Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
This replies to your March 31, 1997, correspondence requesting reconsideration of our January 16, 1997 settlement denying your claim for hazardous duty pay (HDP). The basis for your claim is that, as a meatcutter, you are exposed to hazardous chemicals used to clean your equipment. As we stated in that letter, an employee is not entitled to HDP if the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) finds that the workplace is safe. In your appeal, you state that an OSHA toxicologist wrote to you that, "In my opinion as a toxicologist, these chemicals are not unreasonable to use, provided that the user and the employer take reasonable and proper steps in following OSHA requirements for workplace safety, and following the precautions on the labels of these products."
The essence of your complaint is that your agency has not complied with the OSHA requirements. As we stated before, that is a matter to take to OSHA. We have no jurisdiction over the enforcement of OSHA rules. If you are not satisfied with how OSHA has responded to your complaints, you may wish to contact private legal counsel to discuss the legal remedies that may be available to you. However, that does not include further review by the Office of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, the settlement letter is affirmed.
Very truly yours,
Paul Britner Senior Attorney