OSHA-Compliant Employee Training

“Yes, we are OSHA compliant. Our apprentice lineworkers are trained and certified by a local line school, which guarantees that the training they deliver meets OSHA standards. Every six months, we send the apprentices to the school for two weeks of hands-on training. They also take online classes in between the hands-on sessions; the online classes are delivered via a learning management system (LMS) operated by the school. It takes two years for an apprentice to complete the program. If the apprentice passes the written and practical exams delivered through the LMS, the line school then certifies them.”

Before I go any further, I want to clarify my position. I support line schools and third-party training providers – in fact, I am a training provider. I have been a third-party resource for many years, training in every area of lineworker skills. A problem arises, however, when employers assume their third-party training resource is responsible for all aspects of employee training and certification.

If you think the scenario described in the first paragraph sounds like a reasonable way to provide quality training to apprentices, you are not alone. The reason many employers use third-party trainers is twofold: they don’t see training as their core business, and they lack the resources to create robust training programs.

There is nothing wrong with using a third-party resource to provide training for your personnel. But it’s important to keep in mind that although a third-party resource may have flashy advertisements and an impressive sales pitch, that doesn’t guarantee they will provide competent training – and OSHA knows that. That’s why the agency states the following in 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(2)(viii): “The employer shall ensure that each employee has demonstrated proficiency in the work practices involved before that employee is considered as having completed the training required …”

True Training or Checking the Box?
I typically categorize training as either the check-the-box variety or true training. Some employers, lacking resources to adequately deliver training, hire a third party to relieve themselves of that obligation. Check-the-box training leaves all the training solely up to the third party. The employer then believes their employees are certified, with the paperwork to prove it. Often, the issue is that because the third-party organization has stated that it is a professional lineworker training provider, the employer assumes the organization is competent to train their employees.

There’s another, more obvious reason to question third-party training, especially when you consider the scenario in this article’s opening paragraph. In that two-year scenario, an apprentice would only receive 640 hours of actual training; traditional line apprenticeships consist of 7,000 to 8,000 hours of on-the-job training. Here’s something else to know: With traditional apprenticeships, the employer documents an apprentice’s performance in the workplace, thereby meeting OSHA’s requirement to ensure demonstrated skills proficiency.

At this point, you may be asking why completing a third-party line school’s training doesn’t equate to demonstrated proficiency. It’s because OSHA holds the employer singularly responsible for the welfare of the worker – not the third party. The agency does not want to create an accountability issue by allowing the employer to transfer their responsibility to an unaccountable entity. OSHA cannot cite a training organization because that organization is not the employer.

OSHA’s intent is to ensure that the employer verifies employee skills via the demonstration model even when utilizing a third-party training resource. In joint apprenticeship training programs, each apprentice carries a skills record with them; a qualified person, designated by the employer, observes the apprentice and signs their record. Weekend schools at joint apprenticeship yards provide third-party training. Often, those yard trainers and supervisors are employed by the same organization as the apprentices. Observing skills demonstrations under such conditions meets OSHA’s requirements. Skills learned at the weekend school are also demonstrated on the job and logged in the apprentice’s training record.

The same would apply to an apprentice sent to a line school for two weeks every six months. Upon the apprentice’s return, crew members would document demonstration of the skills training received at school in the apprentice’s skills record. Verifying a skills demonstration doesn’t have to happen right away; it can take place anytime in the six-month period before the next training session begins.

I want to make another clarification here: OSHA does not regulate technical skills proficiency. The agency regulates safety relative to those skills. They don’t care if the single-phase transformer you hang on a pole is crooked – only that you don’t injure yourself or someone else while hanging it.

Certification
Now let’s talk about certification. In my work as a trainer, I offer certificates to trainees who successfully complete their sessions; these documents certify their participation. But the standard upon which a certification is based can be problematic. To earn any certification, specific criteria must exist for a candidate to satisfy. When OSHA requests an employee’s training records, the agency is holding the employer accountable for certifying that the employee was qualified to perform the tasks assigned to them.

The power-line industry has been trying to establish a universal training certification standard for decades, but that hasn’t happened yet. Each one of the many training schools and apprenticeships across the U.S. develops its own outline of skills that trainees must learn and successfully demonstrate before they can be considered a lineworker, substation or meter tech, or any other skilled craft worker. Five different trainers in five different parts of the country will create five different lists of these skills. The U.S. Department of Labor publishes skilled craft standards, but none of them are for lineworkers – which is why OSHA very clearly instructs employers to ensure that their employees are trained and qualified to safely perform their assigned tasks.

An Ethical Duty
How does the OSHA regulation regarding employee qualification affect employers that aren’t under the agency’s jurisdiction? Employers have an ethical duty to protect employees. No one in any company wants to see an employee hurt or killed on the job. We protect employees by training and informing them about the skills they need and the workplace hazards to be avoided. We also acknowledge that under workers’ compensation laws, the employer has strong liability protections known as the “workers’ compensation bar.” But in every state to different degrees, that bar can be overcome where an employer did not meet the degree of care due to the worker. So, even if an employer doesn’t fall under OSHA’s jurisdiction, they still must protect themselves against civil actions by maintaining a robust training program that meets conventional or common utility standards. If you are an employer under OSHA’s jurisdiction, you also must be able to defend your training program to avoid the costly fines levied by the agency for noncompliance.

Note that non-OSHA municipal employers are subject to the National Electrical Safety Code, also known by its standard number, IEEE/ANSI C2. Here’s the C2 standard for a qualified person: “Having been trained in and having demonstrated adequate knowledge of the installation, construction, or operation of lines and equipment and the hazards involved, including identification of and exposure to electric supply and communication lines and equipment in or near the workplace.”

The ANSI C2 and OSHA standards are aligned and have identical requirements for personnel training based on training outcomes.

I’ve spent 50 years working in this industry and currently serve as a work methods and training consultant who’s been defending employers as a litigation expert for 20 years. Employers in our industry must have policies and procedures in place that align with OSHA’s qualified worker requirements. Each employer also must be able to defend its interpretation of those requirements. Many can’t do it. This is something I come across in almost every OSHA and civil litigation case I work on. Whether it’s General Industry (1910.269) or Construction (1926 Subpart V), the requirements are the same. If an employer assumes a journeyman’s ticket is proof of qualification, they have made a mistake. The employer’s duty is not met by third-party certification alone under the employee qualifications standard. Look closely at the wording from both OSHA and ANSI C2 and you will find the phrase “demonstrated proficiency.” OSHA has consistently ruled that “demonstrated” means the employer must create a program in which employees are observed and measured against performance expectations specified by the employer where no such formal performance standard exists. OSHA’s most recent definition is from 2018 regarding crane operator qualification under 1926 Subpart CC, “Cranes and Derricks in Construction.”

Regarding qualification, OSHA wrote the following: “This rule continues to require operator training. It likewise clarifies and continues the employer duty to evaluate operators for their ability to safely use equipment. Just as an employee’s driver’s license does not guarantee the employee’s ability to drive all vehicles safely in all conditions an employer may require, crane-operator certification alone does not ensure that an operator has sufficient knowledge and skill to safely use all equipment. The record makes clear that employers need to evaluate operators and provide training when needed to ensure that they can safely operate cranes in a variety of circumstances. Similarly, and also consistent with many employers’ current practices, employer evaluation of a crane operator’s experience and competency with respect to the particular equipment assigned is essential to ensuring the safe operation of cranes on construction sites. This final rule accordingly continues the common-sense requirements that employers train operators and assess their competence and ability to work safely” (see www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2018-11-09).

The Bottom Line
The employer must have a program that satisfies the requirement to ensure employees demonstrate the necessary skills to safely perform their work. It doesn’t matter who does the training; it can be delivered through a private line school, a joint apprenticeship program or an in-house program. If an employer chooses to hire a lineworker with previous certifications, the requirement is the same. The employer must either test or observe the new employee and ensure that they demonstrate the skills necessary to work safely. For employees who require training, the program must ensure that they are qualified to safely perform their tasks through a combination of training, verification and demonstration.

About the Author: After 25 years as a transmission-distribution lineman and foreman, Jim Vaughn, CUSP, has devoted the last 28 years to safety and training. A noted author, trainer and lecturer, he is a senior consultant for the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction. He can be reached at jim@ispconline.com.