You make the call: Staffer expands her job duties, has three fingers sliced off

“I was disappointed to learn that you had a bunch of workers standing next to a hazardous piece of equipment even though the safety guard for the device had been disabled,” said Tammy, the compliance officer. “I’m citing you for failing to adequately guard a dangerous machine.”

“We had a legitimate reason for letting those crew members stand next to the unguarded equipment,” said George, the supervisor.

“What reason?” asked Tammy.

“The crew was analyzing the equipment to determine whether we could increase its efficiency,” said George. “For that task, the guard had to be raised.”

“I suppose that explains why the guard had been disabled,” said Tammy, “but now you have to tell me why one of your crew members reached into the unguarded machine and had three of her fingers sliced off.”

“I wish I could explain that,” said George. “The injured crew member had been told days beforehand never to reach into an unguarded hazardous piece of equipment. She’d also been informed that while she was observing the machine, she was supposed to let the operator clear jams. There was absolutely no reason for her to reach into the danger zone of that equipment.”

“Well, she did reach into the danger zone, and now she has three fewer fingers,” said Tammy.

“We couldn’t have foreseen that the injured staffer would expand her job duties in such a reckless manner,” said George. “We’ll challenge your fine.”

Did the company win?

Yes. The company won. An appeals board overturned the citation. The board said the crew member exceeded the scope of her job duties when she reached into the machine to clear the jam.

Just days beforehand, the injured staffer had been specifically warned not to reach into equipment to clear jams. She was also told it was the duty of the equipment operator to free blockages; she was only supposed to observe the machine in operation.

Because the employer couldn’t have foreseen that the woman would expand the scope of her job duties, it wasn’t liable for the safety violation.

What it means: Workers often expand their duties

As many times as you might warn crew members not to expand their job duties, the unfortunate reality is that people will sometimes take on tasks for which they haven’t been trained, then get hurt.

In this case, the woman had been told not to clear jams, but she tried to remove a blockage anyway. As a result, she now has three fewer fingers.

Your takeaway: Regularly remind your crew members to avoid potentially hazardous tasks that they haven’t been trained to handle. Plus, if you see someone expanding his or her job duties and engaging in unsafe work, be sure to immediately discipline the individual.

Based on CalOSHA v. Blue Diamond Growers.

(From the August 31, 2026, issue of Safety Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)