Grand Union Company (Commission decision, February 5, 1976)

Plain-English summary

Grand Union operated retail stores in Peterborough and Allenstown, New Hampshire. OSHA cited each store under the general personal-protective-equipment standard because meatcutters did not use wire-mesh gloves. The judge found that mesh gloves would eliminate or substantially reduce knife injuries and affirmed both items. The Commission applied its earlier Grand Union decision holding that the general PPE rule did not require retail-store butchers to wear mesh gloves. It reversed the judge and vacated both citations. No penalties had been proposed for the contested items.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a)
• Outcome: Both retail mesh-glove citations were vacated, with no contested penalty remaining.
• Key point: The Commission's earlier Grand Union ruling controlled identical mesh-glove citations at two additional stores.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

�������������������������������������������� Complainant,

������������������������ v.

OSHRC
DOCKET NOS. 11745 & 11767

GRAND
UNION COMPANY,

��������������������������������������������� Respondent.

February 5, 1976

�

DECISION

BEFORE BARNAKO, Chairman, MORAN and CLEARY,
Commissioners.

MORAN, Commissioner:

A decision of Review
Commission Judge Henry K. Osterman, dated July 31, 1975, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. � 661(i). That decision held that in each of these consolidated cases the respondent failed to comply with the occupational safety and health standard codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a) in that its retail store butchers were not protected by wire mesh gloves.

In Secretary v. Grand
Union Company , 20 OSAHRC �� (Docket Nos. 7533 & 7031, October 28, 1975), a divided Commission held that 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a) does not require retail store butchers to wear wire mesh gloves while cutting meat. That decision is dispositive of the instant cases.

Accordingly, the Judge�s
decision is reversed and the citations for violations of 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a) are vacated.

�

FOR THE COMMISSION:

�

William S. McLaughlin

Executive Secretary

DATED: FEB 5, 1976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

�������������������������������������������� Complainant,

������������������������ v.

OSHRC
DOCKET NOS. 11745 & 11767

GRAND
UNION COMPANY,

��������������������������������������������� Respondent.

July 31, 1975

APPEARANCES:

Albert
H. Ross, Regional Solicitor U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts by Joan Entmacher, Esq. for the Secretary of Labor

Stephen
Auditore, Esq. Grand Union Company for Respondent

�

DECISION
AND ORDER

The
above-numbered matters were initiated by the filing of separate Notices of Contest by Respondent following the issuance of separate Citations charging the Respondent with violations of health and safety standards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. � 651 et seq. (hereafter the Act).

The
record in Docket No. 11745 shows that on December 19, 1974 subsequent to an inspection of Respondent�s retail store located on Grove Street, Peterborough, New Hampshire, Respondent was issued a Citation charging eleven (11) separate non-serious violations of the Secretary�s standards. A total of $75 in penalties was proposed for these alleged violations. Thereafter Respondent filed a Notice of Contest challenging only one of the alleged violations; i.e., the allegation that Respondent was in violation of 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a)
[Failure to provide protective hand equipment (mesh gloves) for the use of retail meat-cutters].

The
record in Docket No. 11767 discloses that on December 26, 1974 after an inspection of Respondent�s retail store located on Daniel Webster Highway, Allenstown, New Hampshire, Respondent was issued a Citation charging thirteen (13) non-serious violations. The total penalty proposed was the sum of $60. Respondent�s Notice of Contest challenged only Item 5 of the Citation which alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a). 132(a). In both cases herein penalties were not proposed for the items challenged by the Respondent. In both cases those items of the Citations not challenged by Respondent�s Notices of Contest have become the final order of this Commission by operation of law.

Separate
hearings in these matters were held in Boston on March 28, 1975. At the hearings it was stipulated inter alia, in each case, that the testimony of four witnesses given on February 5, 1974 in the matter of Secretary of Labor v. The Grand Union Company , Docket No. 10813 before Judge David Knight shall be applicable to the matters herein (Jt. Exh. 1). The testimony of these four witnesses is crucial to a determination of the cases at bar.

The
testimony of Wayne Holbrook a meat-cutter in Respondent�s Greenfield, Massachusetts store indicated that he cuts various types of meat for a variety of cuts required by customers; that he uses knives which necessarily are tapered and sharp; and that he has suffered a number of injuries on his unprotected hand while boning meat, some of which required medical attention (Tr. No. 10813�26�46).

Robert
Kazakiewich a former meat-cutter in Respondent�s Greenfield, Massachusetts store testified that he also suffered several injuries to his unprotected hand while boning and cutting meat. Not all of his injuries were reported (Tr. No. 10813�57�59).

Roger
Branowicki, a director of meat operations for another chain of supermarkets, testified that since June 1973 his organization has made it compulsory for meat-cutters to use 3-fingered mesh gloves to protect the hand which does not wield the cutting knife. As a result of this policy injuries to meat-cutters have been eliminated in the past two years (Tr. No. 10813�90�103). This witness also testified that the use of mesh gloves has not interfered with the efficiency of the meat-cutters using this device (Tr. No. 10813�98).

Jack
Calderone the national meat salesman for the Respondent stated that although he was not familiar with the record of injuries sustained by Respondent�s meat-cutters he believed that the use of mesh gloves in a retail operation was not practicable (Tr. No. 10813�132�134).

In
my view the evidence incorporated herein clearly establishes the need for some type of protective hand equipment for use by meat-cutters. A mesh glove worn on the hand which holds the meat would clearly eliminate or diminish substantially those injuries which result when a knife slips in a meat-cutting operation. I conclude, therefore, that in each case the Respondent was in violation of 29 C.F.R. �1910.132(a) for failure to provide protective equipment on the respective dates of inspection.

ORDER

1.
The Citation issued to Respondent on December 19, 1974 relating to Respondent�s store located on Grove Street, Peterborough, New Hampshire, [Docket No. 11745] is AFFIRMED. of 29 C.F.R. � 1910.132(a) for failure Respondent on December 26, 1974 relating to Respondent�s store located on Daniel Webster Highway, Allenstown, New Hampshire, [Docket No. 11767] is AFFIRMED.

�

HENRY K. OSTERMAN

Judge, OSAHRC

Dated: July 31, 1975

Hyattsville, Maryland