Toxic Warnings Ordered on Job : Prop. 65: State appeals court rules that initiative’s tough requirements apply in workplace as well. Seven million employees are affected.

SAN FRANCISCO —  In a ruling that could affect about 7 million employees, a state Court of Appeal ruled Thursday that the stringent toxic warnings required under Proposition 65 must be issued in the California workplace.

The decision was hailed by lawyers for labor and environmental groups, who said it means that workers will be alerted to the hazards of about 300 chemicals identified as potential causes of cancer or birth defects.

Under less-demanding federal standards, warnings are not required for 84 substances on the state’s toxics list, the lawyers said. The state law also requires warnings at a lower level of exposure than does federal law, they added.

It was the latest in a series of rulings in which the courts have rejected contentions by state officials and ordered broad application of the sweeping 1986 initiative. In March, for example, a Sacramento Superior Court judge invalidated a state regulation exempting foods, drugs and cosmetics from the initiative’s requirements.

“This removes the last major hurdle that was posed to full implementation of Proposition 65,” said Albert H. Meyerhoff of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is a big victory.”

Michael Rubin of San Francisco, a lawyer for the California AFL-CIO, said that under the ruling, the private employers covered by the initiative will likely be required to post toxics-warning notices in the workplace much like those already being placed in service stations, liquor stores and other establishments.

Lawyers who represented the state Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board in the case before the court were not available. Rick Rice, a spokesman for the state Department of Industrial Relations, said officials had not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. He acknowledged the decision will have “significant impact” but declined further comment.

The initiative requires private businesses with 10 or more employees to give “clear and reasonable” warnings to people who might be exposed to chemicals that could cause cancer or birth defects. According to lawyers, about 7 million workers will be affected by that mandate.

The case arose in a lawsuit filed by labor and environmental groups against the OSHA board after the board refused to apply Proposition 65 to the workplace.

The board said that contrary to the groups’ claims, a separate initiative passed in 1988 to restore job-safety functions of Cal/OSHA did not require such application. The separate initiative, known as Proposition 97, required the OSHA program to be consistent with other state job-safety laws. The board argued that Proposition 65 was not such a law because it was not specifically aimed at workers and contained exemptions for about 25% of the work force.