ELR Citation: ELR 20429
No(s). 65588 (Ill. Feb 2, 1989)

The court holds that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) does not preempt state criminal prosecution of conduct related to an employer's failure to maintain a safe work environment. Corporate officers of a wire manufacturing company were indicted for aggravated battery, reckless conduct, and conspiracy associated with injuries of 42 employees from harmful exposure to poisonous substances used in the company's manufacturing processes. The trial court dismissed the charges, holding that the OSH Act preempts state prosecution of employers for conduct governed by federal workplace safety standards unless the state has a federally approved plan under §18 of the OSH Act for regulating workplace safety and health. The court holds that §18 does not explicitly preempt enforcement of state criminal laws to punish an employer's conduct in failing to provide a safe workplace. Section 18 nowhere states or suggests that enforcement of state criminal law as to federally regulated workplace matters is preempted unless federal approval of a state plan is obtained. Furthermore, no basis exists for concluding that Congress intended to preempt the enforcement of state criminal laws in the workplace because the state criminal laws implicitly enforce occupational safety and health standards. State criminal laws do not set any new standards for workplace safety but rather seek to impose an additional sanction for an employer's culpable conduct. Additionally, the court concludes that Congress did not intend that OSH Act penalties would be the only sanctions available for wrongful conduct that threatens or results in serious physical injury or death to workers. The legislative history suggests that Congress considered the interaction between OSH Act regulations and other common and statutory law only with respect to worker's compensation. Providing for appropriate criminal sanctions in cases of egregious conduct causing serious or fatal injuries to employees was not considered. The court next holds that the OSH Act does not preempt enforcement of state criminal laws simply because the conduct regulated under state criminal law overlaps with conduct subject to federal regulation. The court concludes that state prosecution of an employer's conduct in failing to maintain a safe workplace does not conflict with the administration of the OSH Act or its goals; instead it provides a forceful supplement to ensure that workers are more adequately protected and that egregious conduct is appropriately punished. Any contrary interpretation would impermissibly convert the OSH Act, which was enacted to create a safe work environment for the nation's workers, into a grant of immunity for employers against liability for serious injuries or deaths of employees. Finally, the court notes that its decision is consistent with the view of the governmental agency charged with enforcement of the OSH Act.

Counsel for Appellant
Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General
500 S. Second St., Springfield IL 62701
(217) 782-1090

Frank J. Parkerson, Glenn E. Carr, Jay C. Magnuson, Glenn C. Sechen, Ass't State Attorneys
2650 S. California Ave., Rm. 12B10, Chicago IL 60608
(312) 890-2700

Counsel for Appellees
George J. Cotsirilos, Robert M. Stephenson
Cotsirilos, Crowley, Stephenson, Tighe & Streicker, Ltd.
33 N. Dearborn St., Chicago IL 60602
(312) 263-0345

Patrick A. Tuite
105 W. Adams St., 31st Fl., Chicago IL 60603
(312) 641-1022

Harvey M.Silets
Silets & Martin, Ltd.
140 S. Dearborn St., 15th Fl., Chicago IL 60603
(312) 263-5800

William J. Martin
Martin & Breen
1010 Lake St., Ste. 604, Oak Park IL 60301-1106
(708) 848-2100