In September Boston television station WCVB / Channel 5 interviewed Bob Hurwitz regarding his experience serving as an Arbitrator under the Massachusetts Home Improvement Contractor Act. The interview was televised on WCVB’s evening newscasts.
In addition to representing building supply companies and commercial contractors, Bob has served as an arbitrator on residential cases involving homeowners and contractors under the Act. The Home Improvement Contractor law was created in 1992 to protect consumers and regulate the business practices of contractors. It established a registration requirement for contractors, a complaint and enforcement program, an arbitration program for resolving disputes, and a Guaranty Fund program to compensate consumers up to $10,000 for unpaid judgments against contractors.
Hurwitz, Richard & Sencabaugh LLP is pleased to announce that Bob Hurwitz and Gene Richard have been named Massachusetts and New England Super Lawyers for the fifteenth consecutive year, and that Dan Sencabaugh has been named a Massachusetts and New England Rising Star for the third time. Bob Hurwitz and Dan Sencabaugh received their honor in the field of construction law while Gene Richard received his recognition in the field of administrative law for his work as a liquor licensing attorney. The Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists appear in Boston Magazine as well as the publication New England Super Lawyers. The Super Lawyers list recognizes the top five percent of attorneys in New England while the Rising Stars list recognizes the top 2.5 percent of attorneys 40 years old and under or in practice for 10 years or less.
A construction worker was killed last month while operating an excavator on the site of the future Encore Boston Harbor (formerly known as the Wynn Boston Harbor) resort and casino in Everett, MA. The worker was an employee of a subcontractor working on the project under the general contractor, Suffolk Construction. Investigations by local and Massachusetts State Police and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are under way to determine the cause of this fatality.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2011 decided Summit Contractors, affirming the potential for general contractors to be held liable under OSHA standards for hazardous exposures to the employees of a subcontractor. Under OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy (MECP), more than one employer, including both a contractor and a subcontractor, may be held liable for a workplace hazard if:
- The employer is creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling in relation to a hazard, and
- The employer’s actions were insufficient to meet its obligations with respect to OSHA requirements.
What does this mean in practice? An employer is:
- Creating if it caused the hazardous conditions that violated an OSHA standard.
- Exposing if its employees are exposed to the hazard.
- Correcting if it is on the same worksite as the exposing employer and is given the responsibility of installing or maintaining health/safety equipment or devices.
- Controlling if it has supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct safety and health violations either through control established by contract or in practice.
Steps an employer-contractor can take to protect your company include:
- Conduct regular inspections of the work site.
- Hire sub-contractors with excellent safety histories.
- Require all sub-contractors to observe safety rules and OSHA standards.
- Inform all sub-contractors of conditions that could violate OSHA and require correction of these conditions.
If you have further questions about employer or contractor liability under OSHA, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
This post is for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should it be construed, as legal advice. Statutes, regulations and case law may revise and amend applicable law. This overview should not be solely relied upon, without also consulting the then current state of the law as applicable to the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
One year ago, Massachusetts Treasurer Deborah Goldberg convened an Alcohol Task Force to review the state’s alcoholic beverages industry. The idea was to generate “forward looking” recommendations of ways to modernize the state’s alcoholic beverage regulations. All matters relating to alcoholic beverages are broadly under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC”), an agency within the state Treasurer’s department.
In late 2017, the Task Force released a lengthy report containing numerous findings and recommendations. https://www.mass.gov/news/alcohol-task-force-report
As an example, regarding grocery stores, the Task Force recommended:
- That local licensing authorities (LLAs) have the authority to decide the number of liquor licenses to be issued to grocery stores and supermarkets in their community. This would be a marked change from the current law, which puts a “quota” on the number of off-premises or “package store” licenses available in particular municipalities, based on their population; and
- That the ABCC be able to require grocery stores and supermarkets to designate a separate and/or particular area to sell alcohol within the licensed building, preferably with a separate door entrance and separate from the general areas to purchase non‐alcohol products.
Another Task Force recommendation proposed adopting a rule that out‐of‐state drivers licenses be an acceptable form of identification that a customer is of legal age to purchase alcohol in Massachusetts. Another calls for more flexibility regarding licensee manager eligibility, despite prior criminal records.
The Task Force’s report only contains recommendations – it does not by itself change anything. Its recommendations are subject to legislative and administrative review and modification before any may be enacted. Even if its recommendations are substantially changed, or ignored, the report is worthwhile as a snapshot of an alcoholic beverages industry in transition, as well as a road map for routes into a future that may, or may not, be taken.
Hurwitz, Richard & Sencabaugh LLP is pleased to announce that Bob Hurwitz and Gene Richard have been named Massachusetts and New England Super Lawyers for the thirteenth consecutive year. Bob Hurwitz was named in the field of construction law and Gene Richard in the field of administrative law for his work in liquor licensing. The Super Lawyers list appears in Boston Magazine as well as the publication New England Super Lawyers and recognizes the top five percent of attorneys in New England.
The Salem News has reported that Notch Brewery and Tap Room in Salem is on tap to begin operating soon: http://www.salemnews.com/news/a-new-permit-is-brewing-in-peabody/article_9ee16daa-bfcf-55d3-816c-66e14eba0464.html.
The article mentions that Peabody is working on allowing craft breweries to specifically apply for a special permit — the characterization of craft breweries can be unclear under many zoning and permitting by-laws.
For a very handy list of breweries, searchable by state and other categories, see this link maintained by the Brewers Association: https://www.brewersassociation.org/directories/breweries/. Consider adding the link to your “travel” folder!
Please contact us if you have any liquor licensing needs.
Effective July 1, 2016, our law firm’s name changed to Hurwitz, Richard & Sencabaugh LLP.
Hurwitz, Richard & Sencabaugh LLP (established in 1989 as Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz) will continue our practice focused primarily on the areas of construction law, liquor licensing/permitting and commercial collection of accounts receivable. We also handle civil litigation in all state and federal courts, arbitration and mediation, as well as counselling clients on a variety of other issues.
Please visit our website at www.hrsllp.com for more information.
On January 1, 2016, the number of off-premises (or “package store”) liquor licenses any person or combination of persons will be authorized to legally hold in Massachusetts, directly or indirectly, will increase from five (5) to seven (7). While the increase will go into effect as of New Year’s Day, there was some confusion as to the mechanics to be used to go about getting a 6th or 7th license.
Normally, any prospective liquor licensee files an application with the local licensing authorities. Notice of the application is then published and abutters are notified of the application, a public hearing is held at the local level, and then the application is forwarded to the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC”) for their consideration and approval as well. Generally, at best, there is a two to three month lag between the initial filing of an application and actually receiving issuance of a license. Accordingly, in order to receive a license as soon after January 1 as possible, some prospective multiple licensees had filed applications with local licensing authorities in 2015, hoping to gain approvals in advance of January 1 and be ready to open as soon after January 1, 2016 as possible.
However, the ABCC recently issued an Advisory clarifying the procedures to be followed. In the Advisory, the ABCC basically said, “Not so fast!” The ABCC says that any person seeking a 6th or 7th liquor license cannot file an application before January 1, 2016. Since January 4 is the first business day in 2016, don’t look for companies that already hold 5 licenses to be open for business in additional locations until later in January or, more likely, February of the new year.
Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz LLP is pleased to announce that Bob Hurwitz has been named a Massachusetts and New England Super Lawyer for the twelfth consecutive year in the field of construction law. The Super Lawyers list appears in Boston Magazine as well as the publication New England Super Lawyers, and recognizes the top five percent of attorneys in New England.
The federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) recently approved the sale of four powdered alcohol products. This follows the approval and later rescission of approval by TTB of seven powdered alcohol products in 2014.
Although this time it appears the TTB approval will stand, the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC”) quickly issued an advisory ruling essentially stating “NOT IN MY COMMONWEALTH!” Two days after the TTB approval, the ABCC Advisory stated that Massachusetts laws prohibit the importation, sale, and manufacturing of powdered alcohol in Massachusetts.
The ABCC reasoned that:
1. M.G.L. Chapter 138 regulates both alcoholic beverages and alcohol;
2. Powdered alcohol is not a “liquid”, and thus not an “alcoholic beverage”; and
3. Existing liquor licenses for wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers only authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages – and thus, not alcohol in powdered, non-liquid form.
Some wags were heard to wonder if the ABCC were called only the Massachusetts Alcohol Control Commission whether the Advisory would have come out the other way. California, for example, took a much more welcoming approach to powders years ago in Regulation 2557.
The company that came up with “Palcohol” extols its convenience, portability and flexibility, noting that hikers for example would be able to enjoy an alcoholic beverage by a stream in the woods after a long day on the trail, without having had to carry the beverage part of their beverage all day long.
Opponents note the same convenience, portability and flexibility of Palcohol might prove irresistible to minors and other mischief-minded or just careless individuals.
Next up? How the state will regulate different forms of marijuana if legalized.