SAN FRANCISCO – The Court of Appeal of the State of California for the 1st Appellate District, Division Four reversed in part and affirmed in part a case that addressed whether the inside of a non-air-conditioned bus should be held to state regulations as an outdoor work environment on Aug. 13.
The key issue of the case was sparked after the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District received a citation from the Department of Industrial Relation’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health. It was accused of violating several state regulations regarding heat illness concerning its buses that didn’t have air conditioning. AC Transit challenged the citation and said the buses were not "outdoor" places of employment in regards to the purposes of preventing heat illness.
The Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board sided with AC Transit and dismissed the alleged violations. The department then challenged this ruling with the Alameda County Superior Court, which determined the Appeal Boards interpretation of “outdoor” wasn’t broad enough. It then instructed the appeals board to consider a less-narrow definition of “outdoor” that would involve vehicles without air conditioning. AC Transit and the Appeals Board appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal of the State of California for the 1st Appellate District, Division Four in turn decided the lower court’s interpretation of the regulation “is well supported by the language of the regulation and by its related regulatory history,” according to the opinion.
It reiterated the phrase “outdoor places of employment” in Section 3395 is too ambiguous. It sided with the trial court that the definition of the phrase should be expanded to include non-air-conditioned transit buses. It said this also remedies the argument that the phrase is too unclear. It also pointed out Section 3395 of the regulation backs its idea of the definition of “outdoor.” The phrase of “all outdoor places of employment,” that still needs to be defined more clearly, the court states.
Still, the appeals court disagreed with the Alameda County Superior Court that the appeals board would need to determine that working as a bus driver on non-air-conditioned buses only falls under outdoor work environments. It pointed out the Standards Board has already decided that work that is done outside, even at random or sporadically, is still protected under Section 3395.
Considering this, the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court was instructed to order the appeals board to reassess its decision amid the appeals’ court decision.
Judge Timothy Reardon authored the opinion.