The Bronze Craft Corporation

Plain-English summary

The issue on review was whether employees working with molten metal required personal protective equipment above the waist under the general PPE standard. After reviewing the record and the parties' arguments, the Commission adopted the judge's reasoning and affirmed the conclusion that the employer had not violated the standard. The short official release does not provide the underlying factual analysis.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a)
• Outcome: Judge's finding of no violation affirmed.
• Key point: The Commission adopted the judge's resolution of the molten-metal upper-body PPE issue without adding a separate factual or legal analysis.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 77-3479

1 of 202 DOCUMENTS

TURNER COMPANY

A. SCHONBEK & CO., INC.
�

NORANDA ALUMINUM, INC.
�

GENERAL MOTORS CORP., GM ASSEMBLY DIV.
�

ALLIED PLANT MAINTENANCE CO. OF OKLAHOMA, INC.
�

CLEMENT FOOD COMPANY

MILLCON CORPORATION

FWA DRILLING COMPANY, INC.
�

CCI, INC.
�

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION

THE BRONZE CRAFT CORPORATION

OSHRC Docket No. 77-3479

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

December 18, 1980

�
[*1]
�

Before: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE, Commissioners

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Albert H. Ross, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Arthur O. Gormley, Jr., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

A decision of Administrative Law Judge Foster Furcolo is before the Commission pursuant to section 12(j), 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. � �
�
651-678.

Commissioner Cottine directed review of the judge's decision on the following issue: "Whether the judge erred in concluding that the Respondent was not in violation of [29 C.F.R.] �
�
1910.132(a) for failure to provide and require the use of personal protective equipment above the waist by employees working with molten metal."

We have reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and have considered the parties' arguments, which are substantially the same as those arguments made to the judge.
�
We conclude that the judge properly resolved the issue of the use of personal protective equipment above the waist for the reasons assigned in his decision and order.
�
See OSCO Industries, Inc., 80 OSAHRC    , 8 BNA OSHC 1799 (No. 76-2383, 1980).

Accordingly,
�
[*2]
�
the judge's decision is affirmed.
�
SO ORDERED.
�