Advertisement

Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevention and Health Protection by Monitoring: Role of Individual Disciplines. The Lawyer: Legal Aspects of Monitoring, Confidentiality and the Worker’s Right to Know II

  • P. H. Weiner

Summary

Workplace monitoring is an important tool for both regulatory and investigatory purposes, assisting enforcement of existing exposure limits and the accumulation of information necessary for epidemiological studies. In a world of uncertainty, where exposure limits are based on firm data for only a small minority of substances, monitoring results can also be of utmost importance to workers. Both environmental and biological data can help workers enforce existing laws, provide a rationale for following stringent work practices, and assist efforts to bargain collectively for a healthier workplace.

Workers in the United States are now achieving these rights through regulation, but the right to know is more deeply rooted in fundamental American values, as expressed in American constitutional and common law, including the concepts of a right of privacy and a manufacturer’s or physician’s duty to warn. This paper explores these rights, and the countervailing interest in protecting trade secrets, with regard to results of workplace monitoring.

Keywords

Collective Bargaining Trade Secret Regulatory Uncertainty Vital Tool Individual Discipline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Calabresi, G. The Cost of Accidents (1971). See also Slovic, et al., Cognitive Processes and Societal Risk Taking, UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science, No. 7598, at 291 (1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Green, The Risk-Benefit Calculus in Safety Determinations, 43 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 791.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mishan, Evaluation of Life and Limb, 79 J. Pol. Econ. 687 (1971).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeckhauser, Procedures for Valuing Human Lives, 23 Pub. Policy 419 (1975).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schelling, The Life You Save May Be Your Own, in s. Chase (ed).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nash, Future Generations and The Social Rate of Discount, 5 Environment and Planning 611 (1973).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records, Final Rule, 45 FR No. 102, 35212–35303 (May 23, 1980)s29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.20.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 876 (1971).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 687; 97S.Ct. 2010 (1977).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    5 U.S.C. sec. 552.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Privacy Protection Study Commission, Report: Personal Privacy in an Information Society 295–300 (1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westin, A., Computers, Health Records, and Citizen Rights, (National Bureau of Standards Monograph No. 157, (1976) at 289–294.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Commission on the Confidentiality of Health Records, Dilemma, (1978).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. 493 F. 2d 1076, 1089–1090 (5th Cir. 1973): See Generally Restatement of Torts, 2d, Sec. 402A.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See, e.g., Rumsey v. Freeway Manor Minimax, 423 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. App. 1968); Davis v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 399 F. 2d 121 (9th Cir. 1968); Hubbard-Hall Chemical Co. v. Silverman, 340 F.2d 402 (1st Cir. 1965); Gall v. Union Ice Co., 108 Cal. App. 2d 303 (1951).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johns-Manville v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. Rptr. 858 (1980).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Restatement of Torts, 2d, Sec. 323 (1965); See Union Carbide and Carbon Corp. v. Stapleton, 237 F.2d 229 (6th Cir. 1956); Hoover v Williamson, 236 Md. 250, 203 A.2d 861 (1964); Coffee v. McDonnel-Douglas, 8 Cal.3d 551, 105 Cal.Rptr. 358 (1972); Wojcik v. Aluminium Company of America, 183 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1959); and Jines v. General Electric Co., 303 F.2d 76 (9th Cir. 1962).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See, e.g., Betesh v. United States, 400 F. Supp. 238 (D.C. Cir. 1974).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See, e.g., Tabershaw, Whose “Agent” Is the Occupa¬tional Physician, 30 Arch. Environ. Health 412 (1975). Bundy, How Do We Assure That The Workers’ Health Is The Occupational Physician's Primary Concern;, 18 J. Occup. Med. 671 (1976); Warshaw, The Malpractice Problem and the Occupational Physician, 19 J. Occup. Med. 593 (1977); Whorton & Davis, Ethical Conduct and the Occupational Physician; 54 Bull N.Y. Acad, of Med. 733 (1978).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 242; 104 Cal. Rptr. 505, 513; Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F. 2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Truman v. Thomas, 165 Cal. Rptr. 308 (1980).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See generally, Standard of Care Required of Medical Specialists, 21 A.L.R.3d 943; See American Occupational Medicine Association, Code of Ethical Conduct, Sec. 6, 8, 9 (1976).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tresemere v. Barke, 150 Cal. Rptr. 384 (1978)7 com¬pare John-Mansville v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. Rptr. 858 (1980), supra.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    See, e.g., 26 Maine Revised Stats., ch. 22 (1979)7 N.Y. Stats, ch. 551 (1980); Calif. Stats, ch. 874 (1980).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 17-CA-8331, —, NLRB—(March 27, 1979)? Minnesota Mining and Manufactur¬ing Co., Case Nos., 18-CA-5710–11, — NLRB—(March 13, 1979)? Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc., Case No. 32-CA-551, — NLRB— (April 25, 1979).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association 4 Cal. 3d 529, 534,93 Cal. Rptr. 866, 869 (1971).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kewannee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 486- 487; 94 S.Ct. 1879, 1888 (1974).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    4 Rest., Torts, sec. 757, see, e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp., 366 F. Supp. 1173 (D.Arz. 1973); Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. v. Fairbury Food Products, 370 F. Supp. 1080 (D. Neb. 1971) (insufficient protection of secret; no secrecy found); compare K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1971); Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 376 F. Supp. 258 (N.D.Okla. 1973) (meas¬ures ranging from modest to elaborate to protect secrets.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See Reference 7, at p. 35238.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 2601, 2613; Section 10 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. sec. 136h.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See, e.g., Fafnir Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 716 (2nd Cir. 1966).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427, 431–432 (1919). See also Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 32 S.Ct. Massachusetts, Guano Co. v. (fertilizer);, 715. (1912) (animal feed); Plumley v. 155 U.S. 461 (margarine); Patapsco Board of Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345 Id. at 431–432; National Fertilizer Ass’n v. Bradley, 301 U.S. 178 (1937).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See, e.g., FCC v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279 (1965); Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Comm'n, 306 U.S. 56, 60–62 (1939).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Uribe v. Howie, App., 96 Ca. Rpt. 493 (1977) (pest control reports); Carter Products, Inc. v. Eversharp, Inc., 360 F.2d 868 (7th Cir. 1966) (patent infringement); Wilson v. Superior Ct., 225 P. 881 (1924) (chemical composition of explosive); U.S. v. 48 Jars More or Less, 23 F.D.R. 192 (D.D.C. 1958) (FDA suit for seizure and condemnation of misbranded article); Cf. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1904) (compulsory vaccinations).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See Tarassoff v. Regents of University of California, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976) (psychiatrist must disclose confidential murder threat to potential victim); Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 2601.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Treatise on the Diseases of Tradesmen (1705).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ECSC, EEC, EAEC, Brussels-Luxembourg. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. H. Weiner
    • 1
  1. 1.USA

Personalised recommendations