Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192 DOI 10.

1007/s10672-007-9044-0

The Employers Responsibility to Maintain a Safe and Healthful Work Environment: An Historical Review of Societal Expectations and Industrial Practices
John L. Henshaw & Shannon H. Gaffney & Amy K. Madl & Dennis J. Paustenbach

Published online: 23 June 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract As early as 1200 A.D., it has been common English law practice for a master to protect his/her servant. Throughout time, this practice has been tested and has evolved into our modern day obligation of the employer to assure the health and safety of his or her employees. This historical analysis reviews specific events that influenced the expectation that employers are responsible for workplace safety and health beginning before the Industrial Revolution and leading up to and through the implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the United States. This review is divided into three time periods covering the era of industrialization and early recognition of occupational hazards (late 1800s1949), the era of voluntary industrial standards and controls (19501969), and the modern era of federal regulation (1970present). Also outlined are the several approaches the law has taken to addressing employer responsibility shifting from fault-based injury compensation to disease-specific prevention strategies, and then to a no-fault workmens compensation system, and finally to a mandatory minimumrequirement national legislation. Furthermore, the growth of the occupational safety and health profession is addressed as these systems acted as drivers to promote employer responsibility, and many employers hired health and safety professionals to ensure that they were upholding their responsibility to their employees. Key words industrial hygiene . safety . occupational health

J. L. Henshaw Henshaw & Associates, 461 Lighthouse Way, Sanibel, FL 33957, USA e-mail: John.Henshaw@Comcast.net S. H. Gaffney (*) : A. K. Madl : D. J. Paustenbach ChemRisk, Inc., 25 Jessie St., Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA e-mail: sgaffney@chemrisk.com A. K. Madl e-mail: amadl@chemrisk.com D. J. Paustenbach e-mail: dpaustenbach@chemrisk.com

174

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

Introduction Today, occupational health and safety laws in this country and many other parts of the world clearly hold the employer responsible for protecting the health and safety of their workers. In the United States, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), the most significant workplace safety and health law to date, there is a clear expectation that the employer is responsible for maintaining a safe and healthful work environment for employees. However, the expectation that the employer is responsible has been in place long before the twentieth century. Because the employer controlled the ways and means by which work is accomplished, society, through various measures and social standards, has held employers accountable for protecting workers against foreseeable workplace hazards. While this review is not a treatise on workmen compensation law, the historical overview does examine the evolution of the legal construct recognizing the employer s responsibility to maintain a safe and healthful work environment for its employees. Under the English system, common law was to provide damages for injured employees based on employer negligence and that of a fellow servant. There was a shift later towards injury prevention as early industry-specific safety and health laws were established aimed at dealing with recognized problems in specific industries. Around the same time or shortly thereafter, workmens compensation statutes were initiated that shifted from the fault-based system for compensation towards a no fault system. Finally, with the passage of the OSH Act, came a mandatory uniform-minimum national legislation approach to employer responsibility. This historical analysis reviews specific events that influenced the expectation that employers are responsible for workplace safety and health beginning before the Industrial Revolution and leading up to and through the passage of the OSH Act of 1970 in the United States. The review is divided into three time periods. The first period, late 1800s to 1949, represents the era of industrialization and early recognition of occupational hazards. The second period is 1950 to 1969, and it represents the era of voluntary industrial standards and controls. The third period, from 1970 to the present represents the modern era of federal regulation.

Early History The principle that employers should be held responsible for the safety and well-being of their employees was established as early as 1200 A.D. in England. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, employers and employees often worked in small family units fostering close relationships between the overseer and the subordinate. As with a parent, the master, under English common law, was responsible for the servants safety and well being. Originating from the law of King Henry I (10681135), masters were responsible and liable for loss of life and injury of a servant that occurred as a result of the negligence of the master regardless of whether the master was knowledgeable (Rabinowitz 2002). In the 1700s, through the efforts of Lord Holt, the common law practice of holding the employer responsible expanded to include negligence of a fellow servant or co-worker (Larson and Larson 2006). The underlying principle behind these expectations was that masters often had first-hand knowledge of the tasks of the servant and, therefore, the hazards and risks associated with their actions. Because the employers had this knowledge about the hazards, they were expected do what was necessary to assure employees avoided foreseeable injury or illness. In the 1800s, there were several legal developments that diluted employer liability, effectively making it more difficult for the employee to recover damages. The most notable was the Priestly case in England in 1837, when a butcher was not held liable for injuries

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

175

sustained by a servant due to the negligence of another servant. In addition, it was established that a servant or worker assumes some level of risk when accepting a job, thereby increasing the worker s responsibility to protect themselves and reducing that of the employers. Furthermore, during this time period, the contributory negligence of the injured servant was taken into account when assessing employer responsibility (Larson and Larson 2006). However, over time, the courts began overturning these employer defenses and recognized that the practice established by the Priestly Rule was not appropriate for the modern industrial work environment (Rabinowitz 2002).

Late 1800s to 1949: Industrialization and Early Recognition of Occupational Hazards From the Industrial Revolution to present day, workplaces have become more complex. As large factories replaced smaller family businesses and the intimate relationship between employer and his or her few employees diminished, so did the employer s knowledge of the workplace. Workers migrated to urban settings where large factories were more prevalent. With mechanization and the increasing size of industry, workplace conditions became more crowded and complicated. The increased mechanization in these workplaces not only increased the number of employees needed to maintain the machines at a site, but also created new and unfamiliar workplace conditions and hazards. Industrial accidents were common as the human and mechanical interface was not one that was always well managed. In addition to the rapid growth of factories, American industrialization could not have occurred without the railroads. In the late 1800s, the installation and utilization of railroads allowed for rapid westward and industrial expansion. However, their toll on human life was enormous. During this period, it has been estimated that a man was killed for each mile of track laid (Meyer 1987b). President Benjamin Harrison referred to the dangers of railroad workers in his address to Congress in 1889 by stating: During the year ending June 30, 1888, over 2,000 railroad employees were killed in service and more than 20,000 injured...It is a reproach to our civilization that any class of American workmen, should in the pursuit of a necessary and useful vocation, be subjected to a peril of life and limb as great as that of a soldier in time of war (Harrison 1889). By 1907, the death toll of railroad workers was 4,353 and in the same year, the Allegheny County Pennsylvania study, commonly known as the Pittsburgh Survey, found railroad brakeman died at a rate of a one per week (Meyer 1987b). As occupational injuries and illnesses climbed and several notable workplace tragedies occurred, so did the public concern over workplace health and safety. This caused a steady increase in hazard recognition and workplace controls, which then led to more stringent requirements for employers to protect employees. The obvious need for reasonable economic compensation when a worker became injured and unable to support his or her family became more apparent. The American public believed that since the employer had the ways and means to direct and control the workplace, the employer also had the responsibility to understand these new hazards and protect its employees. The basis for workmens compensation systems evolved from the master covering all servant expenses; to workers having to prove employer negligence in order to receive compensation; to the current no-fault worker s compensation system that employers finance. The costs associated with compensating workers and the expectation of the workers, local governments, public and peers placed increasing pressure on the employer to strive for safer workplaces. Operating under the common law expectation that employers are responsible for protecting their workers, legislation and regulations at various levels in both the United States and England began to appear as early as the nineteenth century. The basis for these

176

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

statutes has always been that the employer is in the best position to recognize known hazards of the job, control them to a reasonable extent and assure employees are provided appropriate safeguards to protect them from those hazards. These regulations memorialize the historical belief that employers are responsible for the health and safety of their employees on the job and ensure that employers are doing all they can to protect their employees. Early State Legislative Response Massachusetts became the first state to establish a bureau of labor statistics in 1869 and published, through the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, their first survey of working conditions in 1870. The bureau addressed safety issues, as well as the health of women and children and, in particular, the inhalation of dust and lint from textile production. Industrial injury and illness statistics brought attention to the fact that workplace injuries and illnesses were apparently on the rise. The public, organized labor, and state legislators began to move towards enacting workplace safety and health legislation holding employers accountable for protecting their employees (MacLaury 2005). In 1877, Massachusetts became the first state to pass a factory safety and health law. The law was based to a large extent on Great Britains factory legislation. An inspection force was created that gave inspectors the authority to require the employer to install safety and health measures, such as machine guarding or exhaust ventilation. Within 13 years, 21 states had followed suit, and passed similar factory safety and health laws (MacLaury 2005). Ohio was the first state in 1900 to pass a law placing a duty of general safety on the employer for workers operating specific equipment (Rabinowitz 2002). By 1920, almost all states had some form of limited workplace safety law in place (MacLaury 2005). The public outcry over workplace safety and employer responsibility was raised in 1911, when a ten-story building in New York caught fire killing 146 young women of the Triangle Shirtwaist. Working under over-crowded and poorly supervised conditions, locked exit doors, inadequate fire exits, and a lack of sprinklers were to blame for the deaths of the garment workers, many of whom died while trying to escape by jumping from the ninth floor windows. A grand jury indicted the Triangle Shirtwaist owners on charges of manslaughter and after a very public and emotional trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty because it could not be proven that the Company owners knew the doors were locked (Linder 2002). This event created immediate public outrage and many serious safety and health problems confronting factory workers were identified. The fire helped pave the way for more comprehensive legislation both at the state and local level. These were, as mentioned previously, centered on the established doctrine that the employer controls the work and conditions of the workplace and is, therefore, responsible for the safety and health of his or her employees (with the qualification that the employer must know the hazard exists). During this time period, the traditional employer oversight role became much more difficult for the unprepared employer and the state workplace laws lacked the specificity and enforcement strength to address these increasing hazards. As incident after incident reached the publics eye and reports of workplace injuries and illnesses soared, it became clear the state health and safety laws were not living up to the publics expectations of workplace safety and health and accident prevention (MacLaury 2005). Early Federal Responses In 1913, the US Department of Labor was created to address the protection of the rapidly growing labor force in the United States. One member of the Labor Commission in New

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

177

York that investigated the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was Frances Perkins who, in 1933, became the US Secretary of Labor under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. One of the first true tests of the Labor Department was dealing with the Hawks Nest Incident beginning in 1930. This 3-year project involved the construction of the Hawks Nest Tunnel near Gauley Bridge, West Virginia as part of a hydroelectric project. The exact death toll is not known but most accounts report that approximately 500 workers died and over 1,500 workers became ill due to silica exposure (No Author 1936; US House of Representatives 1936). Most were African American migrant laborers. Broadcast as front page news and carried in such widely read news-journals as Time, Newsweek, The Nation, and Science, the Gauley Bridge story spread to millions of Americans and contained details regarding the hazards of silica dust exposures and appropriate methods of protection (Lucas and Paxton 2005). By the mid 1930s, silicosis and workmens compensation were getting national attention. Frances Perkins was confronted with issues of inadequate worker compensation, hazard recognition, and workplace controls and standards. In February 1936, she called together representatives from labor, industry, the public, insurance carriers and prominent professionals from the legal, medical and engineering communities to determine if further study on silicosis and control measures were necessary. Based upon their recommendation, a much larger group of over 200 representatives met with the Secretary on April 14, 1936 in Washington, DC, which was known as the National Silicosis Conference (National Silicosis Conference 1937). From this organizational meeting, four technical committees were appointed to further address the medical controls, engineering controls, economic, legal, and insurance issues and regulatory and administrative issues surrounding silica and silicosis. A fifth committee referred to as the correlating committee was also appointed by the Secretary. This committee was chaired by the managing director of the National Safety Council (NSC 1947) and consisted of the four committee chairs and an advisor from labor and mining. The committees met many times and reported their findings and recommendations at the second meeting of the National Silicosis Conference on February 2, 1937 (National Silicosis Conference 1938a, b, c, d). Employer responsibility was a significant part of the conference deliberations. The old English doctrine regarding the relationship between the master and servant was reflected in the National Silicosis Conference Report on Economic, Legal, and Insurance Phases, which stated, The decisions of the various jurisdictions are in accord in holding that a master must warn his servant of the conditions under which he is employed which are liable to engender disease, and furnish suitable protection from such danger, provided that the master is in a position to have greater knowledge of the danger than the servant...The risks assumed by the servant are only the ordinary risks of the employment. He does not assume the risk of hidden dangers which are, to the knowledge of the master, not apparent to him. (National Silicosis Conference 1938a). Workmens Compensation Laws The collection of occupational injury and illness statistics and notable tragic workplace incidents led President Theodore Roosevelt in his 1908 Presidential Address to conclude that the number of accidents which resulted in a fatality or disabling injury, is simply appalling. In a very few years it runs up a total far in excess of the aggregate of the dead and wounded in any major war (Meyer 1987b). His message and the public outrage over recent events led to a movement for workmens compensation, where injured or sickened workers would be compensated for their injuries and illnesses in hopes of securing a future for their family. Workmens compensation bills had already been passed in Germany in 1884 and Britain in 1897. Prior to the development of workmens compensation laws, the only way an injured worker could recover pay, benefits, and medical expenses was to hire a

178

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

lawyer and sue the employer for negligence and over come the three common-law defenses for the employer previously mentioned. As a result, the courts were overwhelmed, and if an employees suit was successful (which was rare), the process was very expensive and financial recovery often took years (Waters 1937; Johnstone 1948). In 1910, the Illinois Employers Liability Commission surveyed over 200 judges and lawyers, 1,200 employers, and 1,700 labor organizations and found that, of over 5,000 accidents with 506 fatalities, 40% of the families received nothing in the form of compensation and, those that did, received it after 3 years. It was estimated that of the money employers paid into insurance, only 25% of that money reached the injured worker or his or her family. Based upon a similar national survey, 88% of the families involved in a workplace injury claim received no compensation (Illinois Workers Compensation Commission 2005). The first attempt at a workers compensation law at the federal level was the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) passed in 1907. The Act was passed to protect and compensate railroad workers for on-the-job injuries. Compensation awarded under FELA was never intended to be automatic. Awards were only given if employees could prove the employer was legally negligent, at least in part, in causing the injury. Ultimately, workers rarely received compensation under FELA because, unlike compensation schemes based on a no-fault system, such as those being developed at the state level for other industries, railroad workers had a higher burden of proof to demonstrate negligence by the employer (Johnstone 1948). State legislatures across the country began to adopt new laws designed to address the common ineffective law suits and assure more timely and fair compensation regardless of who may be at fault. These workmens compensation bills guaranteed wages and health benefits to workers who were injured on the job, without requiring the employee to prove employer negligence in the courtroom (Johnstone 1948). Under this system, employers were still liable for occupational illnesses and injuries, but not necessarily at fault for being negligent. Employers paid premiums on a scheduled basis, which were then pooled and distributed to acceptable claims on a set payout schedule per type of injury. By 1948, all 48 states had enacted a workmens compensation law. However, the coverage varied widely among states, there was little or no Federal control or oversight. Some states chose to have a schedule system, where only certain jobs were covered by workmens compensation, while others passed an all-inclusive act where all employees were eligible. Workmens compensation laws were the first instance of no-fault legislation in this country (Johnstone 1948). While the goal of the workmens compensation system is to compensate for on-the-job injuries and illnesses, it is also intended to drive greater recognition among employers of their responsibility for workplace health and safety. The US Supreme Court in the case of Jamison v. Encarnacion (1930) recognized the intent of Congress by stating that FELA, is intended to stimulate carriers to greater diligence for the safety of their employees and of the persons and property of their patrons (1930). In 1945, the National Tuberculosis Association stated in their book entitled, Industry Tuberculosis Silicosis Compensation, that the most important reason for the first Wisconsin workmens compensation bill was not, as might be assumed, a reference to benefits to employees and dependents following accidents, but rather to provide a means of minimizing the number of accidents in industrial pursuits (Committee on Tuberculosis in Industry 1945). Paralleling this statement, the Committee on Tuberculosis in Industry continued, In this connection it is reasonable to expect that where compensation must be paid for every injury, employers will endeavor to reduce the number of accidents for the practical reason that fewer accidents must necessarily reduce the amount of compensation paid (Committee on Tuberculosis in Industry 1945). The incentive and expectation was clear; it was the employers responsibility to identify, recognize, evaluate, and control workplace hazards and provide the appropriate protection for his or her employees.

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

179

Employer Response Responsible employers recognized the common law practice and societys expectation of employer responsibility and, by and large, acted in a reasonable manner to protect their employees from injuries and illnesses. This made good business sense and was a moral obligation. Around this time, some employers began to acquire greater occupational safety and health expertise by hiring trained specialists in industrial hygiene, safety, medicine, chemistry, engineering, or other related fields to evaluate workplace conditions and institute appropriate controls to avoid or prevent workplace injuries or illnesses. Some leading organizations, such as insurance (i.e. Metropolitan Life Insurance), chemical companies (i.e. DuPont, Dow, Monsanto, etc.), and others formed medical, industrial hygiene and safety departments in the early to mid 1900s. Internal networks within these companies were established. As an example, General Motors in 1935 established a Central Medical Department under the direction of an occupational physician, Clarence Selby. Selby initiated an annual medical conference for the education of General Motors physicians on all matters of industrial medicine (A. D. C. 1959). Progressive companies were thereby building the management infrastructure to handle new workplace conditions and the laws and standards regulating them. Manufacturers, insurance companies, labor organizations, and local and federal governmental agencies began developing appropriate workplace standards and practices which continued to be refined as time passed. In 1918, several professional organizations made up of industry representatives joined together with the US Departments of War, Navy and Commerce to form the American Engineering Standards Committee (AESC), later known as the American Standards Association (ASA) and now, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). AESC was designed to serve as a third party organization to approve national consensus standards. They helped publish the first American Standard Safety Code in 1921 that was designed to protect the heads and eyes of industrial workers (ANSI 2005). In 1938, with representatives from industry, labor, and government, the US Department of Commerces National Bureau of Standards, published the American Standard Safety Code for the Protection of Heads, Eyes, and Respiratory Organs. This document, a more comprehensive version of the one published in 1921, was developed under the consensus rules of the American Standards Association, and also included inhalation hazards. This document clearly states that employers are responsible for providing personal protective equipment (PPE), including respiratory protection, to their employees in the presence of specific hazards that are described in the Code (National Bureau of Standards 1938). To keep abreast of issues facing the industry, many employers were members of specific trade associations, such as the American Foundrymens Society (AFS), or organizations such as the NSC. At the AFS annual meeting in Toronto in 1935, several papers were given discussing employer responsibilities. Dr. W. J. McConnell, the Assistant Medical Director and Director, Industrial Health Section of Metropolitan Life Insurance stated at the meeting: During recent years, the responsibility of the employer has steadily broadened, due chiefly to the fact that the capacity for control of health conditions in industry lies almost entirely in his hands. He also stated that, in respect to known hazards and controls, occupational diseases occur because of the failure to provide and maintain the necessary equipment to protect workers (McConnell 1935). The NSC, a not-for-profit safety organization established in 1913, which received financial support and technical information from labor, industry, and government was already reaching over six million workers by 1920 through its publications (Meyer 1987a). The NSC was one of the most effective organizations at that time for communicating hazards to employers and workers and what they might do to prevent occupational disease and injury. For example, in

180

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

1947, the NSC published a report on silicosis entitled, Health Practice Pamphlet No. 20 which stated, There are many agencies that must cooperate if silicosis is to be prevented. Certainly the employer is called on to do most of the work and to spend most of the money. But his work and money will never accomplish the maximum results unless the worker is willing to cooperate and carry his share of the responsibility for helping to control dust and for using the personal protective equipment...Any employer who has reason to believe that his workers are exposed to the hazard of breathing silica dust should make a survey of the working conditions...It should be borne in mind, of course, that the employer must comply with the laws, rules, and regulations that apply to his operations. Such requirements, however, are minimum not maximum requirements (National Safety Council 1947). Through these publications and others produced by labor organizations and professional societies, the message on who is responsible for workplace safety, and specifically, how to prevent silicosis was reaching employers and employees working with silica. Through organizations of which employers were members, the role of the employer remained evident; the employer controls the tasks of his or her employees and, therefore, has the responsibility to control the recognizable hazards associated with the duties of their employees. In regards to the appropriate hazard warning and the appropriate protective measure for the time, the employer was considered to be in the best position to understand and take the needed action to protect its employees. At that time and to this day, no regulatory agency, insurance company or other organization attempts to take on these responsibilities for the employer. This makes sense given that the modern enterprise must remain dynamic and innovative to incessantly enhance its value. In doing so, the enterprise must continuously improve the ways and means by which it protects its employees from hazards emanating from the workplace. Due to this obligation and the fact the employer dictates the ways and means by which work is done, the employer, with cooperation from the employee, must be responsible for understanding reasonably foreseeable hazards and providing appropriate safeguards. Professional Societies In 1938 and 1939, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) were established, respectively. According to Professor Warren A. Cook, a founding member of AIHA there were a estimated 300 industrial hygienists practicing nationwide (Clayton and Clayton 1994). Prior to the formation of these professional societies, industrial hygienists were part of the industrial hygiene section of the American Public Health Association, the American Chemical Society, the National Safety Council, and the American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers (Clayton and Clayton 1994). The membership of ACGIH, established originally as the National Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist, was historically made up of professionals from governmental organizations such as the US Public Health Service and state programs and academic institutions. Members of AIHA came from all sectors including industry, labor, academia, suppliers and government. The members of AIHA included those responsible for fulfilling the employer s responsibility of assessing and controlling workplace hazards and promoting hazard awareness. A similar professional society for safety professionals, American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), had been established in 1911 shortly after the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. In 1919, ASSE published its first publication, Safety Engineering. By 1921, ASSE membership had grown to 2,500 members (American Society of Safety Engineers 2006). This period saw the introduction of occupational exposure limits (OELs), which are essential tools for the practice of industrial hygiene. These OELs are critical in identifying

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

181

objectives for employers that, to the extent current knowledge permits, workers are properly protected and are not subjected to the adverse effects of exposures to chemical and physical agents found in the workplace. The first official list of OELs covering 33 substances was published by the US Bureau of Mines in 1921. However, this list was not kept up-to-date. ACGIH, being a society of mostly governmental and academic industrial hygienists, was the first professional organization to establish OELs in the United States. In 1941, the Threshold Limit Values for Substances Committee of ACGIH was formed (as a subcommittee to the technical standards committee) and charged with investigating, recommending, and annually reviewing exposure limits for chemicals in the workplace. In 1946, the committee adopted 148 exposure limits, calling them maximum allowable concentrations. These were later termed threshold limit values (TLVs) and the first publication of the documentation or evidence used to establish the TLVs was made available in 1962 (ACGIH 2004). A similar committee was also established in Germany in 1955, referred to as the MAK Commission, which also began publishing recommended OELs (Paustenbach and Langner 1986). At the end of this era, around 1950, industrial hygiene had become a more prominent professional discipline. There were 58 full and part-time industrial hygiene units in state and local governments operating in the United States. Their mission was to assess, advise, and recommend workplace controls to employers. Forty-four of these units were part of state health departments, two operated within a state labor department, and eight industrial hygiene units were part of local city or county health departments (Trasko 1949). Although they usually did not have compliance authority, they assessed specific workplaces and made recommendations as appropriate to those establishments using the OELs as guidelines. Early Federal Standards and Regulations In the later part of this era, federal safety and health guidelines and regulations had begun to take more specific form with respect to establishing workplace safety standards, setting minimum standards for PPE, and exposure guidelines for airborne chemicals. In 1923, the US Department of Labor published the Safety Code for the Protection of Industrial Workers in Foundries. This code outlined the appropriate PPE employers should provide to their employees (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 1923). In 1936, the Walsh Healy Public Contracts Act was passed, which used the governments contracting power to improve working conditions. Under this act, employers contracting with the federal government were held responsible for keeping a safe workplace by maintaining minimum health and safety standards, which included providing and training employees on the proper use of PPE when engineering controls are not feasible (Tobin 1952). These regulations represented the beginning of the federal governments effort to hold employers legally responsible for the health and safety of their employees. 19501969: Era of Significant Voluntary Controls and Health and Safety Professionalism before Federal Legislation Between 1950 and 1969, American industry expanded as never before. Millions of workers were involved in complex manufacturing facilities of all types. Along with this activity came a period of financial strength which helped elevate the societal expectations regarding the quality of the workplace. It had become clear during this time period that technology should not put the worker s health into jeopardy and through training, equipment and engineering controls, injuries and illnesses from foreseeable hazards could be avoided.

182

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

Professional industrial hygiene associations became more active, and OELs were adopted by major corporations as guidelines for themselves. Many large employers established and took advantage of either their own industrial hygiene staff, the industrial hygienists working for state agencies, or those employed by their insurance providers as they worked on a voluntarily basis to improve their facilitys safety and health programs (Cralley and Cralley 1985). Professional Growth The industrial hygiene profession and the desire to recognize and control workplace hazards were rapidly growing. More and more employers were engaged in the process of recognition, evaluation, and control of workplace hazards. A practical reference and teaching aid for those entering into the field of industrial hygienist was Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, by Frank A. Patty, first published in 1948. This text included subject matter related to reporting requirements, toxicology, sampling methods, safety, and PPE selection (Patty 1948; Clayton et al. 1958). In addition to self-training or on-the-job training in industrial hygiene, there were several universities in the United States with an accredited school of public health teaching industrial hygiene. Many of these institutionally trained industrial hygienists and other occupational health professionals went on to join companies staffing newly formed or expanding industrial hygiene and occupational health departments. During this period, there was a rapid growth of information about the effects of chemical and physical agents in the workplace and these newly assigned professionals were responsible for setting up more robust occupational health and safety programs to assure that, in light of this new information, their employees are properly protected. In order to do this, these professionals had to gather and synthesize this new information from professional organizations or societies, technical and scientific journals, trade associations and other professional and company meetings. During this time, it was common for leading companies, through their professionals, to be active in a number of professional societies and trade associations and subscribe to many professional journals, technical publications, and abstract services in order to stay abreast of the new scientific developments. These specialists would then share what they have learned both internally within their own organization and externally with their professional peers within other organizations (Patty 1948). For example, in 1950 at the National Safety Congress, the Braden Copper Company presented a paper outlining their safety training program to the Mining Section of the National Safety Congress (Jarrett 1950). Between 1950 and 1969, professional societies became more active in ensuring and encouraging the growth of health and safety awareness. AIHA and ACGIH each grew to over 1,000 members by the end of this era while ASSE had approximately 10,000 members (ACGIH 1978; Clayton and Clayton 1994; American Society of Safety Engineers 2006). AIHA and ACGIH joined together in 1961 to host the first American Industrial Hygiene Conference focused on occupational health and safety for industrial hygienists and allied professions. At this conference and those that followed, industrial hygienists from all sectors met, discussed and collaborated on the best methods for protecting workers and fulfilling the responsibilities of the employer. Prior to these annual conferences, industrial hygienists met on an ad hoc basis at industrial hygiene section meetings of the American Public Health Association, the American Chemical Society, the National Safety Council, and the American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers (ACGIH 1988; Clayton and Clayton 1994). The attendance at American Industrial Hygiene Conference grew dramatically with 688 participants in 1961 escalating to 2,354 registrants in 1975 and nearly 10,000 attendees by 1992 (Clayton and Clayton 1994).

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

183

With the formation of professional societies, such as AIHA and ACGIH, technical committees were formed to address specific needs of the profession. One important need was guidance on the selection and use of PPE, specifically respiratory protection. Following the principle of hierarchy of controls, respiratory protection was often necessary when the hazards could not be controlled via other means. Recognizing the need in 1963, the members of AIHA and ACGIH jointly published a Respiratory Devices Manual that, at the time, was viewed as the premier resource for how to select and use respiratory protection (Stellman and Daum 1973). The preface of the manual reads, Many books and technical reports have been written on engineering control measures, but it should be noted that no text exists covering comprehensively the field of respiratory protective devices....This book has been prepared primarily to provide the industrial hygienist and other health and safety specialists with technical information pertaining to the principles of operation of the various types of respiratory protective devices and their selection, use, and maintenance (AIHA-ACGIH 1963). In this era, health and safety professionals were also given the chance to be certified in their fields. In 1960, the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) was established in Pennsylvania as an independent corporation formed out of AIHA and ACGIH to administer the professional certification process. Through examination, the purpose was to certify industrial hygienists who had achieved proficiency in the key elements of the profession (American Board of Industrial Hygiene 2006b). By 1963, 485 industrial hygienists had passed the certified industrial hygienist (CIH) exam and by the end of the era, the number of certified industrial hygienists had nearly doubled (Fig. 1; American Board of Industrial Hygiene 2000). To date over 9,000 certifications have been issued. Likewise, in 1969, a similar voluntary examination process was started to qualify safety professionals by the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP). BCSP was formed out of ASSE membership as an independent corporation (Board of Certified Safety Professionals 2006). Hiring health
10000

9000

8000

7000 CIH Certificates Issued

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
19 6 19 0 6 19 1 6 19 2 6 19 3 6 19 4 65 19 6 19 6 6 19 7 6 19 8 6 19 9 7 19 0 71 19 7 19 2 7 19 3 7 19 4 7 19 5 76 19 7 19 7 7 19 8 7 19 9 80 19 8 19 1 8 19 2 8 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 86 19 87 19 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 98 19 9 20 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 0 20 4 05

Fig. 1 Cumulative total of certified industrial hygienists, adapted from (American Board of Industrial Hygiene 2000) and (American Board of Industrial Hygiene 2006a).

184

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

and safety professionals certified in industrial hygiene and/or safety provided another means for employers to fulfill their role in protecting their employees. Voluntary Standards After ACGIH published the list of TLVs, industrial hygienists working for employers, state authorities, insurance companies, and consulting organizations, etc. had a credible list of exposure guidelines for many common substances. They were designed and used to help professional industrial hygienists make judgments regarding the conditions of various workplaces. The TLVs were taken seriously by responsible employers and workplace controls were put in place in order to keep worker exposure below levels considered unsafe. To augment these guidelines, some large companies often used their own data to set internal OELs for further guidance to assure workers are protected (Paustenbach and Langner 1986). The documentation of a TLV and OEL also became an essential source of information for professional industrial hygienists assessing the applicability of the TLV or OEL for a particular workplace on behalf of an employer. By the 1950s, Dow Chemical, like some other companies was holding regular meetings to update internal staff on occupational health concerns and controls. Persons attending these meetings included industrial hygienists, toxicologists, physicians, and safety engineers from many different facilities. Oftentimes they would discuss industrial hygiene, toxicology, and epidemiological data that had been collected at the plant and then they would use this information to set their own internal OELs referred to as Industrial Hygiene Guides (IHGs). In 1961, Dow reduced their internal IHG for vinyl chloride and sent the basis of this IHG to the ACGIH TLV committee for their review. Several other large employers such as DuPont, Monsanto, Union Carbide, Kodak, BASF, 3M, Allied Chemical, and Exxon also set their own internal OELs. Many of these companies established internal OELs for chemicals that were not addressed by the ACGIH TLV committee (Paustenbach and Langner 1986). Without government regulations, adequate regulatory expectations or public attention, many responsible employers took it upon themselves to develop the science and practice of industrial hygiene and promoted health and safety awareness and controls within their own companies and industry trade associations. The foundry industry is an example of a group of employers embracing this responsibility by recommending proper controls and work practices and encouraging others in the industry to follow suit. For example, the AFS, based upon input from its members, published Recommended Safety Practices for the Protection of Workers in Foundries in 1957 (American Foundrymens Society [AFS] 1957). In addition to promoting feasible engineering controls, proper work practices including the use of PPE was continuously evaluated and improved upon by AFS members. During a 1952 Conference on Health Protection in Foundry Practice held at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and co-sponsored by the AFS, the topic of providing and assuring the proper use of respiratory protection was a subject of considerable interest. Alphonse J. Kaimala of the Detroit Department of Health presented a paper stressing, The employers duty does not stop with the purchase of respirators. He must also distribute them to all employees who need them with detailed instruction as to proper use, its limitations, why they must be used, and when they must be used in terms the worker can understand (American Foundreymens Society [AFS] 1952). During this time frame, independent standard setting organizations published additional consensus standards on industrial hygiene practice drawing from experienced professionals and effective programs throughout the country. It was clear in these standards that it was the employer s responsibility to understand the stressors in the workplace to the extent possible and ultimately assure their workers are properly protected. For example, the ASA, now

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

185

called ANSI, originally founded in 1918, was responsible for the development of many voluntary safety standards, some of which are referenced in laws. In 1959, the ASA published the American Standard Safety Code for Head, Eye, and Respiratory Protection that states it is the employer s responsibility to select and provide the proper PPE (American Standards Association 1959). Ten years later, ANSI published the American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection again emphasizing that it was the employer s responsibility to provide a safe workplace (American National Standards Institute 1969). During this era, employers could obtain the most recent information on occupational health and safety from technical publications from trade associations, safety and health organizations, manufacturers, and peer-reviewed journals. For example, the NSC published numerous documents with recommendations for proper work practices and hazard warnings. In addition, the Manufacturers Chemist Association (MCA), the forerunner to the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and now the American Chemistry Council (ACC), published a MCA material safety data sheet for many common chemicals produced by their members. In addition, professional societies, such as AIHA, produced the Hygienic Guide series, which included information on toxicity, hazard warnings, and recommended safe practices including proper PPE for common industrial materials. Most of these publications were written for trained professionals and not for the layperson. Their primary purpose was to present key technical information for professionals in the field so that workers could be properly protected. They were oftentimes made available to workers when needed. Ultimately, these were replaced by other guidance documents including major government publications, such as National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Criteria Documents. Many of the voluntary standards and work practices developed by industry (e.g., professional or scientific organizations) were adopted by the federal government. For example, by 1954, 19 states had incorporated the TLVs in their state health and safety programs (Pabst 1954; Department of Labor and IndustriesState of Washington 1958). In addition, the US Department of Labor published safety and health standards for government contractors and the maritime industry under the WalshHealy Act of 1936 and the American Longshoremans and Harbor Workers Act of 1958, respectively. The US Department of Labor adopted the 1950 ACGIH TLVs as maximum exposure limits when they published the Safety and Health Standards for Contractors performing Federal Supply Contracts under the WalshHealy Public Contracts Act in 1952 (Tobin 1952). The requirements under both of these statutes continued to hold the employer responsible for the safety and health of his/her employees (Tobin 1952; US Department of Labor 1960). This era also marked the beginning of the chemical age, which brought an increased amount of research and concern over occupational carcinogens. During this era, the US Public Health Service estimated that a new chemical was being introduced every 20 min (Bureau of National Affairs 1970). With shipbuilding in peak production during and after WWII, and chemical and rubber industries in full swing trying to keep up with the demands of the consumer, populations of exposed workers to new compounds increased, creating a new cohort for occupational health study. With the increased cohort size and longer duration of exposure professionals had a better opportunity to study long term effects of select materials. In the 1950s, bladder carcinogens such as para amino biphenyl (PAB) and later additives such as bis chloromethyl ether (BCME) created a new concern over long term worker exposures, and the concept of latency with regards to chronic disease was receiving more study. Common materials, such as asbestos were also under study. For example, Dr. Irving Selikoff s conference in late 1964 on asbestos brought attention to possibly new long-term risks associated with asbestos exposure. Asbestos, because of its

186

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

strength, flexibility and heat resistance, was used in over 3,000 different consumer and commercial products and was used extensively in shipbuilding, construction and process insulation (Maines 2005). These examples represent just a few of the issues that helped create an elevated level of concern over occupational hazards, which in turn, provided a greater impetus for federal safety and health legislation. During the later part of this period, industry, government and academic institutions tried to keep up with the demand to better understand occupational disease and appropriate workplace controls. As more and more scientist entered the field the professional societies became more prominent. Without one federal authority, professionals from these organizations played a critical role in developing workplace guidelines such as OELs, hygienic guides and consensus standards for employers to follow to help assure workers were protected from hazardous conditions. Many employers, cognizant of the responsibility to protect, took it upon themselves to establish health and safety programs, OELs and work practices without the presence of enforceable standards. 19702005: Era of Federal Regulation The Formation of OSHA and NIOSH The final era in this review begins with the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). With the new concerns over occupational cancer risks associated with asbestos and other materials and the alarming statistics on industrial accidents, Congress began to give federal workplace safety and health legislation serious consideration in the late 1960s. According to the testimony of the US Secretary of Labor, George P. Shultz, 14,000 workers died annually from work related accidents and financial loses from work related deaths and accidents were estimated at $1.5 billion in wages and $8 billion the gross national product annually (Bureau of National Affairs 1970). Throughout the debates and the development of this legislation, the message was clear that the employer is responsible for the safety and health of his or her employees. The Labor subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor of the US House of Representatives stated in their final deliberations over the passage of the OSH Act, The committee believes that employers are equally bound by this general and common duty to bring no adverse health effects to the life and health of their employees throughout the course of their employment. Employers have primary control of the work environment and should insure that it is safe and healthful (US Congress 1971). The committee went on to state, One of the primary purposes in enacting this legislation stems from the need to provide employers with health standards so that they might better protect the health and safety of the worker by providing the necessary machinery and protective devices in the workplace (US Congress 1971). On December 29, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Occupational Safety and Health Act, creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The purpose of the Act as stated in Section 2 of Public Law 91-596 was to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources (US 91st Congress 1970). The passage of the OSH Act in 1970 was the single most important event in American history for workplace safety and health. In response to the needs of the over 90 million workers in America at that time, Congress made the duties and responsibilities of the employer clear by stating in Section 5 of the Act: (a) Each employer(1) shall furnish to each of his employees

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

187

employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act (US 91st Congress 1970). Section 5 (a)(1) is known as the general duty clause. The Act required the US Secretary of Labor to set mandatory health and safety standards and establish an enforcement process to assure employers followed these minimum requirements. One such standard establishing minimum requirements for respiratory protection clearly indicates the employer has the responsibility to provide employees with the proper respiratory protection suited for the hazard and working condition: Respirators shall be provided by the employer when such equipment is necessary to protect the health of the employee. The employer shall provide the respirators which are applicable and suitable for the purpose intended (OSHA 1971). Under Section 6 (a) of the Act, the Secretary of Labor was permitted to promulgate any national consensus standard or established Federal standard as an occupational safety or health standard over a 2-year period if it results in improved safety or health. In addition to many ANSI standards, OSHA adopted the safety and health standards under the Walsh Healy Act which included the 1968 ACGIH list of TLVs. With this, the TLVs became enforceable by law as OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs). While many acceptable consensus standards were available at this time, Congress understood that there were many situations where standards did not exist or where future national standards would not be appropriate due to the ever-changing nature and complexity of many workplaces. To continue to hold the employer accountable for the protection of his or her employees under these situations and provide for reasonable enforcement authority, Congress established the general duty clause under Section 5 (a)(1) of the Act (US Congress 1971). NIOSH was created under the OSH Act for research, training, and publishing nonenforceable guidelines for both employers and employees related to occupational hazards. They also render proposals to OSHA regarding occupational standards that they believe should be promulgated into law. Many of these guidelines recognize the responsible party as the one who directly supervises the employees day to day activities and directs the details, means, methods, and processes by which the work is accomplished. While the employer has the greater obligation, employees were also identified as bearing some obligations to follow what was required to assure protection. In 1974, NIOSH published a report entitled, Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica that stated, For extreme hazards, such as in abrasive blasting, the employer must not only supply suitable respirators but must require their conscientious use. For respirators to provide effective protection the employee must be trained in their use; further, they must fit properly and be properly maintained (NIOSH 1974). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and NIOSH also published a document entitled, Silicosis: Learn the Facts! for employees that states, When water sprays and ventilation are not enough to reduce silica dust levels, your employer MUST provide you with a properly fitted and selected respirator (e.g. particulate filter or airline supplied air respirator) designated for protection against crystalline silica (CDC 2004). NIOSH also recognized that there was a role for health and safety equipment suppliers. In an effort to satisfy the need of employers to protect employees, the suppliers of health and safety equipment worked to develop respirators and other PPE to assure proper protection over the past 90 years. Research was conducted by NIOSH and others to identify characteristics they thought would be helpful or ensure effectiveness of the PPE. Over time, organizations such as the Bureau of Mines, ANSI and NIOSH have been responsible for approving this equipment. By approving such equipment, health and safety professionals and agents of the employer were assured they were purchasing effective worker protection on behalf of an employer.

188

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

Multiple Employer Job Sites In the early years, most employees worked for one common employer on a given worksite. A single employer controlled how work was to be executed and therefore, had the responsibility of protecting employees on the site. However, as companies became more specialized, it became more common for multiple employers to have employees at a single worksite. For example, when building or maintaining a chemical plant, it is not uncommon to have subcontractors who bring different tradesmen to a facility such as welders, millwrights, insulators, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, etc. Each trade was often represented by their own union, which provided their workers with specialized training. This training was often in addition to any training the firm provided who directly employed them. In order to address which employer has the responsibility of protecting each employee, OSHA published a letter of interpretation in 1991 that stated, The primary determination of responsibility for occupational safety and health purposes is which employer directly supervises the employees day to day work activities and thereby directs the details, means, methods, and processes by which the employee reaches the work objective (Scannell 1991). In many instances there may be more then one employer who meets these criteria and is therefore, responsible. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (a federally appointed panel whose job is to adjudicate OSHA citations) ruled in a case of a subcontractor vs general contractor: it is no defense that someone else dug the unsafe trench or someone else agreed to look out for the employees job safety. Each employer is bound by this Act to look out for the safety of his own employees...Contractual agreements between an employer and another party, stipulating that one party will be solely responsible for the safety of the others employees, will not negate the original employers obligation under the Act and does not constitute a defense to a citation (Rothstein 1998). Hence, having multiple employers on one site does not relieve any employer from protecting its workers. In 1994, OSHA formerly addressed the multi-employer issue by publishing its policy for holding employers accountable for workplace hazards on multi-employer worksites in its Field Inspection Reference Manual. In a more recent publication made effective December 1999, OSHA clarified which employer(s) should be cited based upon whether they are an exposing, creating, correcting, or controlling employer. Depending on the circumstances and affirmative action by some employers, more then one employer may be cited for violating an OSHA standard (OSHA 1999). Employer Assistance Recognizing where the accountability for workplace safety and health lies, OSHA allocates considerable resources to help the employer understand what is required for compliance and worker protection. In 1975, the OSHA Consultation Program was established to provide free consultation services to employers so they may find ways to address potential hazards at their worksites. This program, largely funded by OSHA, is delivered by the states using well-trained professional safety and health staff. Primarily targeted for smaller businesses, the consultation program is confidential and entirely separate from OSHA enforcement. Founded on the common law principle, it focuses on helping the employer meet the expectation that the employer is responsible for the safety and health of its employees created in the OSH Act. The US Department of Labor continues to help the employer understand what is required to fulfill their obligations under the OSH Act. In the Presidents FY2006 budget request for OSHA, $53.9 million was allocated for State Consultation, $73.3 million was allocated for Federal Compliance Assistance, and $21.7 million was designated for

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

189

Technical Support (OSHA 2005). These compliance assistance dollars are directed to the employer (and to some extent the worker), recognizing the employer (with the assistance of the employee) has the responsibility to protect his or her workers. In addition to these efforts, OSHA trains over 300,000 employees in safety and health each year through OSHAs Training InstituteEducational Centers (OTIEC). Most of these trainees are sent to the Institute by their employer to learn how to comply with OSHA law and assure the employer protects its employees. Responsible employers continue to seek assistance. Through the OSHA telephone hotline, over 160,000 calls were received by the agency and over 50 million visits to the OSHA website were recorded in FY2004. Employers and other interested stakeholders also sent the agency over 10,000 emails in FY2004 asking for such things as clarification of standards, with the intent of assuring proper worker protections.

The Impact on the Profession and Industry With the passage of the OSH Act, many of the voluntary safety and health standards became enforceable by law. Employers around the country focused more heavily on occupational safety and health and the demand for industrial hygienists, toxicologists, occupational physicians and nurses, and safety engineers increased significantly during this period. Accordingly, membership of professional societies increased as professionals searched for continuing education and networking opportunities (Fig. 2). For example, the AIHA membership grew from approximately 1,600 members in 1970 to over 12,000 today, of which 96% have college degrees and almost 67% hold graduate degrees (Clayton and Clayton 1994; AIHA 2005). There are more than 6,300 certified industrial hygienists actively practicing throughout the world (American Board of Industrial Hygiene 2000). In addition, more responsibilities were placed on the professional organizations, such as the AIHA and ACGIH, to provide guidance and opportunities for members to share the developing science. Technical committees from within these professional groups produced

Fig. 2 Membership growth of AIHA, ASSE, and ACGIH from 1938 to 2004.

190

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

an unprecedented number of technical materials and publications. The joint AIHA and ACGIH conference now hosts over 7,000 attendees annually. Currently, the two organizations also co-publish the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health which is distributed to their members so they may stay on top of current health and safety topics. The passage of the OSH Act had a significant impact on worker safety and health by holding the wide spectrum of employers accountable to the government for the safety of their workplaces. In general, industry is more proactive today than ever before, and trained safety and health professionals on staff have been instrumental in improving hazard identification and reduction, implementing OSHA standards, developing training programs, and establishing or refining respiratory protection programs. Recognizing their responsibility, many employers have gone further and joined OSHAs Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). In 1982, the VPP program was established to promote greater assurances and recognize leaders in injury and illnesses prevention. There are more than 1,500 VPP workplaces currently located across the country demonstrating that these employers take their responsibility for worker safety and health very seriously (OSHA 2006).

Conclusions It has always been the employer s responsibility to protect the health and safety of its workers and keep them safe from foreseeable hazards. Because the employer ultimately controls the ways and means by which work is done, the employer has the obligation to properly recognize, evaluate and control workplace condition to assure the health and safety of its workers. For centuries this has been the practice and expectation. An essential element for fulfilling this responsibility is staying abreast of the science associated with worker safety and health and applying new technology to assess and control hazards. Many responsible employers already do this by engaging trained health and safety professionals who are actively developing, evaluating, implementing and communicating the science of occupational safety and health.
Acknowledgments This work was funded by AIG Claims Services and The Hartford. These firms have been involved in silica related litigation. The authors are involved in a variety of safety and health activities including litigation. The authors wish to thank Ronald Janke for his critical review of this manuscript.

References
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (2000). 19992000 Annual report. Lansing, MI: American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH). American Board of Industrial Hygiene (2006a). CIH-Certificates Issued. Personal Communication. September 22, 2006. American Board of Industrial Hygiene (2006b). General information. Retrieved 4/11/06 from http://www. abih.org/general/cihcaih.html. ACGIH (1978). The first forty years 19381978. Cincinnatti, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). ACGIH (1988). The first fifty years. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). ACGIH (2004). History of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Retrieved 4/22/05, from http://www.acgih.org/About/history.htm. A. D. C. (1959). Profiles in occupational health: Clarence D. Selby. Industrial Medical Surgery, 28(8), 381388. American Foundreymens Society (AFS) (1952). Health protection in Foundry practice. Paper presented at Conference on Health Protection in Foundry Practice. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

191

American Foundrymens Society (AFS) (1957). Recommended safety practices for the protection of workers in Foundries. Des Plaines, IL: American Foundrymens Society. AIHA-ACGIH (1963). Respiratory protective devices manual. Ann Arbor, MI: American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). AIHA (2005). Advance. A guide to your American industrial hygiene association membership benefits for every stage of your career. American National Standards Institute (1969). Ansi practices for respiratory protection (pp. 131). New York, NY: ANSI. ANSI (2005). American National Standards InstituteA Historical overview. Retrieved 10/26/05, from http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/introduction/history.aspx?menuid=1. American Society of Safety Engineers (2006). The History of the American Society of Safety Engineers Safety through the Decades. Retrieved 4/11/06, from http://www.asse.org/hsoci.htm. American Standards Association (1959). American standard safety code for head, eye and respiratory protection. New York, NY: American Standards Association (ASA). Board of Certified Safety Professionals (2006). History. Retrieved 4/11/06, from http://www.bcsp.org/bcsp. Bureau of National Affairs (1970). Background and legislative history: The Job Safety and Health Act of 1970 (pp. 1321). Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs, Chap 2. CDC (2004). Silicosis: Learn the facts! Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. 2004108. Clayton, G. D., & Clayton, F. E. (Eds.) (1994). The American Industrial Hygiene Association: Its history and personalities 19391990. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association. Clayton, G. D., Cox, J. R. Curtiss, L. F., Guth, S. K. Hartmann, I. Hatch, T. F., et al. (1958). Industrial hygiene and toxicology: General principles. New York, NY: Interscience Publishers. Committee on Tuberculosis in Industry (1945). Industry tuberculosis silicosis and compensation. New York National Tuberculosis Association. Cralley, L. J., & Cralley L. V. (1985). Pattys industrial hygiene and toxicology. New York, NY: Wiley. Department of Labor and IndustriesState of Washington (1958). Safety standards for protection against occupationally acquired diseases (12, 914, 3437). Olympia, WA. Encarnacion, J. V. (1930). 281 US 635 US Supreme Court. Harrison, B. (1889). Collected State of the Union Addresses of US Presidents. Retrieved 11/09/05, from http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/101.html. Illinois Worker s Compensation Commission (2005). Letters from Illinois worker s compensation commission on the chronology of workers compensation legislation in Illinois. Jarrett, S. M. (1950). Safety training program at the Braden Copper Company. 1950 National safety congress transactions: Current safety topics in the mining industry (Vol. 19). Chicago, IL: National Safety Council. Johnstone, R. T. (1948). Occupational medicine and industrial hygiene. St. Louis, MO: The C.V. Mosby. Larson, A., & Larson, L. K. (2006). Historical development of workers compensation (pp. 2.12.18). Larsons workers Compensation Law: LexisNexis, Chap. 2. Linder, D. (2002). The triangle shirtwaist factory fire trial. Retrieved 9/6/05, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/ faculty/projects/ftrials/triangle/. Lucas, A., & Paxton A. (2005). About the Hawks nest incidentBackground for Muriel Rukeysers The Book of the Dead. Retrieved 10/6/05, from http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rukeyser/ hawksnest.htm. MacLaury, J. (2005). Government Regulation of Workers Safety and Health, 18771917. Retrieved 10/6/05, from http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/mono-regsafeintrotoc.htm. Maines, R. (2005). Asbestos and fire: Technological trade-offs and the body at risk. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. McConnell, W. J. (1935). Employer responsibility. transactions of the thirty-ninth annual meeting. The American Foundrymens Association. Meyer, R. L. (1987a). Council comes of age 19131920. Safety and health. 2425 (April). Meyer, R. L. (1987b). Pre council accidents were all in a days work. Safety and Health Magazine. 2022 (January). National Bureau of Standards (1938). American standard safety code for the protection of heads, eyes and respiratory organs handbook H24 (Supersedes H2). Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. National Safety Council (1947). Silicosis: Health Practices Pamphlet No. 20. National Silicosis Conference (1937). Summary reports submitted to the secretary of Labor by Conference Committees, February 3, 1937. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards. Bulletin No. 13. National Silicosis Conference (1938a). Report on economic, legal and insurance phases: Final report of the committee on economic, legal and insurance phases of the silicosis problem. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards. Bulletin No. 21, Part 3.

192

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:173192

National Silicosis Conference (1938b). Report on engineering control, final report of the committee on the prevention of silicosis through engineering control. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards. Bulletin No. 21, Part 2. National Silicosis Conference (1938c). Report on medical control, final report of the committee on the prevention of silicosis through medical control. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards. Bulletin No. 21, Part 1. National Silicosis Conference (1938d). Report on regulatory and administrative phases, final report of the committee on regulatory and administrative phases of the silicosis problem. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards. Bulletin No. 21, Part 4. NIOSH (1974). Occupational exposure to crystalline silica: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). HEW Publication No. 75120. No Author (1936). Silicosis toll from Hawks nest may never be made known, declare doctor and lawyer. The Charleston Daily Mail. Evening Edition: 1. January 15, 1936. OSHA (1971). Title 29Labor; Part 1910: Occupational safety and health standards. Federal register. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), US Department of Labor. 36 No. 105: 1046610507. OSHA (1999). Multi-employer citation policy. Department of Labor. CPL 02-00-124. OSHA (2005). Presidents Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request for Osha Enforcement, Compliance Assistance (Occupational Safety and Health Administration National News Release: 05-183-Nat). Budget Promotes a Continued Balanced Approach in Workplace Safety and Health: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA (2006). Current Federal and State-Plan Sites. Retrieved 7/31/06, from http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/ sitebystate.html. Pabst, A. C. (1954). Industrial hygiene in the petroleum industry. 42 national safety congress: Current safety topics in the petroleum industry. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council. Patty, F. A. (1948). Industrial hygiene and toxicology. New York, NY: Interscience Publishers, Inc. Paustenbach, D., & Langner, R. (1986). Corporate occupational exposure limits: The current state of affairs. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 47(12), 809818. Rabinowitz, R. S. (2002). Occupational safety and health law. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs. Rothstein, M. A. (1998). Occupational safety and law. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Scannell, G. F. (1991). Occupational safety and health administrations Multi-employer worksite policy. M. Kilinghoffer: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Stellman, J. M., & Daum, S. M. (1973). Work is dangerous to your health: A handbook of health hazards in the workplace and what you can do about them. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Tobin, M. J. (1952). Safety and health standards for contractors performing federal supply contracts under the WalshHealey Public Contracts Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor; Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions. Trasko, V. M. (1949). The work of state and local industrial hygiene agencies. Public health reports: Public health service, division of industrial hygiene. 64(15), 471484. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (1923). Safety Code of the Protection of Industrial Workers in Foundries, Bulletin No. 336. US Department of Labor. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Bulletin No. 336. US Department of Labor (1960). Safety and health regulations for ship repairing. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor Standards. US House of Representatives (1936). Hawks nest tunnel. House of Representatives Subcommittee, 80(5), 16. US 91st Congress (1970). Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Public Law 91596. US Congress (1971). Legislative History of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Washington DC: Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. S. 2193, P.L.91596. Waters, T. C. (1937). Compensation for silicosis involves knotty problems. National Safety News, 5263 (January).