In April-May 2008, there were a spate of fatalities involving workers doing installations or maintenance on cell phone towers. I blogged about seven of these worker deaths and promised to report back on the outcome of the Federal or State OSHA investigations. Of the seven fatal incidents, three resulted in informal settlements of serious violations with penalties ranging from $2,100 to $4,900; and two investigations resulted in no citations or penalties, with one of these cases closed just two days after the worker’s death. For another, I was unable to locate any data about the incident using OSHA’s on-line establishment search tool. The details of six of the incidents appear at the end of this post. The most complete information I can provide relates to the fatal fall on May 16, 2008 of Mr. Jonathan Guilford, 25, who was employed by Phoenix of Tennessee, dba All About Towers. The information comes from documents provided by Indiana OSHA (IOSHA) which I requested under the State’s Access to Public Records Act. It took a few back-and-forths and about 90 days to receive the information.
The 36 pages of IOSHA’s fatality investigation, citations and penalties reveal many troubling details about the working conditions for Mr. Guilford and his co-workers. This includes that the surviving workers
“were fired” because they “did not look after each other.” [see page 20]
This revelation came after I’d just read in the inspector’s notes about the employer’s failure to provide appropriate climbing and rigging equipment. The hook used by Mr. Guilford
“was missing the safety latch (‘keeper’)” and the equipment rope “was routinely used for moving material up/down the tower and was not suitable for life safety purposes.” [see page 7, page 19]
[This employer's disregard for safety grossly overshadows any claim that the worker simply "didn't look out for each other."]
As the IOSHA inspector reiterated in his notes:
“Equipment ropes are used for material, safety ropes are used for people. Period.” [see page 19]
A company supervisor reported to the CSHO:
“The day after Jay’s fall, the company sent me to all of the other tower sites in this market to check for and remove bad climbing and rigging equipment. I found several hooks with missing keepers.” [see page 20]
And another worker stated:
“I know what happened. I bet he [deceased worker Guilford] used the bad hook—you know, the one with the missing gate.” [see page 20]
When asked by the investigator, ‘how come it was available for use’?
“It was just hanging on the hook in the trailer.”
Tell me: How does a company that specializes in communication tower construction and services—climbing and working hundreds of feet off the ground—fail to have an exceptional fall protection program??
This particular cell-tower site was rented to corporate giant AT&T which hired General Dynamics to oversee the upgrade of the tower equipment. Wouldn’t you think that AT&T and General Dynamics would have taken steps to ensure that Phoenix of Tennessee, dba All About Towers, had an A+ fall protection program and a Five-Star H&S system??
Well, General Dynamics’ lack of attention to safety on the front-end of this project was not repeated when it came to attention to the IOSHA investigation of Mr. Guilford’s fatal fall. During IOSHA CSHO’s opening conference, there were four officials from General Dynamics as well as one rep from All Around Tower and the property owner [page 30]. Likewise, General Dynamics’ officials participated three months later in IOSHA’s closing conference. [No worker reps are listed on the attendance sheet. The employees of All Around Tower were not represented by a labor organization, and the documents don't indicate how (or if) workers were notified of their right to participate in these official briefings.]
The company, Phoenix of Tennessee, dba All About Towers, received four serious violations of safety standards related to safety belts, lifelines and lanyards; safety nets; and rigging equipment. The unadjusted monetary penalty was $20,000 but because the firm’s size and history, received a 50% penalty reduction for an assessed penalty of $10,000. Through a settlement agreement, three of the four violations were deleted and the penalty reduced to $2,500. Neither the information I received from IOSHA, nor the OSHA on-line summary indicates what the employer has done to ensure that this gross disregard for workers’ safety never happens again.
My final revelation from the documents provided by IOSHA comes from the OSHA 300A form [page 14]. The company’s DART rate for 2007 was 1.8. What happens to the employer’s DART rate because of a fatality? As far as I can tell looking at OSHA’s injury recordkeeping system, a fatality counts as a single incident with no extra days “lost” figured into the rate. If DART rates are used by companies [and even OSHA] as a measure of an employer’s injury prevention program, shouldn’t a few thousand lost workdays be charged against the company’s rate? For example, an old Bureau of Mines guidance document assessed 6,000 days to a fatality or case of permanent disability. As it stands under the current DART calculation system, a prospective employee, contractor or member of the public could be substantially deceived by today’s DART rates exclude these most severe of all injuries.
As noted above, here is additional information on the six fatalities of cell-tower workers that occurred in April-May 2008:
**Darren Joe Reed, employed by Structural Systems Technology (McLean, Virginia) died at the Channel 7 WSVN antenna farm near Miami, Florida on May 22. The OSHA on-line summary for this incident tells us that the firm was cited for two serious violations of fall protection standards and assessed a $9,800 penalty. Through an informal settlement agreement, the penalty was reduced to $4,900. The OSHA site does not indicate what the employer has done to ensure the future safety and health of their employees and contractors.
**Mark Haynes, 31, of Griffin, Georgia was killed at a job in Natchez, Mississippi on April 23. He was employed by Overland Contracting, Inc of Black & Veatch Company. The OSHA on-line summary for this incident tells us that no citations or penalties were assessed following OSHA’s investigation.
**James Daryl Friesenhaun, 38, fatally fell 200 feet on April 15, 2008 at a job for the City of San Antonio’s CPS Energy. He was employed by Ransor Incorporated. The OSHA on-line summary for this incident tells us that OSHA closed its investigation after two days, and no citatons or penalties were assessed. [Was Mr. Friesenhaun considered a public sector employee, and therefore federal OSHA didn't have authority to investigate his work-related death?]
**An unnamed worker employed by Cornerstone Tower of Grand Island, NE was killed at a job in Moorcroft, WY on April 14. The OSHA on-line summary for this incident tells us that WY-OSHA cited the employer for two serious violations of fall protection standards and assessed a $5,000 penalty.
**Charles Wade Lupton, 34, of Midwest City, OK was fell 150 to his death at a job in Wake Forest, NC on April 12. He was employed by MJM Group. The OSHA on-line summary for this incident tells us that NC-OSHA cited the employer for two serious violations and assessed a $4,200 penalty. Through an informal settlement, one of the violations was deleted and the penalty was reduced to $2,100. The summary does not indicate what the employer has done to ensure the future safety and health of their employees and contractors.
**William Edward Bernard Jr., 46, of Chesapeake, Virginia was killed at a job in Frisco, NC on April 17. He was employed by Brook Hill Communication. I have been unable to locate information on OSHA’s on-line “Establishment Search” page about the status of this fatality investigation.


4 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Joe
As long as OSHA issues a $5000 fine in a fatality case, none of these companies will get serious about their safety programs. Jordan Barab noted in his farewell post on his Confined Space blog “that we have more fish and wildlife inspectors than OSHA inspectors, [and] that the penalties from a chemical release that kills fish is higher than a chemical release that kills a worker.”
September 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Bridget Pierce-Guilford
My husband was Jonathan Guilford and nothing was done by the companies for his death TO THIS DAY and they were resposible for his death!
December 15, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Stephanie Vallet
Ms. Monforton, you and your opinion are horrifically mistaken. All Around Towers and Phoenix of TN, Inc. are a safe company.
At the time of Jonathan’s death there were over 60 employees in All Around Towers working in multiple states, cities and jobs. The other 2 companies under Phoenix had another 50 employees all working around the U.S. The men have got to step up and take the responsibility to police themselves. They cannot babysit men all day. No one in America wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. Until the men begin doing this the deaths will continue.
Yes, some of the men on the crew were fired because they broke multiple company policies and contributed to the death of Jonathan. However, the crew leader called the office that morning stating that day would be his last. The crew knew about the broken latch and knew it was in the trailer, per their statement to OSHA, and did nothing about it. They were fired because they cheered Jonathan on while he laughed, hollered, bounced around and rapelled down on a lift line, per the landowner’s statements.
They had controlled descending ropes in the trailer that was not used. The safety line that is to be attached to the D-ring of Jonathan’s harness lay next to the tower on the ground, another rule Jonathan broke. The crew witnessed this and did not say anything to him.
So, yes, they fired them. Hopefully, next time when they see someone breaking Company and OSHA Safety Rules, they will stop them and not stand idley by or encourage them. Would you prefer AAT slap them on the hand and let them keep their jobs and endanger someone else?
So though the correct equipment was there, Jonathan Guilford and the guys that allowed his death-
1. -did not use the cable grab on his harness that was issued. It was attached to his harness at his death and they said nothing.
2. -chose not to come down on the safety cable safely vs. “Cowboying” down a rope used for lifting equipment and they said nothing.
3. -used a “Danger painted”, “Removed from service” block though 3 other safe blocks were next to it. The men knew about this per their statements and never threw it out. This was used because it is smaller and lighter, therefore easier to carry up the tower.
4. -did not rig the tower with the proper rope that was sitting next to the tower when he fell. The other men saw this and said nothing.
5. -did not rig a safety life line that was in the trailer and designed for control descending.
6. -Jonathan did not use the safety rope grab with shock-absorbing lanyard issued that was attached to the back of his harness when he died. The men saw this and said nothing.
7. -Jonathan did not use a rigging strap, instead attached the hook directly to the tower which also contributed to his death.
Unfortunately, until OSHA begins fining the individual breaking the safety rules, along with the company, individuals will continue to break rules.
Bridgette Pierson, All Around Towers and Phoenix of TN, Inc. did not kill Jonathan. Unfortunately, Jonathan killed Jonathan. It was terrible and tragic, but Jonathan held the key to his safety.
Why did you tell me, Doug Delany, Mr. Waites and many others that the companies did all they could and that Jonathan fell due to his personality? You then told us he had previously fallen from the roof of a building while working for a roofing company due to, “Not wearing the safety harness provided”. According to you he ended up in ICU following this particular accident.
Regarding your comment that the companies never did anything for you, I handled your case when I worked for Phoenix. So are you saying the $200K Life Insurance Policy they provided is nothing? If I remember correctly, you called me 3 days after the funeral and told me your 3-year-old daughter found a house that she loved (so you were house shopping already?!?!?) and you wanted to know when the settlement would be given to you!?!?
Even though Jonathan tested positive for drugs, the company fought until you received the full $200K instead of a smaller settlement from the insurance company.
The companies paid for the $10K funeral.
The companies paid for, and set up, your grief counseling. You even called the office and stated that you wanted a different counselor and you had found one. It was taken care of. The companies also offered the grief counseling to Jonathan’s parents, siblings and crew members.
What else should be included in the “Nothing” that should have been provided, per your opinion?
And most importantly, if the companies actually, “Killed your husband” per your comments, why on earth would you bring your new live-in boyfriend from Murfreesboro to fill out an application for a job a year later? If I recall, when Mr. Waites walked into the front lobby, your actual comment to him was, “Well, Kyle, looks like I’ve got another one for you”. Chills went down my spine!
I can honestly tell you that they were tragically sorry when Jonathan died, but, as stated above, Jonathan knew the rules and was provided with the safety gear. He chose to not use them a second time…….unfortunately, he was not so lucky the second time.
Again, my sincerest condolences.
Sleep with your conscious, Bridgette…
December 15, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Celeste Monforton
Stephanie Vallet,
What I wrote in this post is based on the information I received from Indiana OSHA. If you have additional materials from the company’s investigation, please send them to me. It has been two years since I wrote this post and would consider writing an update.