This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-658 
entitled 'OSHA's Complaint Response Policies: OSHA Credits Its 
Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but the System Still 
Warrants Improvement' which was released on June 18, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

June 2004:

OSHA'S COMPLAINT RESPONSE POLICIES:

OSHA Credits Its Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but 
the System Still Warrants Improvement:

OSHA's Complaint Response Policies:

GAO-04-658: 

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-658, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House 
of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Each year, OSHA receives thousands of complaints from employees 
alleging hazardous conditions at their worksites. How OSHA responds to 
these complaints—either by inspecting the worksite or through some 
other means—has important implications for both the agency’s resources 
and worker safety and health. Responding to invalid or erroneous 
complaints would deplete inspection resources that could be used to 
inspect or investigate other worksites. Not responding to complaints 
that warrant action runs counter to the agency’s mission to protect 
worker safety and health. Considering OSHA’s limited resources, and 
the importance of worker safety, GAO was asked: (1) What is OSHA’s 
current policy for responding to complaints in a way that conserves its 
resources, (2) how consistently is OSHA responding to complaints, and 
(3) to what extent have complaints led OSHA to identify serious 
hazards?

What GAO Found:

In general, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
responds to complaints according to the seriousness of the alleged 
hazard, a practice that agency officials say conserves inspection 
resources. OSHA officials usually conduct on-site inspections for 
alleged hazards that could result in death or serious injury. For less 
serious hazards, OSHA officials generally investigate by phoning 
employers and faxing them a description of the alleged hazard. 
Employers are directed to provide the agency with proof of the 
complaint’s resolution. OSHA officials said the availability of both 
options allows them to manage resources more effectively when 
responding to complaints. However, many agency officials we interviewed 
said some complainants provide erroneous information about the alleged 
hazard, which can affect the agency’s determination of the hazard’s 
severity. For example, some complainants lack the expertise to know 
what is truly hazardous and, as a result, file complaints that 
overstate the nature of the hazard. Others, particularly disgruntled 
ex-employees, may have ulterior motives when filing complaints and 
misrepresent the nature of the hazard.

In the 42 area offices where we conducted interviews (there are 80 area 
offices), OSHA officials described practices for responding to 
complaints that varied considerably. For example, the degree to which 
supervisors participated in decisions about which complaints would 
result in inspections and which would not varied across offices. While 
OSHA requires annual audits that would identify the extent to which its 
area offices are correctly employing the complaint policies, some 
regions are not conducting these audits, and agency officials have 
told us that OSHA does not have a mechanism in place to address 
agencywide problems. 

To some extent complaints direct inspection resources where there are 
serious hazards. At half the worksites OSHA inspected in response to 
complaints, compliance officers found serious violations—those that 
posed a substantial probability of injury or death, according to OSHA’s 
own data for fiscal years 2000-2001. 

Potential Falls Are One of the Hazards OSHA Tries to Prevent: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends:

The Secretary of Labor should take steps to improve the quality of 
information received from complainants and to ensure area offices 
comply with complaint practices established by the agency. Labor 
disagreed with our recommendation to take additional actions to improve 
the quality of complaint information, but generally it agreed with 
recommendations to ensure compliance with the agency’s complaint 
practices.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-658.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robert Robertson, (202) 
512-7215 robertsonr@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Seriousness of Alleged Hazards Drives Complaint Response, although 
Erroneous Information Can Affect These Determinations:

Although Consistent Handling of Complaints Is a Key OSHA Principle, 
Practices in Some Area Offices Varied:

Complaints Have, to Some Extent, Drawn OSHA to Serious Hazards at 
Worksites:

Conclusion:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:

GAO Comments:

Appendix III: Staff Acknowledgments:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Number and Percentage of Inspected Worksites with Serious 
Violations, by Type, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:

Table 2: National Average for Hours per Inspection, by Type of 
Inspection or Investigation, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002:

Table 3: Most Frequently Cited OSHA Standards for Complaint-Driven and 
Planned Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002:

Table 4: Ten Industries with Highest Rates and Ten Industries with 
Lowest Rates of Injuries and Illnesses and Corresponding Rate of 
Complaint Inspections, Calendar Year 2001:

Figures:

Figure 1: OSHA's 10 Regions:

Figure 2: Summary of OSHA's Complaint Protocol:

Figure 3: Correlation between an Industry's Injury and Illness Rate and 
Its Complaint Inspection Rate, Calendar Year 2001:

Abbreviations:

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:

IMIS: Integrated Management Information System:

NLRA: National Labor Relations Act:

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

June 18, 2004:

The Honorable Charles Norwood: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In 1975, high levels of Kepone, a pesticide linked to liver damage, 
sterility, neurological disorders, and cancer, were found in the 
bloodstreams of approximately 70 workers at a company in Virginia. This 
was followed by another discovery: the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), part of the Department of Labor (Labor), had 
received a complaint from a former employee of the company but had 
assigned it a low-priority status and had not responded with an 
inspection. The highly public controversy that followed led OSHA to 
focus on being more responsive to all types of complaints. In the wake 
of this case, the agency has changed and modified its complaint policy 
more than once. OSHA's first policy change, in 1975--to conduct an on-
site inspection for virtually any complaint about unsafe conditions, 
even anonymous ones--resulted in a large and overwhelming backlog of 
complaints awaiting inspection. In 1996, OSHA instituted a new effort 
to balance resources with the need to respond to complaints by 
responding to less serious complaints through means other than on-site 
inspections. In view of this reform, and given OSHA's current ratio of 
one compliance officer for roughly every 6,000 worksites, you asked us 
to answer the following questions: (1) What is OSHA's current policy 
for responding to complaints in a way that conserves its resources? (2) 
How consistently is OSHA responding to complaints? and (3) To what 
extent have complaints led OSHA to identify serious hazards?

To answer these questions, we visited the three OSHA area offices that 
handled the largest number of complaints in their respective regions in 
fiscal years 2000 through 2002: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Austin, 
Texas; and Denver, Colorado. In each of these offices, we examined a 
randomly selected sample of case files (34 in Pittsburgh, 30 in Austin, 
and 38 in Denver) and interviewed the area director and available 
compliance officers. In addition, we randomly selected and interviewed 
by telephone 52 OSHA officials: 20 of the agency's 80 area directors 
and 32 of its 1,200 compliance officers, (12 assistant area directors 
who are supervisory compliance officers and 20 nonsupervisory 
compliance officers). These officials represented 42 of OSHA's 80 area 
offices. We also spoke to OSHA officials in the agency's 10 regional 
offices, as well as health and safety officials in 13 states that run 
their own programs. Finally, we examined data for fiscal years 2000 
through 2002 related to complaints in OSHA's Integrated Management 
Information System (IMIS) and looked at data on injuries and illnesses 
collected and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for 
calendar year 2001 as they related to complaints. We interviewed both 
OSHA and BLS officials to establish the reliability of the data. In 
addition, for the IMIS data we obtained and reviewed documentation of 
internal controls and manually tested the data. We also interviewed 15 
randomly selected employers who had been the subject of an OSHA 
complaint and 6 employees who had filed complaints. For a more detailed 
explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We conducted our work 
between September 2003 and January 2004 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

In general, OSHA responds to complaints according to the seriousness of 
the alleged hazard, a policy credited with conserving agency resources, 
although its determinations of whether an inspection is warranted can 
be affected by the quality of information complainants provide. 
Initiated in 1996 to improve its complaint-handling process, OSHA's 
policy of prioritization largely requires that an on-site inspection be 
conducted when a complainant alleges a serious hazard that could result 
in death or serious injury. OSHA will also conduct an on-site 
inspection if a current employee provides a written and signed 
complaint establishing reasonable grounds that a specific safety or 
health standard has been violated. Generally, however, for complainants 
not alleging a serious hazard, OSHA officials respond by phone, 
contacting employers and faxing them a description of the complaint. 
For these "phone/fax investigations," employers must determine if the 
complaint is valid and submit documentation to demonstrate that the 
hazard has been removed. The phone/fax option for the less than serious 
hazards has helped to improve efficiency, according to OSHA officials 
with long-standing experience at the agency, who said it has saved time 
and also eliminated their inspection backlog. Most agency officials we 
interviewed also acknowledged, however, that this efficiency can be 
affected by the accuracy or validity of the information they receive 
from complainants. A complainant may misidentify a hazard, for example, 
or a competitor may misrepresent conditions at a competitor's worksite 
to disrupt its operation, according to OSHA compliance officers. When 
asked, compliance officers and supervisors, as well as officials from 
states that run their own health and safety programs, offered some 
suggestions for improving the validity of incoming complaints.

Although OSHA has policies for responding to complaints in a systematic 
and timely manner, we found inconsistencies in practices across area 
offices. Some of these practices involved departures from agency 
policy, while others were practices that varied to a degree that could 
undermine the agency's goal of consistent treatment of complainants and 
employers. In terms of policy, office practices departed, in 
particular, with regard to who evaluated complaints and how written and 
signed complaints were handled. With regard to uniform practice, we 
found some variation among the 42 offices we contacted in terms of 
their follow-up practices after an investigation, how they verified the 
employment status of complainants, how they treated e-mail complaints, 
and how they pursued certain complaints for which the agency has no 
specific standard. Since issuing its new directive for handling 
complaints in 1996, OSHA has issued no guidance to reinforce, clarify, 
or update those procedures. And while OSHA requires the regional 
administrators to annually audit their area office operations, only 5 
of the 10 regions do so. Furthermore, for the regions that do conduct 
these audits, OSHA currently does not have a mechanism in place to 
recognize or address problems that have been identified at an 
agencywide level.

Complaints have, to some extent, directed OSHA compliance officers to 
sites with serious hazards. According to OSHA's own database for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001, compliance officers found serious violations--
hazards that pose a substantial probability of injury or death--at half 
the worksites inspected in response to complaints. This 50 percent 
"success" rate for complaint-driven inspections is comparable to the 
agency's success rate for some of its planned inspections--specifically 
those conducted at worksites targeted because of their high injury and 
illness rates. However, in one of our earlier reports on how OSHA 
targets inspections, we expressed concern that a 50 percent success 
rate may indicate that the agency is directing inspection resources to 
sites that have no serious violations.[Footnote 1] In addition to this 
similarity, we also found that 7 of the 10 violations cited most 
frequently during complaint-driven inspections were also among the 10 
most frequently cited during planned inspections. Through our analysis, 
we also found some correlation between hazardous industries and 
complaint inspections. Specifically, those industries that, according 
to BLS data, had higher rates of injuries and illnesses also generally 
had higher rates of complaint inspections, according to OSHA's data. 
For example, industries that fabricate metal products had the highest 
rate of complaint inspections and the third highest rate of injuries 
and illnesses in 2001. For a handful of industries, this pattern did 
not apply, with the number of complaints being either higher or lower 
than might have been expected, given the number of injuries, illnesses, 
and lost workdays.

* We are making recommendations that the Secretary of Labor direct the 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps to 
improve the quality of information elicited from complainants and take 
steps to ensure that practices carried out by area offices in response 
to complaints comply with those procedures established by the agency. 
In responding to a draft of this report, Labor agreed that it is 
important to screen out unwarranted and ill-founded complaints, but it 
stated that its current actions were sufficient and that it would not 
want to pursue actions that could discourage employees from exercising 
their right to request an inspection when they feel their workplace is 
unsafe. We maintain that OSHA could do more to improve the quality of 
complaint information and believe that better information could be 
collected without discouraging complaints. With regard to our 
recommendation to revise the directive on complaint policies, the 
agency stated that it has initiated a revision and that our 
recommendations would be thoroughly considered and incorporated where 
appropriate. Labor did not address our recommendations to develop a 
system for ensuring the regions complete audits and use the audit 
results to improve consistency of the complaint process.

Background:

OSHA was established after the passage of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act in 1970. In the broadest sense, OSHA was mandated to ensure 
safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women. The 
act authorizes OSHA to conduct "reasonable" inspections of any 
workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an 
employer.[Footnote 2] The act also requires that OSHA conduct 
investigations in response to written and signed complaints of 
employees alleging that a violation of health or safety standards 
exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists 
at their worksites, unless OSHA determines that there are no reasonable 
grounds for the allegations.[Footnote 3] OSHA inspections fall into two 
broad categories: those that are "programmed" and those that are 
"unprogrammed." Programmed inspections are those the agency plans to 
conduct because it has targeted certain worksites due to their 
potential hazards. Unprogrammed inspections are not planned; instead, 
they are prompted by things such as accidents or complaints.

How OSHA responds to complaints has changed over time. In the wake of 
the Kepone case, OSHA started to inspect virtually any complaint, which 
led to a backlog of complaint-driven inspections, according to 
interviewed officials. In its early response to the backlog, OSHA 
adopted a complaint process whereby each complaint was categorized 
based on whether or not it was written and signed by complainants. 
"Formal" complaints met both conditions, while "nonformal" complaints 
were oral or unsigned. OSHA further categorized complaints by the 
seriousness of the hazard alleged. Formal complaints were inspected 
regardless of whether the hazard alleged was serious, although offices 
were given longer time frames for responding to those that were other 
than serious. The agency generally handled nonformal complaints by 
sending the employer a letter.[Footnote 4] Agency officials said that 
as a result of these distinctions, the agency was able to reduce some 
of its backlog.

A new effort to reform the complaint procedures was made through the 
Complaint Process Improvement Project, which was part of the Department 
of Labor's overall reinvention effort from 1994 to1996.[Footnote 5] In 
January 1994, two area offices were selected as pilot sites to develop 
and test new procedures for handling complaints. Their work focused on 
an effort to (1) reduce the time needed for handling complaints, (2) 
speed the abatement of hazards, (3) allow OSHA to focus its inspections 
resources on workplaces where they were needed most, and (4) ensure 
consistency. The new procedures placed a greater emphasis on the 
seriousness of the alleged hazard as a factor for determining how the 
office would respond to a complaint. In addition, they introduced the 
use of telephones and fax machines as the means to notify employers of 
an alleged hazard instead of regular mail and provided specific 
procedures for following up with employers to make sure hazards were 
abated. These new policies were adopted and outlined in an OSHA 
directive dated June 1996.

Policies regarding complaints are established by the Office of 
Enforcement Directorate in Washington, D.C. Regional administrators in 
each of OSHA's 10 regional offices oversee the enforcement of these 
policies within their own regions (see fig. 1). Each region is composed 
of area offices--there are 80 in total--each under an area director. 
The area directors oversee compliance officers--there can be as many as 
16 in an office--some of whom play a supervisory role. Compliance 
officers play a key role in carrying out the directive. At almost all 
area offices, compliance officers take turns answering the phones, and 
taking and processing complaints, a collateral responsibility in 
addition to their duties in the field.

Figure 1: OSHA's 10 Regions:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Seriousness of Alleged Hazards Drives Complaint Response, although 
Erroneous Information Can Affect These Determinations:

OSHA primarily responds to complaints based on the seriousness of the 
alleged hazard using a priority system that the agency credits with 
having improved its efficiency. However, its determinations can be 
affected by inadequate or inaccurate information. OSHA officials 
usually conduct an on-site inspection if an allegation is of a serious 
nature. Agency policy also requires on-site inspections in cases where 
a written and signed complaint from a current employee or their 
authorized representative provides reasonable grounds to believe that 
the employer is violating a safety or health standard. In general, OSHA 
officials conduct an inquiry by phone and fax--referred to as a phone/
fax investigation--for complaints of a less serious nature. Many OSHA 
officials, especially compliance officers, told us this priority-driven 
system has been more effective in conserving their time and resources. 
Nevertheless, many of the compliance officers also said that some 
inspections may occur that are not necessarily warranted because 
complainants have inadequately or inaccurately characterized the nature 
of the hazard. On the other hand, almost everyone with whom we spoke 
said the agency prefers to err on the side of caution so as not to 
overlook a potential hazard. Many of the OSHA officials we interviewed, 
as well as officials from states that run their own safety and health 
programs, suggested approaches to improve the validity of the 
information accompanying the complaints.

OSHA Prioritizes Its Response to Complaints according to the Level of 
Hazard:

According to policy, OSHA initially evaluates all incoming complaints 
(whether received by fax, e-mail, phone, letter, or in person) to 
decide whether to conduct an on-site inspection or a phone/fax 
investigation (see fig. 2). OSHA conducts on-site inspections for 
alleged serious violations or hazards and makes phone/fax inquiries for 
allegations of a less serious nature. OSHA considers serious violations 
or hazards to be those that allege conditions that could result in 
death or serious physical harm. Specifically, OSHA initiates on-site 
inspections when the alleged conditions could result in permanent 
disabilities or illnesses that are chronic or irreversible, such as 
amputations, blindness, or third-degree burns. As seen in figure 2, 
though, OSHA will also go on-site when a current employee or his 
representative provides a written and signed complaint that provides 
reasonable grounds for believing that a violation of a specific safety 
and health standard exists. While immediate risks to any employee's 
health or safety are the primary factors driving OSHA's complaint 
inspections, additional criteria can also prompt an on-site inspection. 
For example, if an employer fails to provide an adequate response to a 
phone/fax investigation, OSHA's policy is to follow up with an on-site 
inspection.[Footnote 6]

Figure 2: Summary of OSHA's Complaint Protocol:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Complaints are received by phone, fax, e-mail, in person or in 
writing.

[B] In addition, OSHA considers the criteria for an on-site inspection 
that are established in the Complaint Policies and Procedures 
Directive, CPL 2.115.

[End of figure]

Area office supervisors or compliance officers may call the 
complainant, if needed, to help understand the nature of the hazard. 
OSHA officials told us they might ask complainants to estimate the 
extent of exposure to the hazard and report how long the hazard has 
existed. If an area office supervisor decides that an on-site 
inspection will be conducted, OSHA's policy is to limit the inspection 
to the specific complaint. A violation or another hazard that is in 
clear sight may be considered, but compliance officers cannot expand 
the scope of their inspection to look for other violations--a 
specification that underscores the importance of the complaint's 
accuracy.

Phone/fax investigations, meanwhile, afford an opportunity to resolve a 
complaint without requiring a compliance officer to visit the worksite. 
Instead, the compliance officer contacts the employer by telephone and 
notifies him or her of the complaint and each allegation. The employer 
is also advised that he or she must investigate each allegation to 
determine whether the complaint is valid. The employer can resolve the 
complaint, without penalty, by providing OSHA with documentation such 
as invoices, sampling results, photos, or videotape to show that the 
hazard has been abated. Upon receiving documentation from the employer, 
the area office supervisor is required to review it and determine 
whether the response from the employer is adequate.

For both on-site inspections and phone/fax investigations, OSHA's 
policy is to keep the complainants informed of events by notifying them 
by letter that an on-site inspection has been scheduled, the outcome of 
either the inspection or the phone/fax investigation, and the 
employer's response. In the case of a phone/fax investigation, the 
complainant has the right to dispute the employer's response and 
request an on-site inspection if the hazard still exists. OSHA can also 
determine that the employer's response is inadequate and follow with an 
on-site inspection.

Officials Credited the Option of Phone/Fax Investigations with 
Improving Efficiency:

Of the 15 officials who told us they worked for OSHA prior to 1996, and 
whom we asked about past practices, nearly half said the agency's 
current complaint policy has allowed them to better conserve their 
resources. For example, one 26-year veteran said phone/fax 
investigations have relieved his compliance officers of traveling to 
every complaint site for inspections that once averaged as many as 400 
per year. Because the employer investigates the allegation first, the 
phone/fax inquiry is an efficient use of time, according to this 
supervisor. Of the 20 compliance officers that we asked about this 
topic, 18 said phone/fax investigations took less time to conduct than 
on-site inspections. Nearly one-half of these compliance officers told 
us the phone/fax investigation procedures reduced travel time or 
eliminated time spent writing inspection reports. The agency handled 
about two-thirds of all complaints it received in fiscal years 2000 
through 2002 through phone/fax investigations.

Several OSHA officials we interviewed said OSHA's phone/fax 
investigation procedures ease the burden on employers because the 
employers have an opportunity to resolve the problem. As a result, 
these officials told us that their interaction with employers has 
improved. While few of the employers we interviewed had the complaints 
against them resolved through phone/fax investigations, the three that 
did expressed satisfaction with the way the allegation was handled. 
These employers reported that responding to phone/fax investigations 
required 3 hours, 5 hours, and 2 to 3 days respectively. Only the 
employer reporting the greatest amount of time believed that the time 
he invested was inappropriate given the nature of the alleged hazard.

A 1995 internal OSHA report, which reviewed the new complaint 
procedures implemented in two area offices as part of a pilot project, 
also credited phone/fax investigations with improving efficiency, 
specifically by reducing the time it took to notify employers of 
alleged hazards and to correct them, as well as with reducing the 
offices' complaint backlog. The report found that using phone/fax 
investigations reduced notification time by at least a week, reduced 
the average number of days to correct hazards by almost a month in the 
two offices, and eliminated one office's backlog and reduced the 
other's backlog by almost half during its involvement in the pilot 
project. The report attributed these gains to compliance officers being 
able to phone and fax employers to inform them of the allegations 
instead of relying on mail, promptly contacting employers to clarify 
allegations and to offer feasible methods for correcting hazardous 
conditions, and more employees choosing to have their complaints 
resolved with phone/fax investigations.

Erroneous Information Can Affect OSHA Hazard Assessments:

More than half of the 20 nonsupervisory compliance officers we 
interviewed told us that complainants' limited knowledge of workplace 
hazards and their reasons for filing complaints can affect the quality 
of the information they provide, which, in turn, can affect OSHA's 
determination of the hazard's severity. They said complainants 
generally have a limited knowledge of OSHA's health and safety 
standards or may not completely understand what constitutes a 
violation; consequently, they file complaints without knowing whether a 
violation exists. As a result, the level of hazard can be overstated. 
For example, one nonsupervisory compliance officer said he received a 
complaint that alleged a construction company was violating the 
standards for protecting workers from a potential fall, but found upon 
arriving at the site that the scaffolding in question was well within 
OSHA's safety standard. Over half of the nonsupervisory compliance 
officers (13 of 20) said that there were "some or great" differences 
between what complainants allege and what is ultimately found during 
inspections or investigations, because complainants may not completely 
understand what constitutes an OSHA violation or they have a limited 
knowledge of OSHA's standards.

Complainants' limited knowledge of OSHA's health and safety standards 
can also result in compliance officers not knowing which potential 
hazards to look for when conducting on-site inspections. For example, 
one compliance officer noted that employees might complain about an 
insufficient number of toilets but not about machinery on the premises 
that could potentially cause serious injury. In addition, another 
compliance officer noted that many times complainants' descriptions of 
hazards are too vague, a circumstance that prevents her from locating 
the equipment that was alleged in the complaint, such as a drill press, 
and OSHA's rules preclude her from expanding the scope of the 
inspection in order to locate the hazard.

The quality of the information complainants provide to OSHA can also be 
influenced by their motives for filing a complaint. For example, half 
(27 of 52) of the area office directors and compliance officers we 
interviewed said they have received complaints from employees who filed 
them as retribution because they were recently terminated from their 
jobs or were angry with their employers. Although this practice was 
described as infrequent, OSHA officials said that in some instances 
complainants intentionally exaggerated the seriousness of the hazard or 
reported they were current employees when in fact they had been fired 
from their jobs. One official asserted that disgruntled ex-employees 
have taken advantage of OSHA's complaint process to harass employers by 
having OSHA conduct an on-site inspection. Several of the employers we 
interviewed (4 of the 15) also claimed that disgruntled employees have 
used the complaint process to harass them. They expressed the view that 
OSHA should improve its procedures for evaluating the validity of 
complaints.

Some of the compliance officers we interviewed said it is not unusual 
to experience an increase in the number of complaints during contract 
negotiations. One official told us that in a region where he once 
worked, union workers filed multiple complaints in order to gain 
leverage over the employer. A union official acknowledged that this 
occurred but noted that it was infrequent. Other OSHA officials told us 
that competitors of companies sometimes file complaints when they lose 
a competitive bid for a work contract. One official said that while 
company representatives do file complaints against each other to 
disrupt the other company's work schedule, such tactics are not typical 
in his region.

Despite these problems, several of the OSHA officials we interviewed 
said OSHA's obligation is to evaluate whether there are reasonable 
grounds to believe that a violation or hazard exists, rather than 
trying to determine a complainant's motives for filing the complaint. 
In fact, 34 of the 52 officials we interviewed told us that almost all 
of the complaints they see warrant an inspection or an investigation, 
and as a result, many of the area offices inspect or investigate most 
of the complaints that are filed. One official said he would prefer to 
conduct an inspection or do a phone/fax investigation for an alleged 
hazard, rather than not address the complaint and have it result in a 
fatality.

State and Federal OSHA Officials Suggested a Number of Ways to Elicit 
Better Information from Complainants:

When asked during interviews about ways OSHA could improve its process 
for handling complaints, officials from OSHA and from states that run 
their own health and safety programs suggested approaches the agency 
could take to improve the information they receive from complainants. 
Although some offices were actively engaging in these practices, others 
reported that they were being used only to some or little extent.

Their recommendations were of three types; the first was in regard to 
strategies for improving the validity of complaints that OSHA 
considers. Many OSHA area directors and compliance officers said the 
agency could warn complainants more explicitly of penalties for 
providing false information, which could be as much as $10,000 or 
imprisonment for as long as 6 months, or both.[Footnote 7] This warning 
is printed as part of the instructions on the complaint form available 
on OSHA's Web site. However, OSHA's complaint policies and procedures 
directive states that area offices will not mail the form to 
complainants; consequently, complainants primarily receive the penalty 
warning only if they access the Web-based form.[Footnote 8] In 
contrast, an official from one of the state programs reported that his 
state's program requires complainants to sign a form with penalty 
information printed in bold above the signature line. According to the 
state official, this policy has reduced by half the number of invalid 
complaints.

Several OSHA supervisors and directors expressed reservations about 
having compliance officers make verbal warnings to complainants about 
providing false information while taking their complaints, saying it 
could prevent some complainants who are already fearful from reporting 
hazards. Of the 52 OSHA officials we interviewed, 23 said the extent to 
which they remind complainants of the penalty for providing false 
information is "little or none at all." Furthermore, several officials 
said complainants report hazards based on a perceived violation; 
therefore, they doubted a hazard that turned out to be invalid would 
result in a penalty.

To further improve the validity of complaints, one official pointed to 
his state's practice of generally conducting on-site inspections only 
for a current employee or an employee's representative. According to 
the state health and safety official, this policy improves the validity 
of information because current employees can more accurately describe 
the hazard than an ex-employee who has been removed from the 
environment for some time and whose relationship with the employer may 
be strained. Another state's health and safety official said her state 
has a policy that allows its managers to decline any complaint they 
determine is intended to willfully harass an employer, which also helps 
improve the reliability of complaints. According to this official, 
however, managers seldom find that a complaint was filed to willfully 
harass an employer. The state also has a policy that allows managers to 
dismiss any complaint they determine is without any reasonable basis.

A second approach suggested by many OSHA officials was to improve 
complainants' ability to describe hazards accurately. Of the 52 
officials that we interviewed, 14 said OSHA could, for example, conduct 
more outreach to educate both employees and employers about OSHA's 
health and safety standards. Although OSHA area offices already 
participate in outreach activities, such as conducting speeches at 
conferences or making presentations at worksites, several of the 
officials we interviewed said the agency could do more. For example, 
one compliance officer suggested developing public service 
announcements to describe potential hazards, such as trenches without 
escape ladders, and to provide local OSHA contact information for 
reporting such hazards. One official expressed the opinion that if OSHA 
were to conduct more outreach to employees, the quality of complaints 
would likely improve. Another compliance officer suggested that OSHA 
engage in more preconstruction meetings with employers to discuss 
OSHA's regulations and requirements and share ideas for providing safer 
working environments. One interviewee said if employers were more 
knowledgeable about hazards, there would be less need for workers to 
file complaints.

Finally, OSHA officials said the agency could take steps to improve the 
ability of employers and employees to resolve complaints among 
themselves before going to OSHA. Many of the officials that we 
interviewed said their offices could encourage employers to form safety 
committees or other internal mechanisms to address safety concerns. Ten 
of the 52 officials we interviewed told us the extent to which their 
offices promote or encourage safety committees was "little to none at 
all." Only some of these officials said that this lack of promotion 
stemmed from the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act 
(NLRA), which some believe may prohibit or hinder the establishment of 
safety committees.[Footnote 9]

Although Consistent Handling of Complaints Is a Key OSHA Principle, 
Practices in Some Area Offices Varied:

OSHA's policy for responding to complaints requires compliance officers 
to address complaints in a systematic and timely manner; however, we 
found practices used by area offices to respond to complaints varied 
considerably. While some of these practices involved departures from 
OSHA policy, others were practices that varied to such a degree that 
they could result in inconsistent treatment of complainants and 
employers. In particular, we found several instances where area offices 
departed from the directive by persuading complainants to choose either 
an on-site inspection or a phone/fax investigation, and by having 
nonsupervisory compliance officers evaluate complaints. We also found 
several instances where practices were inconsistent. Among the 42 
offices we contacted, we found that some conducted follow-up 
inspections on a sample of closed investigation cases to verify 
employer compliance, and others did not. Since issuing its new 
directive for handling complaints in 1996, however, OSHA has issued no 
guidance to reinforce, clarify, or update those procedures. In 
addition, while OSHA requires its regional administrators to annually 
audit their area office operations, some administrators do not, and 
further, for those who do, OSHA does not have a mechanism in place to 
review the results and address problems on an agencywide level.

Some Practices and Procedures Departed from Agency Policies:

In our interviews with 52 randomly selected supervisory and 
nonsupervisory officials in 42 of the 80 area offices, we found 
practices that appeared to depart from OSHA's official policies. In 
particular, agency policy calls for supervisors to evaluate each 
complaint. However, 22 of the 52 officials to whom we talked said 
nonsupervisory compliance officers in their offices are sometimes the 
decision makers for whether complaints are inspected or pursued through 
phone/fax investigations. In some of these offices, compliance officers 
make the decision if the complaint is less than serious. In addition, 
some officials told us that if the case was earmarked for an inspection 
or was challenging, the supervisor would then review it. While OSHA's 
directive addresses supervisory review within the context of 
inspections, an OSHA national director informed us that it is agency 
policy to have supervisors review each and every complaint. In 
addition, agency policy prescribes that compliance officers explain to 
complainants the relative advantages of both phone/fax investigations 
and inspections, if appropriate. However, 16 of the 52 officials to 
whom we spoke said they encourage complainants, in certain 
circumstances, to seek either an inspection or an investigation. For 
example, one official said that his office "sells" phone/fax 
investigations because they are faster to conduct and lead to quicker 
abatement than on-site inspections. However, an OSHA national director 
stressed to us that duty officers should not attempt to persuade 
complainants. Another practice that appeared inconsistent with policy 
was the treatment of written, signed complaints. Current employees and 
their representatives have the right to request an inspection by 
writing and signing a complaint, but before an inspection may take 
place, OSHA must determine that there are reasonable grounds for 
believing there is a violation of a safety or health standard or real 
danger exists. Area office supervisors are to exercise professional 
judgment in making this determination. Of the 52 officials with whom we 
spoke 33 said their offices exercise professional judgment by 
evaluating written and signed complaints. However, most of the 
remainder were about equally split in reporting that they evaluate 
these complaints "sometimes" (7 of 52) or forgo evaluation altogether 
and automatically conduct on-site inspections (8 of 52).

Finally, while we found that complaint policy was generally followed at 
the three OSHA offices where we reviewed case files, we did find that 
one office had not been sending a letter to complainants to notify them 
of a scheduled inspection. According to the OSHA directive, 
complainants should be notified of inspections.

Some Practices Varied Significantly among Area Offices:

During telephone interviews, officials described practices that, while 
they did not depart from agency policy, varied significantly from 
office to office. For example, offices differed in whether they treated 
e-mails as phone calls or as written and signed complaints. Of the 52 
officials with whom we spoke, 12 said they treated complaints received 
via e-mail as written and signed complaints, while 34 said they treated 
them as phone complaints. While agency policy is silent on how to 
classify e-mail complaints, this inconsistency is important because 
written and signed complaints are more likely to result in on-site 
inspections. Offices also differed in whether or not they performed 
random follow-up inspections for phone/fax investigations. While 10 of 
the 52 officials said they did not know if their offices conducted 
follow-up inspections, most of the remainder were about equally split 
in reporting that either they did (18 of 52) or did not (20 of 52) do 
them. Although the directive does not require follow-up inspections, 
the OSHA letters sent to employers says they may be randomly selected 
for such inspections. This inconsistency in practice across offices is 
significant insofar as follow-up inspections can be seen either as an 
added burden to employers or as an important safeguard for ensuring 
abatement. We also found variation in how offices determined whether a 
complainant was a current employee. The employment status of a 
complainant is important, as it is often a factor in evaluating the 
complaint. Of the 52 OSHA officials with whom we spoke, 30 said their 
offices determine whether a complainant is a current employee simply by 
asking the complainant; 11 said they asked probing questions of the 
complainant, and 5 said they asked the complainant for some type of 
documentation, such as a pay stub. While the directive does not specify 
how compliance officers are to verify employment status, the methods 
used to obtain this information can affect its accuracy.

Finally, we found that some area offices differ significantly in how 
they respond to complaints for which OSHA has no standard, specifically 
those involving substance abuse in the workplace.[Footnote 10] For 
example, during a site visit to one area office, an official explained 
that his office would not do a phone/fax investigation in response to 
complaints alleging drug use at a workplace, but would refer them to 
the police instead. However, another area office conducted a phone/fax 
investigation for a complaint about workers drinking alcoholic 
beverages while operating forklifts and mechanical equipment. An 
official in a third area office told us that his office has sometimes 
referred complaints about drug use at a workplace to the local police 
and at other times has responded to similar complaints with a phone/fax 
investigation. An OSHA national director told us that area offices are 
obligated to do phone/fax investigations for alleged drug use in the 
workplace.

Some Regional Administrators Meet OSHA's Requirement to Annually Audit 
Area Office Operations, but OSHA Does Not Utilize Results:

OSHA policy requires that regional administrators annually audit their 
area offices and that audit results be passed on to the Assistant 
Secretary. However, this is not current practice. Regional 
administrators are required to focus the audits on programs, policies, 
and practices that have been identified as vulnerabilities, including 
the agency's complaint-processing procedures. However, according to 
OSHA's regional administrators, only 5 of the agency's 10 regions 
conduct these audits annually, while 3 conduct the audits, but only for 
a proportion of their area offices each year, and 2 do not conduct the 
annual audits at all. In addition, according to one national director, 
all of the regional administrators are to submit the results of their 
audits to a Program Analyst in the Atlanta area office for review. The 
results of this review are to be reported to the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement, as well as to the responsible directorate, 
and they are responsible for addressing issues of noncompliance and 
determining what, if any, policy changes are needed. However, the 
Program Analyst in Atlanta said he does not receive all of the audits 
from each region as required, and an official from one of OSHA's 
directorates told us his office does not receive such reports.

The findings from the seven audits we reviewed underscore their value 
for monitoring consistency. These audits showed that most of the 
audited offices were (1) not correctly following procedures for meeting 
the time frames for initiating on-site inspections, (2) closing phone/
fax investigation cases without obtaining adequate evidence that 
hazards had been corrected, and (3) not including all required 
documentation from the case files.

Complaints Have, to Some Extent, Drawn OSHA to Serious Hazards at 
Worksites:

To some extent, complaints have drawn OSHA compliance officers to sites 
with serious hazards. According to OSHA's data for fiscal years 2000 
and 2001, compliance officers found serious violations at half the 
worksites inspected in response to complaints, a figure comparable to 
inspections conducted at worksites targeted for their high injury and 
illness rates. However, in one of our earlier reports, we expressed 
concern that for targeted inspections a 50 percent success rate may 
raise questions about whether inspection resources are being directed 
at sites with no serious hazards.[Footnote 11] Complaint-driven 
inspections shared other similarities with planned inspections; 
specifically, compliance officers cited similar standards during both 
types of inspections. On the other hand, complaint inspections often 
required more time to complete. Finally, we found a correlation between 
hazardous industries and complaints inspections. Specifically, those 
industries that, according to BLS data, had more injuries and illnesses 
also generally had a larger number of complaint inspections according 
to OSHA data.

From Fiscal Year 2000 to 2001, Half the Worksites Inspected for 
Complaints Had Serious Violations:

OSHA compliance officers found serious violations in half of the 
worksites they inspected when responding to complaints alleging serious 
hazards according to OSHA's data for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 
combined. These are hazards that pose a substantial probability of 
injury or death. During some planned inspections--those conducted at 
worksites targeted for their high injury and illness rates--OSHA 
compliance officers found serious violations, such as those involving 
respiratory protection and control of hazardous energy, in a similar 
percentage of worksites. Specifically, as shown in table 1, OSHA 
compliance officers found serious violations in 50 percent of the 
17,478 worksites they inspected during complaint-driven inspections. 
Likewise, they found serious violations in 46 percent of the 41,932 
worksites they targeted during planned inspections. In a previous 
report we noted that this percentage might indicate that inspection 
resources are being directed to worksites without serious hazards. 
According to OSHA, many complaints come from the construction industry, 
where the work is often dangerous and of a short duration. As a result, 
even if an inspection begins immediately, "citable" circumstances may 
no longer exist, a fact that according to the agency, might explain why 
the number of serious violations that result from complaints is not 
higher.

Table 1: Number and Percentage of Inspected Worksites with Serious 
Violations, by Type, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:

Inspection type: Complaints; 
Number of inspections with serious violations: 8,699; 
Number of inspections[A]: 17,478; 
Percentage of inspections with serious violations: 50.

Inspection type: Planned; 
Number of inspections with serious violations: 19,438; 
Number of inspections[A]: 41,932; 
Percentage of inspections with serious violations: 46.

[End of table]

Source: GAO analysis of data from OSHA's IMIS, fiscal years 2000 and 
2001.

[A] Numbers do not include other unprogrammed inspections, such as 
those OSHA conducted in response to worksite fatalities.

We found that, in contrast to planned inspections, complaint-driven 
inspections require, on average, more hours per case to complete. Table 
2 shows that OSHA compliance officers have required about 65 percent 
more time for complaint-driven inspections in comparison to planned 
inspections--29.7 hours on average compared with 18.1 hours--suggesting 
that while outcomes are similar, complaint-driven inspections are more 
labor intensive than planned inspections. Compared with planned 
inspections, complaint-driven inspections have a higher rate of health 
inspections, which, according to an OSHA national director, place extra 
time demands on compliance officers to obtain samples, test them, and 
document the results. In comparison with inspections, phone/fax 
investigations require, on average, far less time than either 
complaint-driven or planned inspections.

Table 2: National Average for Hours per Inspection, by Type of 
Inspection or Investigation, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002:

Response to complaint: All complaint-driven inspections[A]; 
National average in hours: 29.7.

Response to complaint: Phone/fax investigation only; 
National average in hours: 1.4.

Response to complaint: Planned inspection; 
National average in hours: 18.1.

[End of table]

Source: GAO analysis of data from OSHA's IMIS, fiscal years 2000 
through 2002.

[A] These exclude other unprogrammed inspections, such as those OSHA 
conducted in response to worksite fatalities.

In terms of the types of hazards they uncover, complaint-driven 
inspections shared some similarities with planned inspections that 
target the most hazardous sites. Of the 10 standards OSHA compliance 
officers cited most frequently for violations during complaint-driven 
inspections, 7 were also among the 10 most frequently cited during 
planned inspections. Table 3 shows the rank ordering of hazards cited 
most frequently during planned inspections and complaint-driven 
inspections. However, table 3 also shows that there were some 
differences in the frequency with which compliance officers cited 
particular hazards during planned inspections, compared with complaint-
driven inspections. For example, the standard most frequently cited 
during planned inspections, general requirements for scaffolds, is the 
18th most frequently cited standard during complaint-driven 
inspections. Likewise, the standard cited with the second highest 
frequency in planned inspections, "fall protection," is not within the 
10 standards most frequently cited for complaint-driven inspections. 
Such examples indicate that some differences exist in the type of 
hazards compliance officers found at worksites about which workers 
have complained and at those OSHA targeted for inspection.

Table 3: Most Frequently Cited OSHA Standards for Complaint-Driven and 
Planned Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002:

OSHA standard: General requirements for scaffolds; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 1; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 18.

OSHA standard: Fall protection; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 2; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 25.

OSHA standard: Hazard communication; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 3; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 1.

OSHA standard: Control of hazardous energy; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 4; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 3.

OSHA standard: Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general 
use; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 5; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 4.

OSHA standard: Respiratory protection; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 6; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 2.

OSHA standard: General requirements, for all machines; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 7; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 7.

OSHA standard: Electrical, general requirements; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 8; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 8.

OSHA standard: Mechanical power transmission apparatus; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 9; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 11.

OSHA standard: Bloodborne pathogens; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 10; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 10.

OSHA standard: Powered industrial trucks; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 17; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 5.

OSHA standard: Personal protective equipment, general requirements; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 26; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 6.

OSHA standard: Portable fire extinguishers; 
Planned inspections: Rank: 31; 
Complaint inspections: Rank: 9.

Source: GAO's analysis of IMIS data, fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

[End of table]

Hazardous Industries Had a Preponderance of Complaints in Calendar 
Year 2001:

Our analysis found a correlation between injuries and illnesses 
reported in industries and the rate at which complaints were inspected. 
As shown in figure 3, industries associated with higher rates of 
injuries and illnesses also tended to have a higher rate of complaint 
inspections than did industries with lower injury and illness rates, 
according to OSHA's data.

Figure 3: Correlation between an Industry's Injury and Illness Rate 
and Its Complaint Inspection Rate, Calendar Year 2001:

[See PDF for image]

Note: To correct for factors that could influence the relationship 
between complaint inspections and injuries and illness, we used rates 
instead of numbers.

[End of figure]

For example, one industry, transportation equipment, had 12.6 injuries 
and illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 2001 and had a relatively 
high rate of complaint inspections, .016 per 100 full-time workers. 
Conversely, the motion picture industry, which had only 2.5 injuries 
and illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 2001, had a relatively low 
incidence rate for complaint inspections, .0015 complaint inspections 
per 100 full-time workers.

For a handful of industries the pattern of high injury and illness 
rates associated with high complaint inspection rates did not apply. 
For these industries, the number of complaint inspections per 100 full-
time workers was either far higher or far lower than might have been 
expected given the number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time 
workers. For example, the air transport industry had the highest injury 
and illness rate for 2001, but its complaint inspection rate was lower 
than those for all but 1 of the 10 industries with the highest injury 
and illness rates. In another example, while the general building 
contractors industry had the highest complaint inspection rate of any 
industry, over a third of all industries had higher injury and illness 
rates. Table 4 shows industries that were highest or lowest in terms 
of injuries and illness and their corresponding rates of complaint 
inspections.

Table 4: Ten Industries with Highest Rates and Ten Industries with 
Lowest Rates of Injuries and Illnesses and Corresponding Rate of 
Complaint Inspections, Calendar Year 2001:

Industries with highest injury/illness rates: 

Transportation by air[A]; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 13.3; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0073.

Transportation equipment[A]; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 12.6; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0160.

Fabricated metal products; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 11.1; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0383.

Furniture and fixtures; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 11.0; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0210.

Food and kindred products; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 10.9; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0157.

Primary metal industries; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 10.7; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0283.

Lumber and wood products; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 10.6; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0262.

Stone, clay, and glass products; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full- time workers: 10.1; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0280.

Local and interurban passenger transit; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 9.8; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0110.

Agricultural production-livestock; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full- time workers: 9.2; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0061.

Industries with lowest injury/illness rates: 

Business services; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 2.7; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0038.

Motion pictures; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 2.5; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0015.

Insurance carriers; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 1.7; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0006.

Engineering and management services; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 1.6; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0017.

Depository institutions; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 1.4; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0007.

Holding and other investment offices; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 1.4; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0004.

Nondepository institutions; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 1.0; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0006.

Insurance agents, brokers, and service; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 0.8; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0011.

Legal services; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers: 0.8; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0005.

Security and commodity brokers; 
Injuries and illnesses per 100 full- time workers: 0.5; 
Complaint inspections per 100 full-time workers: 0.0006.

Source: GAO analysis of BLS and OSHA's IMIS data for 2001.

[A] OSHA stated that it does not pursue many of the complaints in 
these areas because its jurisdiction is limited. 

[End of table]

Conclusion:

Since 1975, OSHA has had to balance two competing demands: the need to 
use its inspection resources efficiently and the need to respond to 
complaints about alleged hazards that could seriously threaten workers' 
safety and health. In light of this ongoing challenge, OSHA has adopted 
complaint procedures that, according to agency officials, have helped 
OSHA conserve its resources and promptly inspect complaints about 
serious hazards. Nonetheless, in deciding which complaints to inspect, 
OSHA officials must depend on information provided by complainants 
whose motives and knowledge of hazards vary. Many OSHA officials do not 
see the quality of this information as a serious problem. However, 
considering that serious violations were found in only half of the 
workplaces OSHA officials inspected when responding to complaints, it 
seems likely that the agency, employers, and workers could all be 
better served if OSHA improved the quality of information it receives 
from complainants.

When OSHA conducts inspections of complaints based on incomplete or 
erroneous information, it potentially depletes inspection resources 
that could have been used to inspect or investigate other worksites. In 
addition, employers may be forced to expend resources proving that 
their worksites are safe when no hazard exists. OSHA should certainly 
not discourage workers from making complaints or pursuing a request for 
an OSHA inspection. Indeed, the correlation we found between those 
industries designated as hazardous and those that generate complaints 
inspections suggests that using complaints to locate hazardous 
worksites is a reasonable strategy for the agency to pursue. However, 
to the extent that OSHA officials could glean more accurate information 
from complainants, such as by deterring disgruntled employees from 
misrepresenting hazards or their employment status, the agency could 
benefit in several ways. With better information, OSHA could better 
conserve its inspection resources, minimize the burden on employers, 
and further enhance the agency's credibility in the eyes of employers. 
In addition, if the strategies described by OSHA officials as effective 
means to improve the quality of complaints are not being fully 
utilized, OSHA may miss opportunities to maximize the efficiency its 
complaint process might afford.

Some variation in how OSHA officials respond to complaints is 
inevitable, particularly considering that there are 80 area offices 
with as many as 16 compliance officers in each office. Nevertheless, 
the inconsistencies that we found have ramifications when considering 
the size of the agency and the judgment that comes into play when 
handling complaints. Moreover, OSHA has much to gain by upholding a 
reputation for fairness among employers. When employers buy into OSHA's 
standards and comply voluntarily, the agency can better use its 1,200 
compliance officers to ensure worker safety at the more than 7 million 
worksites nationwide. However, OSHA's credibility could be damaged by 
procedural inconsistencies if, for example, they resulted in different 
treatment and disposition of similar complaints. While OSHA requires 
regional audits for monitoring consistency, the failure to maximize the 
value of this information limits the agency's ability to ensure one of 
the underlying principles of its complaint policy.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

We are making recommendations that the Secretary of Labor direct the 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to instruct area 
offices to pursue practices to improve the quality of information they 
receive from complainants, such as:

* reminding complainants of the penalties for providing false 
information,

* conducting outreach to employees regarding hazards, and:

* encouraging employers to have safety committees that could initially 
address complaints.

We are also recommending that the Secretary direct the Assistant 
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps to ensure 
that area offices are consistently implementing the agency's policies 
and procedures for handling complaints. As a first step, the agency 
should update and revise the 1996 directive.

In revising the directive, the agency should update and clarify:

* who evaluates complaints,

* how complainants are advised of the process,

* how written and signed complaints are evaluated,

* how to verify the employment status of complainants,

* how to treat e-mail complaints, and:

* how to address complaints involving hazards for which the agency has 
no specific standard.

In addition, we are recommending that the Secretary direct the 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to:

* develop a system for ensuring the regions complete audits and:

* develop a system for using the audit results to improve consistency 
of the complaint process.

Agency Comments:

We received comments on a draft of this report from Labor. These 
comments are reproduced in appendix II. Labor also provided technical 
clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate.

Although Labor recognized in its comments that most complaints are 
anonymous and unsigned--a fact that makes it difficult to find 
employees to obtain their views about the complaint process--the agency 
recommended that we acknowledge in the report the limited number of 
employees we interviewed. At the beginning of the report and again at 
the end, we acknowledged that we interviewed 6 employees. Further, 
Labor questioned whether the number of employees we interviewed was an 
adequate number on which to base the conclusions reached in this 
report. Our conclusions about OSHA's complaint process were not based 
solely on employee interviews but were based on a variety of data, 
including interviews with 52 OSHA officials. In determining which OSHA 
officials to interview, we deliberately included area directors, 
assistant area directors, and compliance officers, which resulted in us 
obtaining information from officials at various levels in 42 of OSHA's 
80 area offices.

Labor also noted that our findings from OSHA's database which showed 
that only half of complaint inspections result in citations for serious 
violations do not recognize that many complaints come from the 
construction industry, where the work is often dangerous and of a short 
duration so that even if an inspection begins immediately, "citable" 
circumstances may no longer exist. We added language to the body of the 
report to reflect this information.

In responding to our first recommendation about improving the quality 
of information received through complaints, Labor stated that OSHA has 
taken many steps, both in its online and office-based complaint-taking 
procedures, to provide guidance to employees to ensure that all 
complaints are valid and accurate. We maintain, however, that OSHA can 
do more to improve the validity and accuracy of the complaints it 
receives.

Labor did not comment on our recommendations that OSHA develop a system 
for ensuring that the regions complete audits of the complaint process 
and for using the results of these audits to improve the consistency of 
the process.

We will make copies of this report available upon request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.

If you or any of your staff has any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Revae Moran, Assistant Director, at 
(202) 512-3863.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Robert E. Robertson, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Our criteria for selecting our site visits were geographical diversity 
and volume of complaints. We received data from the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the number of complaints 
each of its area offices processed in 2000, 2001 and 2002. On the basis 
of these data, we selected the three sites with the largest number of 
complaints processed in their respective regions and which roughly 
approximated the east, south and western regions. Those sites were 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas; and Denver, Colorado. In each 
of these offices, we examined a statistical sample of case files. We 
used a standard set of questions, pretested on case files in the 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office, to conduct the case file reviews. In 
addition, we interviewed compliance officers--both supervisory and 
nonsupervisory. We randomly selected 38 cases in Denver, 30 cases in 
Austin, and 34 cases in Pittsburgh from the available list of complaint 
files processed by these offices in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Austin and 
Pittsburgh had disposed of their case files for phone/fax 
investigations for 2000, according to area directors there, who said 
this was allowed by agency rules for how long files must be kept. As a 
result, our random selections for Austin and Pittsburgh were selected 
from lists that did not include phone/fax investigations for 2000.

In addition to our site visits, using standard sets of questions, we 
interviewed by telephone randomly selected area directors, assistant 
area directors, and compliance officers in 42 area offices. We obtained 
from OSHA a list of area directors, assistant area directors (who are 
supervisory compliance officers), compliance officers, and regional 
administrators. We randomly selected 20 of the agency's 80 area 
directors and 32 of its 1,200 compliance officers (12 assistant area 
directors and 20 nonsupervisory compliance officers). We also 
interviewed officials in all 10 regional offices. Additionally, we 
conducted telephone interviews with health and safety officials from 13 
states that operate health and safety programs apart from OSHA. We 
selected these 13 states, in part, based on discussions with OSHA.

In addition to OSHA officials, we also interviewed employers whose 
worksites were the subject of a complaint and employees who had filed 
complaints. OSHA provided us with a database of all employers who in 
2000, 2001, or 2002 had worksites that were the subject of complaints 
and employees who had filed complaints in the same year. From the 
database we randomly selected 90 employers and 90 employees. We took 
steps to make sure that employers' and employees' contact information 
was kept separate from their identity and any information collected 
from them during their interviews. We also obtained a guarantee of 
confidentiality from the report's requester. Of the 90 employers 
randomly selected, we succeeded in interviewing 15. Of the 90 
employees, we succeeded in interviewing 6. Some of the employee 
complaints randomly selected had been filed anonymously, so contact 
information was not available. In most cases, those selected could not 
be reached.

Finally, we examined data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 related to 
complaints in OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) 
and looked at data on injuries and illnesses collected and published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for calendar year 2001 as they 
related to complaints.[Footnote 12] In addition, for the IMIS data we 
obtained and reviewed documentation of internal controls and manually 
tested the data. We interviewed both OSHA and BLS officials to 
establish the reliability of the data. We found the data to be reliable 
for our purposes.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:

U.S. Department of Labor:

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health: 

MAY 21 2004

Mr. Robert E. Robertson:

Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office 
441 G Street NW, Room 5930 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Robertson:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report on OSHA's Complaint Response Policies: OSHA Credits 
Its Complaint System with Consenting Agency Resources, but the System 
Still Warrants Improvement (GAO-04-658). We are pleased that GAO 
recognizes that the Agency's complaint process is effective. Throughout 
its history, OSHA has striven to improve this process in order to 
effectively administer these important provisions and requirements of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act).

The recommendations for executive action made in your report advise the 
Secretary of Labor to direct that the Director of Enforcement take 
specified actions. H However, administrative procedures within the 
Department dictate that the Secretary should direct her instructions to 
the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, who in turn 
will determine organizationally how these instructions should be 
implemented, and we suggest the GAO's report be revised accordingly.

OSHA also takes issue with some of the methodology employed by GAO in 
preparing this report. As the majority of complaints are anonymous and 
unsigned, only six employees were interviewed; the Agency questions 
whether this is an adequate number of employees on which to base the 
conclusions reached in this report. We recommend that there be greater 
acknowledgement in the report by GAO of this limited number of employee 
interviews on which the report is based. (Please note that there are 
two minor discrepancies in the report. On page 2, six employees are 
mentioned as being interviewed and Appendix III is referenced as to 
where GAO's methodology is presented. Actually, the methodology is 
presented in Appendix 1, and on page 27 of that appendix eight 
employees are mentioned as being interviewed.):

The Agency does believe that, in developing its conclusions, GAO did 
not give adequate consideration to the particular circumstances often 
present in the construction industry. A large number of the complaints 
that OSHA receives allege potential 
imminent danger situations, such as a trench, fall hazard from a height 
greater than six feet (often far greater), or working near energized 
power lines. Such work is usually of short duration, and because 
worksite conditions are constantly changing, even if the inspection 
begins immediately, "citable" circumstances may no longer exist. In 
addition, often work is not ongoing or concludes before the inspector 
can visit the worksite. In other words, GAO's conclusion that only half 
of the workplaces that undergo complaint inspections result in serious 
violations may not have the weight ascribed to it by the GAO report. 
OSHA believes that GAO should distinguish the type of complaint 
inspections that were considered-construction, general industry, 
maritime or federal agency-so that better conclusions can be made.

Furthermore, Table 4 on page 22 of the report is misleading. It 
concludes that two of the industries with the highest injury/ illness 
rates are transportation by air and local passenger transit. OSHA has 
extremely limited jurisdiction for these industries and therefore, does 
not pursue many of the complaints in these areas. In addition, the 
table states that it was based on OSHA's Integrated Management 
Information System data; however, as IMIS does not track injury rates, 
it cannot be cited as the source of these statistics.

As stated above, Section 8(f)(1) of the OSH Act provides that workers 
have the right to request an inspection of a workplace if they believe 
that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens 
physical harm, or when an imminent danger exists. As such, any action 
taken by the Agency that discourages the exercise of this right could 
deter employees from requesting workplace inspections and thus would 
need to be considered in recognition of the fundamental right 
established by the Act. The challenge is to pursue administrative 
efficiency while assuring that the rights of workers, as provided by 
the statue, are not eroded.

The Agency has a variety of procedures in place to screen out 
unwarranted and ill-founded complaints, and OSHA's anecdotal evidence 
suggests that, as a rule, the Agency is successful in identifying such 
complaints. Statistics cited in the report support this fact, in that a 
higher percentage of complaint-initiated inspections result in the 
finding of serious violations than do programmed (i.e., targeted) 
inspections. This indicates that a significant number of employee 
complaints are valid in identifying serious workplace hazards that must 
be corrected. However, ultimately, in any given case the Agency cannot 
know if the information provided by a complainant is incomplete or 
inaccurate until a compliance officer inspects the worksite.

OSHA has taken many steps, in both its online and Area-Office-based 
complaint-taking procedures, to provide guidance to employees to ensure 
that all complaints are valid and accurately reflect potential 
workplace hazards. These steps support administrative efficiency while 
assuring that the statutory rights of workers to file a complaint are 
protected.

In response to your recommendation regarding safety committees, OSHA 
does believe that labor-management cooperation should be encouraged. 
However, OSHA does not, and should not, specify the manner in which 
such cooperation takes place.

GAO also recommends OSHA conduct outreach to employees regarding 
hazards. OSHA presently conducts a wide variety of outreach programs 
and activities through its extensive compliance-assistance program. 
Much of this outreach is specifically directed to employees and focuses 
on supporting the Agency's mission of assuring safe and healthful 
working conditions for working men and women by providing both 
employers and employees with information useful in preventing 
occupational injuries and illnesses. Workers can also access more 
information on the Agency's compliance-assistance activities on our 
website at:

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance assistance/ index.html:

Lastly, as stated at the opening conference, the Agency has already 
initiated a revision of its Directive on Complaint Policies and 
Procedures. Your recommendations will be thoroughly considered and will 
be incorporated, where appropriate, in the revised directive, which 
should be completed in the next fiscal year. Again, thank you for the 
opportunity to respond to this report.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

John L. Henshaw: 

GAO Comments:

The following are GAO comments on Labor's letter dated May 21, 2004.

We rephrased our recommendations to reflect Labor's administrative 
procedures.

Our conclusions are based on site visits to 3 area offices processing 
large numbers of complaints, reviews of case files in those offices, 
interviews with 52 OSHA officials--area directors, assistant area 
directors, and compliance officers--who represented 42 of OSHA's 80 
area offices, interviews with officials in all 10 of OSHA's regional 
offices, interviews with the director of the Office of Enforcement, 
interviews with officials in 13 states that have their own safety and 
health programs, analysis of data on complaints from OSHA's Integrated 
Management Information System, analysis of BLS data on injuries and 
illnesses, interviews with 15 employees whose companies were the 
subject of complaints, interviews with 6 employees who filed 
complaints, and the review of agency documents related to the complaint 
process.

In the appendix on scope and methodology, we corrected the number of 
employee interviews, changing it to 6 from 8.

We have included the agency's explanation in the final version of the 
report.

We added a note to table 4 acknowledging that OSHA's jurisdiction is 
limited in the transportation area and corrected the source of the data 
in the table.

On the basis of our interviews with OSHA officials who said the agency 
could do more to improve the quality of information received from 
complainants, we continue to believe that adopting our recommendation 
would help the agency better manage its inspection resources. Moreover, 
we believe that the agency could take such actions without discouraging 
employees from filing legitimate complaints.

[End of section]

Appendix III: Staff Acknowledgments:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Carl Barden, Sue Bernstein, Karen Brown, Amy Buck, Patrick di Battista, 
Barbara Hills, Mikki Holmes, Cathy Hurley, Julian Klazkin, Jim 
Lawrence, Luann Moy, Corinna Nicolaou, Sid Schwartz, and Michelle 
Zapata made key contributions to this report.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies 
Show Promising Results, but Should Be Fully Evaluated Before They Are 
Expanded. GAO-04-378 March 19, 2004.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement through 
Improved Program Management. GAO-03-45 November 22, 2002.

Worker Protection: Labor's Efforts to Enforce Protections for Day 
Laborers Could Benefit from Better Data and Guidance. GAO-02-925 
September 26, 2002.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Should Strengthen the Management of 
Its Consultation Program. GAO-02-60 October 12, 2001.

Worker Protection: OSHA Inspections at Establishments Experiencing 
Labor Unrest. HEHS-00-144 August 31, 2000.

Occupational Safety and Health: Federal Agencies Identified as 
Promoting Workplace Safety and Health. HEHS-00-45R January 31, 2000.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Workplace Safety and Health: 
OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement through Improved Program Management, 
GAO-03-45 (Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002). 

[2] 29 U.S.C § 657(a). 

[3] 29 U.S.C. § 657(f).

[4] Nonformal complaints classified as other than serious could also be 
investigated by telephone. 

[5] The reinvention was part of Vice President Gore's efforts to 
streamline government and better serve customers.

[6] Other criteria that would prompt an on-site inspection are (1) the 
complaint identifies an establishment or an alleged hazard that OSHA 
has identified as a priority, (2) the company that is the subject of 
the complaint has a history of violations, (3) an employee alleges that 
he or she was discriminated against for complaining about or for 
refusing to do a dangerous job, or (4) if an inspection is scheduled or 
has begun at a worksite and another complaint is received that would 
normally be done by phone/fax is received.

[7] 29 U.S.C. §666(g) 

[8] In the absence of an OSHA complaint form, complaints can send their 
complaints to OSHA as a letter sent through the mail or via e-mail, or 
by phone, fax, or in person.

[9] Under the NLRA employers may not dominate committees that are 
considered "labor organizations." See Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 
(1992), enforced, 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994). 

[10] Even where there is no established standard, OSHA may determine 
that a hazard exists, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act's 
general duty clause, and take enforcement action. The general duty 
clause refers to section 5(a)(1) of the Act, which generally requires 
employers to maintain workplaces that are free of recognized hazards 
that can result in death or serious injuries. See 29 U.S.C. §654(a)(1). 
So, for example, even though there is no standard for acceptable levels 
of mold in the workplace, a citation might be issued if an inspection 
determines that the presence of mold in a particular workplace 
constitutes a hazard in accordance with the statutory criteria. 

[11] See GAO-03-45. 

[12] These data are collected for the calendar year.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: