The purpose of this part is to collect in one place the interpretations of section 11(c) of the OSH Act that will guide the Secretary of Labor unless a court decision or later reexamination changes them. See 1977.2 for the official statement of purpose.
No — the interpretations in this part are authoritative guidance for the Secretary of Labor unless a court decision or a later reexamination shows they are incorrect. The part itself explains this role in guiding enforcement; see 1977.2.
Under 1977.2, OSHA would no longer treat an interpretation as controlling if an authoritative court decision directs otherwise. The part says interpretations guide the Secretary unless otherwise directed by courts, so a court ruling supersedes the listed interpretation; see 1977.2.
Yes — OSHA (the Secretary of Labor) can conclude, upon reexamination, that a published interpretation is incorrect and revise or withdraw it. The part states interpretations guide the Secretary unless reexamined and found incorrect or unless courts direct otherwise; see 1977.2.
No — letters of interpretation in this part are guidance that direct OSHA enforcement and the Secretary's actions, but they are not the same as statutory law or final court decisions. They are authoritative internal guidance unless a court or later reexamination changes them; see 1977.2.
Employers should use the interpretations as enforcement guidance to understand how OSHA applies section 11(c) and related provisions, and then update policies and training to match that guidance unless a court decision changes it. The purpose of the part is to make those interpretations available to guide the Secretary and stakeholders; see 1977.2.
Yes — an employee can rely on the interpretations as the agency's current guidance about how section 11(c) is applied, but should be aware that court rulings or later agency reexaminations can change that guidance. The part's purpose is to make those interpretations available to guide actions under section 11(c); see 1977.2.
No — this part does not replace court decisions; instead, interpretations in this part guide the Secretary unless an authoritative court decision directs otherwise. Courts remain binding authorities when they speak to section 11(c); see 1977.2.
The role of reexamination is to allow OSHA to determine whether a published interpretation is incorrect and should be revised or withdrawn; the part states interpretations guide the Secretary unless reexamined and found incorrect or a court orders otherwise. See 1977.2.
No — the interpretations are intended to guide application of section 11(c), but they do not cover every possible fact pattern and can be superseded by courts or later reexamination. Users should consult the interpretations as guidance and seek legal or OSHA advice for novel or complex situations; see 1977.2.
This part itself collects interpretations of section 11(c) for the Secretary's guidance, and the official standard citation is 1977.2. For specific letters, consult OSHA's collection of letters of interpretation such as the work refusal letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1983-07-11-1.
No — a refusal to work is not automatically protected; protection applies only when the stringent conditions listed in the regulation (for example, Section 12(b)(2)) are met. OSHA made this clear in the July 11, 1983 letter where it explained that refusals are protected only when all conditions in 1977.12(b)(2) are satisfied and leaving the workplace generally removes protection. See 1977.2 and the July 11, 1983 letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1983-07-11-1.
No — leaving the workplace to file a complaint with OSHA generally removes you from the narrow protection for refusals to work. The July 11, 1983 letter explained that an employee who left the workplace to complain to OSHA was no longer within the protected activity described in the refusal provisions; see the July 11, 1983 letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1983-07-11-1 and 1977.2.
The refusal was unprotected because the employee left the workplace and was absent for the remainder of the shift; OSHA stated that leaving the workplace took the employee out of the realm of protected activity. See the July 11, 1983 letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1983-07-11-1 and 1977.2.
Possibly — the July 11, 1983 letter explains that if the employee had remained at work after notifying the employer about the hazard and was then fired for refusing to expose themselves to a life‑threatening hazard, the refusal likely would have been protected. See the July 11, 1983 letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1983-07-11-1 and 1977.2.
A safety manager should treat such letters as OSHA's current guidance on how it interprets section 11(c) but also explain the narrow conditions for protection and that courts or later agency reexamination can change the guidance. For example, the July 11, 1983 letter explains the strict limits on protected refusals and notes leaving the workplace generally removes protection; see that letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1983-07-11-1 and 1977.2.