Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall - 445 U.S. 1, 100 S. Ct. 883 (1980)

Rule:

To accomplish the basic purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act), as provided in 29 U.S.C.S. § 651(b), the legislation's remedial orientation is prophylactic in nature. The Act does not wait for an employee to die or become injured. It authorizes the promulgation of health and safety standards and the issuance of citations in the hope that these will act to prevent deaths or injuries from ever occurring. 

Facts:

Section 11 (c)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act) prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against any employee who exercises "any right afforded by" the Act. Respondent Secretary of Labor promulgated a regulation providing that, among other rights protected by the Act, is the right of an employee to choose not to perform his assigned task because of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury coupled with a reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available. Claiming that a suspended wire-mesh screen in petitioner's manufacturing plant used to protect employees from objects occasionally falling from an overhead conveyor was unsafe, two employees of petitioner refused to comply with their foreman's order to perform their usual maintenance duties on the screen. They were then ordered to punch out without working or being paid for the remainder of their shift, and subsequently received written reprimands, which were placed in their employment files. Thereafter, respondent brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that petitioner's actions against the two employees constituted discrimination in violation of § 11 (c)(1) of the Act, and seeking injunctive and other relief. While finding that the implementing regulation justified the employees' refusals to obey their foreman's order, the District Court nevertheless denied relief, holding that the regulation was inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, agreeing that the employees' actions were justified under the regulation but disagreeing with the conclusion that the regulation was invalid.

Issue:

Was the regulation in question promulgated by the Labor Secretary in the valid exercise of his authority under the Act?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the decision that the regulation was a valid exercise of the Labor Secretary's authority under the Act. Specifically, the court held that the regulation authorizing employee "self-help" in some circumstances was permissible under and consistent with the purposes of the Act.