equipment at no cost to employees.