New Guidance on Post-Accident Drug-Testing and Safety Incentive Programs: How to Comply with OSHA’s ‘Reasonable’ Reporting and Anti-Retaliation Provisions
Live Webinar: Tuesday, April 11, 2017
1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern/10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific
Safety and HR managers now have good reason to be concerned about whether their post-accident drug testing and alcohol testing programs, as well as their safety incentive programs, comply with OSHA’s requirements.
In May 2016, OSHA published a final rule that updated requirements for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses, which also included a new provision that explicitly addressed retaliation for reporting incidents. Months later, OSHA released a memo providing guidance on how to comply with the various requirements found in the final rule. The memo specifically addresses an employer’s obligation to have reasonable procedures in place for employees to report injuries and illnesses and the issue of retaliation for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses.
The anti-retaliation section, which is one of the most important for safety managers to understand, describes what OSHA will consider as a violation when looking at the overall reporting program—especially in determining if there is a potential for retaliation against employees who report incidents relative to the post-incident drug and alcohol testing program and incentive programs (for example, withholding a benefit—such as a cash prize drawing or other substantial award—simply because of a reported injury or illness).
Join us on April 11 when seasoned safety lawyer Nickole Winnett will explain the impact the final rule has on your compliance obligations concerning post-incident drug and alcohol testing and incentive programs—and will help you understand when you could be at risk for violating the anti-retaliation provision of the rule, according to OSHA’s recent memo.
- The key parts OSHA’s recently released memorandum addresses concerning:
- Incentive programs
- Post-incident drug and alcohol testing expectations relative to your injury and illness reporting process
- What recent OSHA violation activity relative to reporting and recording injuries and illnesses signals
- Tips for reviewing whether your reporting and recordkeeping program is compliant and up to-date-considering with new developments concerning post-incident drug and alcohol testing and safety incentives
- How to assess your existing recordkeeping and reporting components to ensure that they are fully compliant with OSHA interpretations and directives
About Your Presenter
Nickole Winnett, Esq.
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Nickole Winnett is a principal in the Washington, D.C. Region Office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the Workplace Safety and Health practice group and Employment Litigation practice group. She is co-author of Jackson Lewis’ OSHA Law Blog and is an avid speaker and writer on employment law and safety and health matters.
Ms. Winnett advises clients regarding workplace safety and health matters, and represents employers on litigation, administrative and rulemaking matters before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. She routinely provides OSHA inspection and safety and health compliance counseling to all types of employers. She has reviewed and drafted disaster response and business continuity plans on behalf of clients to ensure that they meet OSHA requirements. She also represents employers during investigations and litigation arising under numerous whistleblower provisions and employment statutes.
Prior to coming to Jackson Lewis, Ms. Winnett worked at the U.S. Department of Labor as an attorney in a variety of employment matters, including litigation related to safety and health matters on behalf of OSHA, as well as wage and hour matters under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Davis Bacon Act on behalf of the Wage and Hour Division. She also represented U.S. Department of Labor management officials in cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In addition, she served as Special Assistant to Solicitor of Labor, Ms. M. Patricia Smith.