OLYMPIA – A 2003 initiative that repealed the state’s workplace ergonomics rules doesn’t mean the state can’t protect workers under existing state law, Washington’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In an 8-1 ruling, the court said Initiative 841 only repealed the specific ergonomics rules put forth by the Department of Labor &Industries in 2000, and that prior to those rules, the state addressed ergonomics-related hazards under the general duty clause of Washington’s Industrial Safety and Health Act.
“Nothing in I-841 suggests that L&I is stripped of its general regulatory authority to address serious or deadly ergonomics-related workplace hazards” under state law, Justice Tom Chambers, writing for the majority, said in the ruling.
The high court threw out a Pierce County trial court’s order quashing L&I’s attempt to enforce a subpoena against SuperValu Holdings Inc., a company that distributes groceries and products to independent grocery stores throughout the Northwest. The case was returned to the lower court.
Justice Jim Johnson recused himself from the case and Justice pro-tem Christine Quinn-Brintnall joined the majority.
In his dissent, Justice Richard Sanders said the majority undermined the intent of the voters.
“The voters determined it was ergonomics, and not the general duty clause, that was ‘unproven,’ ” he wrote.
L&I received a complaint in December 2003 from an employee at SuperValu’s Tacoma distribution center concerning an alleged injury from stepping on pallets.
L&I contacted the company and asked for a report on whether any hazards existed at the site. After a state officer inspected the warehouse, L&I requested additional material, and SuperValu objected.
In April 2004, L&I issued a subpoena for SuperValu to provide written information on the company’s ergonomics program or any program to prevent musculoskeletal disorders, injuries, or illness.
SuperValu argued the voters’ intent in I-841 was to completely prohibit L&I from performing inspections and issuing citations with regard to any musculoskeletal injury related to an ergonomics hazard.
The high court ruled that was not the case.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
