Brennan v. Smoke-Craft, Inc., SMOKE-CRAF
| Citation | 530 F.2d 843 |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | INC,SMOKE-CRAF,No. 74--2359,74--2359 |
| Parties | 3 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 2000, 1975-1976 O.S.H.D. ( 20,439 Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, Petitioner, v., and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Before: HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and SHARP, * District Judge.
The Secretary of Labor has petitioned us to review an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). The Commission found that the respondent did not commit a non-serious violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.). Because we find that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole, 1 we reverse and remand.
Respondent is a sausage manufacturer. One of its operations consists of cutting 48-inch 'beef sticks' into smaller sausage pieces. This is done by placing the long sticks in a miter box whose sides are grooved at intervals corresponding to the lengths to which the sections are to be cut. The grooves guide the portable reciprocating saw as it makes the cuts. The operation requires two employees, one controlling the saw while the other handles the sticks.
After the sticks are initially placed in the miter box, their ends are cut outside the protection of the miter box. The employee holding the sticks must place his hands within two inches of the saw blade as the cuts are made.
An Occupational Safety and Health Act compliance officer witnessed this procedure in the course of a routine inspection of respondent's plant. The Secretary then cited respondent for a serious violation 2 of the Act because the employees did not wear protective gloves while cutting the sausage ends. 3 Respondent was also cited for other serious and non-serious violations of the Act which are no longer at issue. It is undisputed that respondent has since abated most of the practices alleged as violations including the failure to use protective gloves in the sausage cutting operation. 4
Pursuant to the statutory scheme, respondent initially contested all of the citations. 5 The Secretary then filed a complaint with OSHRC and the case was heard by an administrative law judge. After disposing of the other citations, the administrative law judge found that, while the sausage cutting operation constituted a hazard, it was not likely to result in death or serious physical harm and he reduced the citation to a non-serious violation and vacated the proposed penalty.
On review of his decision, the Commission vacated the citation altogether. It reasoned that, although the petitioner had shown a hazard to exist, no showing was made as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a) that the hazard necessitated the use of protective equipment. The Secretary petitioned this court to set aside the Commission's order. 6
The Commission's determination was based on two factors. First, it pointed to respondent's safety record. In the ten years of respondent's use of this method of cutting sausages, no resulting injuries had been reported. Thus the Commission concluded 'an injury, while possible, is highly unlikely.' (R. 95). Secondly, the Commission found that the hazard was not known in the sausage manufacturing industry as one requiring protective equipment. This was further evidence that protective equipment was unnecessary.
The Commission order is premised on the rationale that protective equipment must be necessary in light of a hazard before a failure to provide it will constitute a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a). This comports with the test set forth in Cape & Vineyard Div. v. OSHRC, 512 F.2d 1148, 1152 (1st Cir. 1975):
But in any event OSHA had to establish here that a prudent man familiar with (industry practice) would have understood that more protective equipment was 'necessary' in the situation at issue.
See also McLean Trucking Co. v. OSHRC, 503 F.2d 8, 11 (4th Cir. 1974); Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Brennan, 497 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 1974).
Since the determination whether a reasonably prudent man familiar with the practices of the industry would protect against the alleged hazard may often be made by reference to the custom of the relevant industry, Cape & Vineyard Div., supra at 1152, the Commission's reference to industry practice was relevant.
We are unable to discern any support in the record, however, for the finding that the sausage manufacturing industry does not require protective gloves in similar situations. In fact, there appears to be no industry custom to which to refer as a guideline. Respondent's president testified that its sausage cutting process was unique. As a result, there is no relevant industry custom to which respondent's conduct may be compared.
In the absence of a relevant industry custom or practice to which to refer, we must determine if there is substantial evidence on the record to support the conclusion that a reasonably prudent man familiar with the industry would find necessary to protect against this hazard. Respondent's accident free safety record, standing alone, cannot support the Commission's order.
While the fact that respondent's employees have never reported an injury resulting from the cutting process may be some evidence as to whether a reasonably prudent man would protect against such a hazard, it is not conclusive. 7 'One purpose of the Act is to prevent the first accident.' Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 511 F.2d 864, 870 (10th Cir. 1975). The goal would not be achieved if the Secretary were required to await an accident before issuing a citation. Petitioner need not show the occurrence of actual injury before citing an employer for violation of the Act. Lee Way Motor Freight, supra at 870; Ryder Truck Lines, supra at 233.
The administrative law judge and at least two of the commissioners recognized that the sausage cutting process involved some risk of physical injury. 8 No evidence other than the respondent's safety record was presented on the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall
...Crisis in the Workplace: Occupational Disease and Injury, pp. 248, 295 (Ford Foundation Rep. 1976). See, e. g., Brennan v. Smoke-Craft, Inc., 530 F.2d 843, 845 (9th Cir. 1976). 7 Thus, we can hardly conclude that widespread ignorance of a press brake guarding requirement would be sufficient......
-
Empire-Detroit Steel Div., Detroit Steel Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
...that hazardous conduct need not actually have occurred to establish a violation of the general duty clause. See Brennan v. Smoke-Craft, Inc., 530 F.2d 843, 845 (9th Cir. 1976); Rea Express, Inc. v. Brennan, 495 F.2d 822, 825 (2d Cir. 1974); National Realty & Construction Co. v. OSHRC, supra......
-
Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
...may not be unfair to hold the employer to a standard higher than that of actual practice. 512 F.2d at 1152; See Brennan v. Smoke-Craft, Inc., 530 F.2d 843, 845 (9 Cir. 1976). We agree with the First and Ninth Circuits that the reasonable man test should not be limited to the custom and prac......
-
United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local 2610 v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
...Secretary of Labor, 578 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir.1978); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. OSHRC, 542 F.2d 27, 30 (7th Cir.1976); Brennan v. Smoke-Craft, Inc., 530 F.2d 843, 845 (9th Cir.1976); Cape & Vineyard Div. v. OSHRC, 512 F.2d 1148, 1152 (1st Cir.1975). And, as to the general duty clause of OSHA, se......
-
Msha General Safety Standards: Contesting the Citation
...Co., supra, note 12; Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc. v. OSHRC, 529 F.2d 649, 655 (8th Cir. 1976); Brennan v. Smoke-Craft, Inc., 530 F.2d 843, 845 (9th Cir. 1976). 14. See, MSHA v. Atlantic Cement Co., YORK 79-10-M, 2 FMSHRC Decs. 2910 (FMSHRCJ Melick). See also, McClean Trucking Co. v. ......