Syntron, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Syntron's metal cut-off saw had an unguarded unused portion of its blade, and the operator stood about a foot away while the saw automatically cut material held in a vise. After reviewing the record and a videotape of the machine, the Commission majority agreed with the judge that employees' hands did not come, and had no reason to come, close enough to the unused blade to establish exposure to a machine-guarding hazard. Commissioner Cleary dissented, reasoning that the standard requires physical guarding against inadvertent contact and that the operator was within reaching distance of the blade.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1) (machine guarding).
• Outcome: Citation vacated.
• Key point: A machine-guarding citation requires proof that the machine's function and actual operation expose employees to a hazard, not merely that inadvertent injury is theoretically possible.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 81-1491-S

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

SYNTRON, INC.,

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 81-1491-S

DECISION

Before:  ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and BUCKLEY, Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

A decision of Administrative Law Judge Louis G. LaVecchia is before the
Commission for review under 29 U.S.C. � 661(i).  A citation was issued to Syntron,
Inc. alleging that it violated 29 C.F.R. � 1910.212(a)(1) because the unused portion of
the blade of its metal cut-off saw was not guarded.  The record indicates that the
operator of the saw positions the material to be cut in a vise while the machine is off,
and then lowers the top portion of the saw until the blade is near the material.  He
then turns on the saw, which automatically makes the cut and shuts off.  Both the
compliance officer and Syntron's president testified that the operator stands about a foot
from the unguarded blade.  Judge LaVecchia vacated the citation on the ground that
the evidence was insufficient to establish that during the operation of the saw employees
were exposed to a "hazard" within the meaning of the standard.

We have examined the entire record--particularly a videotape showing the
machine in operation--and we are unconvinced, as was the judge, that the operator's hands
come, or would have reason to come, close enough to the unused portion of the blade to be
exposed to a hazard.[[1]]  Accordingly, the judge's decision is affirmed.

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H. Darling, Jr.

Executive Secretary

DATED:  MAR 28 1984

CLEARY, Commissioner, dissenting:

The majority vacates this citation because it is not convinced that the
operator's hands "come, or would have reason to come" close enough to an
unguarded bandsaw blade to be exposed to a hazard.  This holding simply ignores the
purpose of the standard and long-standing Commission precedent by taking no account of the
fact that the operator could be injured through inadvertence. Accordingly, I must dissent.

Section 1910.212(a)(1) provides that "[o]ne or more methods of machine
guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area
from hazards such as those created by point of operation . . . ." This Commission has
long held that "the standard is plainly intended to eliminate danger from unsafe
operating procedures, poor training, or employee inadvertence ."  Signode
Corp ., 76 OSAHRC 43/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1078, 1079, 1975-76 CCH OSHD � 20,575, p. 24,595
(No. 3527, 1976) (emphasis added).  It is for this reason that the standard requires physical
methods of guarding rather than methods of guarding that depend on correct human behavior.
  "The standard recognizes that men do not discard their personal qualities when
they go to work."  See Akron Brick and Block Co. , 76 OSAHRC
2/E2, 3 BNA OSHC 1876, 1878, 1976-77 CCH OSHD � 20,302, p. 24,212 (No. 4859, 1976).

Thus, it is beside the point that -- as the majority essentially finds -- it
has not been shown that the operator would have reason to put his hands into the point of
operation during its operating cycle.  As stated above, our precedent unequivocally
holds that the standard requires physical protection to guard against inadvertence.  
The facts in this case present precisely the conditions at which the machine guarding
standards are directed.

It is undisputed that the operator stands only a foot away from the partially unguarded
bandsaw blade.  The operator is positioned with direct access to the point of
operation and within reaching distance of it.  The president of the company admitted
that an employee could inadvertently injure himself.  The videotape does not prove
otherwise even though it is a staged presentation prepared by Syntron.  Accordingly,
I find that the operator is exposed to a hazard of injury from the partially guarded
bandsaw blade.  See A.E. Burgess Leather Co ., 77 OSAHRC 25/D6, 5 BNA
OSHC 1096, 1977-78 CCH OSHD � 21,273 (No. 12501, 1977), aff'd , 576 F.2d 948 (1st
Cir. 1978).   

Finally, there was testimony that a guard could have been secured or
fabricated for no more than $20.00.  If, indeed, the purpose of the Act is to provide
safe working conditions and prevent injuries, twenty dollars is a small price to pay to
protect against an inadvertent injury here.

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this
format.  To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public
Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected] ),
telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).

FOOTNOTES:

[[1]] The dissent maintains that Syntron's president testified that the
machine operator could inadvertently injure himself.  The witness was asked, however,
only whether inadvertent injury was possible .  Given the range of the human
imagination, it is understandable that he answered in the affirmative.  The standard
was not, however, intended to protect against the mere possibility of injury.  See
Stacey Manufacturing Co ., 82 OSAHRC 14/B1, 10 BNA OSHC 1534, 1537, 1982 CCH OSHD �
25,965, p. 32,559 (No. 76-1656, 1982).  Rather, whether a machine presents a hazard
within the meaning of the standard must be determined by how the machine functions and how
it is operated by the employees.  Id .