What happened in this inspection
Cal/OSHA opened a planned inspection of Tyco Electronics at 306 Pasadena Ave, South Pasadena (Los Angeles County) on Sep 25, 2003. It was a complete inspection of the worksite focused on health hazards. 160 employees were recorded at the site. Inspectors issued 16 citations (5 serious) and proposed $32,920 in penalties; the current total is $19,270. The case closed on Jun 24, 2005. The employer has 5 other inspections on its California record.
Citations
Each citation names the rule, its classification and the penalty as proposed and as it stands now.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $225, current $225. 2 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $335, current $335. 4 instances. 10 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $225, current $225. 2 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $335, current $335. 3 instances. 10 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $225, current $225. 20 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $300, current $300. 2 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $225, current $225. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 26, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $2,700, current $300. 5 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $5,400, current $2,700. 13 instances. 10 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $4,050, current $4,050. 2 instances. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $5,400, current $4,050. 10 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $2,700, current $2,700. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $2,700, current $300. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $2,700, current $2,700. 2 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $2,700, current $300. 2 instances. 5 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 25, 2004. Proposed $2,700, current $300. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Mar 3, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Your rights
If you worked at this site, the inspection file is a public record once the case closes; request it from the Cal/OSHA district office with activity number 301278214. A worker who reported the hazard, the injury or the inspection and was then fired, demoted or cut has a retaliation claim under Labor Code 6310, one year to file with the Labor Commissioner and longer to sue. Injuries themselves go through workers' compensation. Free, confidential review: (800) 371-3088.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, inspection 301278214, checked Nov 1, 2026. How to read a record. Back to the safety tracker.
About this data: Records come from the U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA enforcement datasets (inspection, violation, accident and accident injury tables), which carry Cal/OSHA's state-plan inspections alongside federal ones. We load every inspection of a California worksite opened since January 1, 2000 and refresh it weekly. Employer names, addresses and industry codes are as the inspecting office recorded them; similar names are grouped where they clearly refer to the same employer. A citation can be reduced, vacated or withdrawn on appeal, and an inspection can stay open for months, so a record can change. Penalties shown as "current" reflect the latest status in the federal file. This page is public information about the employer's regulatory record, not legal advice and not a statement that any person was harmed or any law broken beyond what the record states.