Grand Union Co.

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Grand Union because butchers in one of its retail stores did not use wire-mesh gloves, protective aprons, or head protection. The judge dismissed the item for lack of proof that employees were exposed to the alleged hazard. On review, the Commission disagreed with that exposure finding but treated the apron and head-protection portions as uncontested. Relying on an earlier Grand Union decision, it held that the general personal protective equipment standard did not require retail-store butchers to wear wire-mesh gloves while cutting meat. The Commission therefore affirmed dismissal of the citation item.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a)
• Outcome: The personal protective equipment citation item was dismissed.
• Key point: The general personal protective equipment rule did not require retail-store butchers to wear wire-mesh gloves while cutting meat.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 11971

THE GRAND UNION COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 11971

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

January 16, 1976

�
[*1]
�

Before: BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Francis V. LaRuffa, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of Labor

Stephen Auditore, GRAND UNION COMPANY, for the employer

OPINIONBY: MORAN

OPINION:

DECISION

MORAN, Commissioner: A decision of Review Commission Judge Henry K. Osterman, dated July 22, 1975, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i).
�
That decision dismissed one item of a citation which alleged that the respondent had violated 29 U.S.C. �
�
694(a)(2) by failing to comply with the occupational safety standard codified at 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.132(a) in that its retail store butchers were not protected by wire mesh gloves, protective aprons, or head protection while performing their duties.

The Judge based his dismissal on the ground that the complainant failed to establish employee exposure "to the hazard charged." We interpret the complainant's statementson review to take exception to only that portion of the Judge's action that pertains to the wire mesh gloves. The respondent has filed no statements on review.
�
We therefore conclude that the parties are satisfied with the Judge's decision in regard to protective aprons and head protection.

We disagree with [*2]
�
the Judge's finding that the complainant failed to establish employee exposure. However, on the basis of our divided decision in Secretary v. Grand Union Company, 20 OSAHRC     (Docket Nos. 7031 and 7533, October 28, 1975), which held that 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.132(a) does not require retail store butchers to wear wire mesh gloves while cutting meat, we conclude that the Judge's disposition was correct.

Accordingly, the Judge's disposition is affirmed.
�