Health Medical Homework Help

I don’t understand this Health & Medical question and need help to study.

You oversee compliance with workplace safety and health laws for Rossetti Industries, a corporation that produces bacteria for use in laboratory experiments.  Rossetti Industries owns and operates a laboratory in Idaho.

Five weeks ago, a worker at the Idaho laboratory, Jason Barrows, accidentally knocked over a beaker containing fluid located on a pedestal near a doorway in the laboratory.  The beaker had no insignia, but other workers informed him that fluid within the beaker contained potentially dangerous bacteria.  Mr. Barrows complained to his supervisor that he was not informed that the beaker was hazardous and that its placement made it prone to being knocked over.

The supervisor dithered, unsure how to proceed.  The fluid within the beaker at issue contained the bacteria Acetivibrio-Beta, a bacterium strain recently developed by Rossetti Industries that did not exist in nature.  He was unaware of what hazard, if any, the bacteria posed to humans or whether it fell within the ambit of 29 CFR 1910.1030, concerning bloodborne pathogens.  He also was reticent to move the beaker at issue because that spot received the most sunlight of any in the laboratory, which greatly aided the reproduction of the algae the bacteria used as a food supply.  Relocating the beaker, therefore, would require some production processes to be reconfigured.  Moreover, though the beaker was located near a door, in the supervisor’s opinion, the doorway was not obstructed.

Mr. Barrows, unsatisfied at the supervisor’s response to his concerns, requested that OSHA investigate the laboratory.  During the investigation, he accompanied the OSHA inspectors around the premises and pointed out the safety hazards he perceived.  As he was doing so, he maintained a loud and disrespectful diatribe against his supervisor, claiming in disparaging fashion that, if the supervisor was competent, he would know the toxicology of all the bacteria at the lab.  Several coworkers overheard Mr. Barrows’s comments and reported them to the supervisor.  The following day, the supervisor confronted Mr. Barrows.  When Mr. Barrows repeated his insulting comments, the supervisor terminated him ostensibly on grounds of insubordination.  OSHA eventually cited Rossetti Industries because (A) the beaker constituted a hazard and Rossetti Industries did not take the requisite precautions with it; and (B) the beaker’s placement illegally obstructed the doorway.

Discussion Points

• How could the supervisor (or someone else at Rossetti Industries) have resolved his questions about the toxicity of the bacterium at issue and the propriety of the placement of the beaker and pedestal, both of which are questions unlikely to have been raised by any other party? Discuss the process by which one could obtain OSHA’s answers to these questions.
• Suppose the supervisor obtained an OSHA opinion letter indicating that (A) the bacterium at issue was not a hazard under 29 CFR 1910.1030 or any other OSHA standard; and (B) the placement of the beaker and pedestal was permissible. What effect, if any, would the issuance of this opinion letter have on the outcome of the OSHA investigation of the premises described in the fact pattern?
• Suppose Mr. Barrows alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for lodging his complaint with OSHA.
  • Detail the steps OSHA will take in investigating this complaint and making an assessment of its validity.
  • How do you think OSHA will rule on this complaint?
• Suppose that, prior to the OSHA investigation of the premises, the supervisor had ordered laboratory worker Ray Pierce to move the beaker to a location far from any doorway. Suppose also that Mr. Pierce neglected to do so before the OSHA investigation.  How do you think these facts would have affected the OSHA investigation here?