OLIVET MANAGEMENT FACES $2.3 MILLION IN FINES IN ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Olivet Management faces $2.3M in OSHA fines
for knowingly exposing workers to asbestos and lead at NY work site

Exposure occurred during renovation of former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center

WASHINGTON — Olivet Management LLC, a real estate development and management company that owns the former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center in the Wingdale section of Dover Plains, N.Y., faces a total of $2,359,000 in proposed fines from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The company has been cited for exposing its own employees, as well as employees for 13 contractors, to asbestos and lead hazards during cleanup operations in preparation for a tour of the site by potential investors.

"Olivet knew that asbestos and lead were present at this site, yet the company chose to ignore its responsibility to protect its own workers and contractors," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "The intolerable choice this company made put not only workers, but also their families, in danger."

An inspection by OSHA's Albany Area Office conducted in response to a complaint began Oct. 23, 2013. The inspection found that Olivet employees and contractors were exposed to asbestos and lead while performing renovation and cleanup activities. The work, which was directed and overseen by Olivet supervisors, included removing: asbestos- and lead-contaminated debris; asbestos-containing floor tiles and insulation; and lead-containing paint from walls, windows, door frames and other painted surfaces.

OSHA determined that Olivet knowingly failed to take basic safety precautions. The company neither informed their own employees nor the contractors about the presence of asbestos and lead, despite knowing that both hazards existed. As a result, Olivet did not: train employees in the hazards of asbestos and lead and the need and nature of required safeguards; monitor workers' exposure levels; provide appropriate respiratory protection; post notices, warning signs and labels to alert workers and contractors to the presence of asbestos and lead. The company also did not provide clean changing and decontamination areas for workers, many of whom wore their contaminated clothing home to households with small children.

As a result of these conditions, Olivet was cited for 45 willful violations, with $2,352,000 in proposed fines. Twenty-four of the willful citations address instance-by-instance exposure of workers to asbestos and lead hazards. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirement, or plain indifference to employee safety and health. Olivet was also issued one serious citation, with a $7,000 fine, for failing to inform waste haulers of the presence of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, meaning asbestos from the site may have been disposed of improperly at an unknown location. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Renovation and cleanup activities can generate airborne concentrations of asbestos and lead. Workers can be exposed to both through inhalation or ingestion. Exposure to asbestos can cause disabling or fatal diseases, such as asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and gastrointestinal cancer. While lead exposure can cause damage to the nervous system, kidneys, blood forming organs, and reproductive system. 

In January of this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration ordered Olivet to stop all work that could disturb asbestos at the facility. EPA's investigation is ongoing.

Olivet has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission.

Due to the willful violations found at the site, Olivet has been placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with the law. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the employer's facilities or job sites.

EPA Criminal Enforcement: Protecting People and the Environment

NLRB News: Keck Hospital of USC agrees to pay $87,939 to employees as a result of unlawful unilateral changes

NLRB News: Keck Hospital of USC agrees to pay $87,939 to employees as a result of unlawful unilateral changes

NLRB News: Fifth Circuit upholds NLRB's finding that Flex Frac Logistics LLC's confidentiality policy unlawfully prohibited employee discussions about their wages, waived its argument regarding the President's recess appointments

NLRB News: Fifth Circuit upholds NLRB's finding that Flex Frac Logistics LLC's confidentiality policy unlawfully prohibited employee discussions about their wages, waived its argument regarding the President's recess appointments

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PAYS TO SETTLE ALLEGE FALSE CLAIMS IN PROGRAM FOR SMALL, DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Friday, March 21, 2014
Utah Construction Company to Pay Government to Settle Alleged False Claims in Connection with Program for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses

Okland Construction Co. Inc. has agreed to pay the government $928,000 to resolve allegations that it made false statements and submitted false claims under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) Program for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses, the Justice Department announced today.

“The purpose of the 8(a) Program is to assist small and disadvantaged businesses to compete in the American economy,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery.   “The Justice Department is committed to making sure that those who participate in 8(a) contracts do so honestly and fairly.”

Okland Construction, a large construction company, entered into a mentor-protégé agreement with Saiz Construction Co., a participant in the 8(a) Program.   The mentor-protégé program allows a large business mentor to form an SBA-approved joint venture with a small business protégé to jointly bid on and perform 8(a) contracts, which are contracts awarded by federal agencies that are set aside solely for small businesses.   Without a qualifying joint venture, the mentor and protégé cannot jointly bid on 8(a) contracts, and the mentor cannot perform the primary functions of the contract.

The government alleged that Okland Construction did not form a qualifying joint venture with Saiz Construction and thus was not eligible to jointly bid on or perform the primary functions of eight 8(a) contracts with Saiz Construction.   Nevertheless, Okland Construction allegedly prepared the bids for the 8(a) contracts and its employees served as project managers, submitted invoices and performed payroll and other accounting functions.   Furthermore, Okland Construction allegedly concealed its extensive involvement in performing the 8(a) contracts by misrepresenting to the government that its employees were employees of Saiz Construction.

The government also alleged that Okland Construction’s relationship with Saiz Construction violated the terms of an SBA set-aside contract awarded to Saiz Construction that required Saiz Construction to perform at least 15 percent of the labor on the contract minus the cost of materials.

“Large businesses must not be allowed to fraudulently obtain access to contracts set aside for small businesses,” said SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson.   “The SBA mentor-protégé program enhances the capability of 8(a) participants to compete more successfully for federal contracts through a relationship with another successful business; however, this program must not be used as a vehicle to improperly benefit large, non-disadvantaged companies.”

“SBA’s contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, provide small businesses with the opportunity to grow and create jobs,” said SBA General Counsel Sara D. Lipscomb.   “But SBA has no tolerance for waste, fraud or abuse in any government contracting program and is committed to working with our federal partners to ensure the benefits of these programs flow to the intended recipients.”

The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by Saiz Construction and its owner Abel Saiz under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties, known as relators, to file suit on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery.   The relators filed the lawsuit after Saiz Construction terminated its mentor-protégé agreement with Okland Construction.   Saiz Construction and Saiz will receive a total of $148,480.

This settlement with Okland Construction was the result of a coordinated effort among the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah, the SBA Office of Inspector General, the SBA Office of General Counsel, the Department of the Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The civil lawsuit was filed in the District of Utah and is captioned United States ex rel. Saiz Construction Co. Inc. and Abel Saiz v. Okland Construction Co. Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00362 (D. Utah).   The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

NLRB News: NLRB orders Greater Omaha Packing to reinstate employees unlawfully fired for protesting their working conditions

NLRB News: NLRB orders Greater Omaha Packing to reinstate employees unlawfully fired for protesting their working conditions

JUSTICE SAYS COURT RULED BAZAARVOICE'S ACQUISITION OF POWERREVIEWS VIOLATES ANTITRUST LAWS

FROM:  JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Friday, January 10, 2014
Justice Department Issues Statement on U.S. District Court Ruling That Bazaarvoice’s Acquisition of PowerReviews Violated Antitrust Laws

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division made the following statement today after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that Bazaarvoice Inc. violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act by acquiring its primary rival, PowerReviews Inc:

“By acquiring its only significant rival, Bazaarvoice deprived its customers of the benefits of competition.  We are pleased that the court, after carefully weighing all of the evidence, agreed with the Justice Department that Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of PowerReviews was likely to extinguish price competition and substantially diminish the pace of innovation in the market for product ratings and reviews platforms.

“As shown during trial, Bazaarvoice executives clearly intended to eliminate competition by acquiring PowerReviews.  Consistent with Bazaarvoice’s own pre-merger view of the marketplace, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that PowerReviews was a significant threat to Bazaarvoice and that other rivals are poorly positioned to fill the competitive void created by the merger.

“I am proud of the excellent work done by the trial team on behalf of U.S. consumers.  As today’s decision reaffirms, anticompetitive transactions that are not reported to federal agencies will not receive a free pass from antitrust scrutiny.”

Background

On Jan.10, 2013, the department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bazaarvoice.  The department alleged that Bazaarvoice’s June 2012 acquisition of PowerReviews eliminated the company’s only significant rival, in violation of the antitrust laws.

Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of PowerReviews was not required to be reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which requires companies to notify and provide information to the department and the Federal Trade Commission before consummating certain acquisitions.  The department began its investigation shortly after the transaction closed.

The department’s trial against Bazaarvoice, which was overseen by Judge William Orrick, began on Sept. 23, 2013.  The trial lasted three weeks, with closing arguments taking place on Oct. 15, 2013.  The court scheduled a hearing on Jan. 22, 2014, to discuss procedures for the remedy phase of the litigation.