GENERAL MEAT COMPANY, INC.
OSHRC Docket No. 250
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
June 20, 1972
[*1]
Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners
OPINIONBY: BURCH
OPINION:
BURCH, COMMISSIONER: On March 29, 1972, Judge John S. Patton issued his recommended decision and order in this case affirming the Secretary's citation for other than serious violations and the penalties proposed therefor.
Thereafter, on April 17, 1972, I directed that the Judge's report in this case be reviewed by the Commission in accordance with section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651 et seq., 84 Stat. 1590, hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
The Commission has reviewed the rulings of the Judge and finds no prejudicial error therein. The Commission has also reviewed the entire record in this case and has considered the briefs, arguments and exceptions of the parties. We adopt the Judge's recommended decision and order to the extent that it is consistent with the following.
On November 11, 1971, the Secretary cited respondent for nonserious violations of 14 standards promulgated pursuant to section 6 of the Act. Respondent was also served with a notice of proposed penalty in the amount of $280. Notice of contest was timely filed and the matter was heard [*2] before the Commission's Judge who affirmed all violations and proposed penalties with the exception of items 13 and 14 of the citation which were vacated on the motion of the Secretary.
Review was directed in this case in order that the Commission might determine whether the penalties proposed for items 7 thru 12, inclusive, of the citation are appropriate. n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Since the Secretary proposed penalties in this case, he has revised his method of computation. Under the new method, no penalty would be proposed for the above items with the exception of Item 10 for which a $40 penalty was proposed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Respondent is engaged in processing, packaging and distribution of meat and meat products in interstate commerce. Its operations are regularly inspected by agents of the Department of Agriculture. The record shows that respondent's plant operation meets the Department of Agriculture's health and sanitary requirements as they affect its products. However, facilities provided by the employer, such as rest rooms and [*3] eating areas, do not meet the Secretary of Labor's safety and health standards. Respondent credibly asserts that all areas of the plant in which violations were found to exist at the time of the Secretary's inspection were under modification and repair and that all violations have now been corrected. Respondent's "good faith" is demonstrated by its immediate attention to the abatement of the violations for which it was cited.
Section 17(j) of the Act provides that:
The Commission shall have authority to assess all civil penalties provided in this section, giving due consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations.
In order to avoid the proposal of arbitrary or disparate penalties for similar violations in different parts of the United States and its territories, the Secretary has promulgated methods to be followed by Labor Department compliance personnel in computing amounts to be proposed as penalties. The formula for other than serious violations, recently amended, n2 appears reasonably designed [*4] to assist the said compliance personnel in computing and proposing equitable penalties -- especially since the gravity of the violations must be explored in some detail as a first step in computation. Nevertheless, as the Commission recently stated in its opinion in Secretary of Labor v. J.E. Chilton Millwork & Lumber Company, Inc.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 See note 1.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is especially so where the violations are non-serious. It is the Commission's opinion that the assessment of small monetary penalties does little to effectuate the principle purposes of the Act in obtaining compliance in order to insure safe and healthful workplaces. This conclusion is based upon the Commission's consideration of relatively minor violations of the Act for which [*5] the Secretary has in the past proposed penalties and which would be better described as de minimis. We are equally well aware that there are many instances where the violation of the Act or its standards is not de minimis, but because of other factors, the violation warrants a small penalty or no penalty.
As stated above, the Commission believes that the purposes and policies of the Act are better served by the encouragement of immediate abatement through other means than the proposal of small monetary penalties which do little to achieve voluntary compliance on the part of others. The Secretary's recent amendment of methods of computation would indicate that he too is aware of employers' reaction to small penalties in cases where the employer was unaware of the violation and eager to effectuate immediate abatement. It has been the Commission's experience that the proposal of small penalties in these circumstances is often interpreted by employers as harassment. This understandable reaction of employers frequently results in the filing of a contest with its consequent tolling of the abatement period. Such contests tend to interfere with the swift accomplishment [*6] of the goals of the Act. That is not to say that a contest based upon a citation for non-serious violation is unmeritorious, but we do recognize the avoidable delay and often unconscionable costs to all parties which frequently result from contests filed by employers who are willing to abate but react negatively to the trifling penalties proposed.
Accordingly, we will vacate the proposed penalties for items 7 through 12 inclusive. We note that such action by the Commission is not to be construed as encouragement to employers to avoid voluntary compliance with the standards promulgated by the Secretary. Nor would such interpretation comport with the plain terms of the statute, for section 17(d) of the Act provides that:
Any employer who fails to correct a violation for which a citation has been issued under section 9(a) within the period permitted for its correction (which period shall not begin to run until the date of the final order of the Commission in the case of any review proceeding under section 10 initiated by the employer in good faith and not solely for delay or avoidance of penalties), may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1000 for each day during which [*7] said failure or violation continues.
Thus, an employer who misinterprets a citation without penalty and fails to correct the condition subjects himself to liability for the considerable penalty authorized to be imposed under section 17(d).
In the instant case, in view of respondent's good faith, his immediate attention to abatement and the low level of gravity of the violations found, it is ordered that the penalties proposed for items 7 through 12 inclusive, are vacated. n3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 Since the penalties proposed for items 1 through 4 were not included in this review they are affirmed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]
PATTON, JUDGE, OSAHRC: The issues in this case arise from the complaint of James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, against General Meat Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as rspondent. The petitioner alleges that respondent is in violation of Section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of [*8] 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ), and Occupational Safety and Health Standards promulgated thereunder (29 C.F.R., Part 1910).
Citation was issued by the petitioner on November 5, 1971, alleging said violations. Notice of Proposed Penalty in the total amount of $280.00 was issued by the Department of Labor on November 5, 1971. On November 29, 1971, the respondent filed Notice of Contest of said Citation and Penalty. Complaint was thereupon filed by the petitioner on December 14, 1971, alleging and charging said violations. No written answer was filed. At a prehearing conference, however, the respondent stated which portions of the complaint were admitted and denied, and these statements as well as stipulations of fact between the parties were recited on the record at the hearing of this cause and were stipulated to by the parties.
On December 20, 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission dismissed the Notice of Contest and affirmed the petitioner's Citation and Proposed Penalty. Following petition by the respondent to set aside said dismissal, the Review Commission set aside the dismissal and re-instated this case on its docket. The case was assigned [*9] to John S. Patton, Judge. Notice of Hearing was issued notifying the parties that hearing would be held on February 16, 1971, in Paris, Texas. Amendment to Notice of Hearing was issued on February 4, 1972, changing the date of hearing to February 17, 1972.
The case was heard before the undersigned, John S. Patton, on February 17, 1972, at Paris, Texas. Mr. James White and Mrs. Joan Winn appeared as counsel for the petitioner. The respondent was not represented by counsel, but was represented at the hearing by Mr. Sam Rosenthal, General Manager of respondent. There was no request to intervene.
All parties were accorded full right to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to orally argue the case. The parties were offered an opportunity to file written briefs, but stated on the record that they did not desire to do so.
LAW AND ISSUES IN THE CASE
Petitioner in the complaint alleges the following violations which allegations constitute issues for decision in this case:
(1) Maintenance of uncovered electrical junction boxes on the wall and ceiling of the pumping room; uncovered electrical junction boxes located in the belley pump room; uncovered electrical [*10] junction boxes located in the netting room; uncovered electrical pull switch box located in main switch room; and open electrical switch box located in the burner room for smoke house.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.315(n)(4) provides:
Covers. All pull boxes, junction boxes and fittings shall be provided with covers approved for the purpose. Where metallic covers are used, they shall comply with the grounding requirements of § 1910.314(d)(1).
(2) Flexible electrical wiring located near the window in ladies rest room spliced with bare wire showing at splice.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.316(d) provides:
Splices. Flexible cord shall be used only in continuous length without splice or tap.
(3) Ceiling light fixtures in bacon cold storage room installed on flexible cords hanging through in ceiling.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.316(c) provides:
Prohibited uses. Except where installed in data processing systems flexible cord shall not be used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure, where run through holes in walls, ceilings, or floors; where run through doorways, windows, or similar openings; where attached to building surfaces or where concealed behind building walls, [*11] ceilings, or floors.
(4) Ungrounded electrically energized table saw located in the administrative office adjacent to the general manager's office; and ungrounded electrically operated mixing unit located in the pickle mixing room.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.314(d)(4)(iii) provides:
Equipment connected by cord and plug. Under any of the conditions of this subparagraph, exposed noncurrent carrying metal parts of cord and plug connected equipment, which are liable to become energized, shall be grounded:
In other than residential occupancies,
(a) Refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and
(b) Clothes washing, clothes drying and dishwashing machines, sump pumps and
(c) Portable, hand held, motor operated tools, and appliances of the following types; drills, hedge clippers, lawn mowers, wet scrubbers, sanders and saws, and
(d) Cord and plug connected appliances used in damp or wet locations, or by persons standing on the ground or on metal floors or working inside of metal tanks or
(e) Portable tools which are likely to be used in wet and conductive locations, except:
(1) Portable tools which are likely to be used in wet and conductive locations need not be grounded [*12] where supplied through an insulating transformer with ungrounded secondary of not over 50 volts.
(5) Water cooler located in netting room not designed to separate ice from drinking water, and ice and water were contained in the same compartment.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(b)(1)(iii) provides:
In all instances where water is cooled by ice, the construction of the container shall be such that the ice does not come in direct contact with the water.
(6) A covered receptable for disposal of waste not available for use in the ladies rest room.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(1)(v) provides:
Covered receptacles shall be kept in all toilet rooms used by women.
(7) Failure to provide at least one ladies retiring room for rest and emergencies.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(f) provides:
Where 10 or more women are employed at any one time, at least one retiring room shall be provided for rest and emergencies. Where fewer than 10 women are employed and a rest-room is not furnished, some equivalent space shall be provided which can be properly screened for privacy and made suitable for the use of women employees. At least one couch or bed shall be provided in every place where more than 10 women [*13] are employed. The required number of such beds or couches follows:
|
|
Beds |
|
10 to 100 |
1 |
|
100 to 250 |
2 |
I additional bed for each additional 250 women employees. A minimum of 60 square feet of floor space per bed or couch shall be provided.
(8) Failure to provide an adequate number of water closets for the number of women employed in the plant.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(1)(iii) provides:
Water closets shall be provided for each sex according to the following table. The number to be provided for each sex shall in every case be based on the maximum number of persons of that sex employed at any one time at work on the premises for which the facilities are furnished. When persons other than employees are permitted the use of toilet facilities on the premises, a reasonable allowance shall be made for such other persons in estimating the minimum number of toilet facilities required.
|
|
Minimum number of |
|
Number of persons: |
facilities |
|
1 to 9 |
1 |
|
10 to 24 |
2 |
|
25 to 49 |
3 |
|
50 to 74 |
4 |
|
75 to 100 |
5 |
|
Over 100 |
n1 1 |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 For each additional 30 persons.
[*14]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(9) Failure to construct or cause to be constructed water closets fitted with doorts, latches, and clothes hangers.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(2) provides:
Each toilet facility (closet) shall occupy a separate compartment, which should be equipped with a door, latch, and clothes hanger.
(10) Failure to provide a lunch area, although employees were permitted to eat inside of plant.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(g)(1) provides:
In all places of employment where employees are permitted to lunch on the premises, an adequate space suitable for that purpose shall be provided for the maximum number of employees who may use such space at one time. Such space shall physically separate from any location where there is exposure to toxic materials.
(11) Fire extinguishers in the compressor room and in the burner room for the smoke house were not located in designated places.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.157(a)(1) provides:
Portable extinguishers shall be maintained in a fully charged and operable condition and kept in their designated places at all times when they are not being used.
(12) Fire extinguishers [*15] in the compressor room and in the burner room for the smoke house not properly mounted on hanger, or in brackets, or mounted in cabinets.
29 C.F.R., Part 1910.157(a)(5) provides:
Extinguishers shall be installed on the hangers or in the brackets supplied, mounted in cabinets, or set on shelves unless the extinguishers are of the wheeled type.
It was initially alleged that a violation should be found as a result of failure to maintain a summary of accidents and occupational illnesses on Occupational Safety and Health Administration Form 101, and for failure to post information on rights and responsibilities of employees under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The counsel for the petitioner, however, at the hearing stated that he desired to withdraw the complaint as to these two standards. This application to withdraw is granted and these charges are not issues in the case.
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE
Mr. Charles J. Adams, Area Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Dallas Region, testified as follows:
He stated that he made an inspection of the respondent's plant and found junction boxes which were wall outlets without a cover on them. This condition [*16] existed on the wall and ceiling in the pumping room, in the belley pump room, in the netting room, in the main switch room, and in the burner room for the smoke house. He stated that the main switch box was on the wall and that one of the switch boxes was open. The electrical switch box in the burner room was one of the secondary electrical system and had the metal cover open. He stated it could have been covered by simply closing it. He stated that junction boxes have a cover on them which is secured with one screw. The cover is to prevent the exposed wire from coming in contact with personnel or with metal parts. Without the cover, there is the possibility of persons touching it with their fingers or with a metal part and receiving an electrical shock. He stated that there is also the possibility of fire being started. He stated that the condition was augmented by people working on a wet floor which increased the danger from shock. He stated that as far as he could observe, there was no reason for the boxes not being covered. He stated that there was construction work in the plant, but not in the area in which the boxes were located.
Mr. Sam M. Rosenthal, General [*17] Manager of respondent, stated that the company had covers for all of the electrical boxes and that it was his opinion that the covers were not in place because of repairs being made. He testified, however, that he was of the opinion repairs were being made only because he did not know of any other reason for them being uncovered and that it was company policy to keep them covered. He testified that he did not definitely know of specific repairs being made.
Mr. Adams further stated that there was flexible electrical wiring located near the window in the ladies rest room which was spliced and bare.
The respondent admitted in the stipulation that in the vacant cold storage room, there was a ceiling light fixture installed on a cord hanging through the ceiling. The witness testified that a flexible cord was found running through the ceiling and suspended from the end of the cord was a light bulb. He stated the light was on and the light swung free. He stated that there was an ungrounded electrically energized table saw in the administrative office adjacent to the general managers' office. He testified that there was a small rip saw which was in the middle of the room, [*18] and was being used by a carpenter. He stated he had no way of knowing how long it had been there, but he saw it twice during inspection. He said he saw it on two occasions, that it was there for at least two or three hours and since it was ungrounded, it was dangerous. He stated it was a metal table and a metal machine and if a short occurred, it could energize the whole unit, and anyone touching it could be subject to an electrical shock. He further testified that in the pickle mixing room, there was a metal piece of equipment energized which was ungrounded with a third wire. He stated a short of the motor could energize the outside portion of the equipment and a man touching it could be shocked. He stated that there was a wet surface on which people were working and it increased the danger. He stated it was away from the aisle and the only persons who would come in contact with it were those working with the unit; it was not regularly used, although it was adjacent to equipment which was regularly used. He stated a shock could be fatal; generally, however, 110 volts will not cause death, although there have been instances in which 45 volts have caused death.
Mr. Adams further [*19] testified that the water cooler in the netting room was not designed to separate ice from drinking water and the ice and water were in the same compartment.
Mr. Rosenthal testified that there was ice in the same compartment with the water, but that each morning it was filled with water because the previous evening whatever water was in the cooler was emptied and the cooler scoured with live steam. The next morning the container would again be washed out, fresh water put in, and prior to the ice going in, the ice was washed off with a hose and then put in the cooler. He stated he felt this procedure assured cleanliness and that he had not known that there was a standard requiring ice and water to be separated.
Mr. Adams further testified that in the ladiest rest room there were two receptacles containing paper towels which were uncovered. He stated they were 55 gallon drums as best as he could recall. Mr. Rosenthal testified that there were receptacles for disposal of waste paper in the rest rooms and that covers were provided for them. He stated, however, he had given specific instructions to keep them covered, but of course, he would not have personal knowledge as [*20] to the conditions in the ladies rest room.
Mr. Adams testified that there was a failure to provide at least one ladies retiring room for rest and emergencies. The respondent stipulated that no such room was in existence at the time of the alleged violation. Mr. Adams pointed out that the number of women in the plant was more than ten and that the regulation required a bed when more than ten women were employed. He stated that there were two toilets in the women's rest room, whereas the regulation required three for the number of women employed. He testified that 44 women were employed; he stated there were doors on the water closets in the men's rest room, but not in the women's, that the women's facilities did not have hinges, latches, or clothes hangers.
Mr. Adams additionally testified that employees in many instances ate inside the plant; this statement, however, was based on what he had been told and therefore was hearsay evidence. Direct evidence of this fact was secured by the petitioner from Mr. Aiken Fayne, Operations Manager of the respondent, who was called to the stand as an adverse witness. Mr. Fayne testified that people were allowed to eat in the rest [*21] rooms. He stated that there was no room provided for the employees to eat in although the employer was in the process of providing such an area. He stated there were vending machines inside the security fence and outside the plant from which some food could be bought. Mr. Fayne testified that these were only snacks and not meals.
Mr. Adams testified that the fire extinguishers located in the compressor room and the burner room were not located in the designated places, but were on the floor of said area. The respondent stated that this allegation was denied, but no testimony was adduced as to the location of the fire extinguishers. Mr. Adams stated that the equipment being stored in the compressor room made it more difficult to reach the fire extinguishers on the floor; there were two fire extinguishers in the burner room for the smoke house, that one was in the area where the burner was and one was in a corner by the air compressor.
Mr. Adams stated that in his opinion, the alleged violations did not constitute serious violations as said term is defined in the statute. He felt the violations did have a relationship to the safety and health of the employees in the plant. [*22] He testified that the most dangerous alleged violations were the uncovered electrical junction boxes.
Mr. Charles Freeman testified that he is employed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as Assistant Regional Administrator for Technical Support; he stated he had served as Area Director of the Dallas area for the United States Department of Labor prior to the hearing. He stated that Dallas, Texas, was in his jurisdiction in said capacity. He stated that the penalties were arrived at in the following manner: the factors considered were the type of alleged violation, probability of death or injury from same, and the severity of injury or disease likely to result from same. The formula may be adjusted for the size of the employer's business, and whether there are prior violations. He stated that the employer had 100 employees and there was no reduction for size. The employer was given a twenty per cent adjustment because of a lack of previous history of violations. The employer was given a fifty per cent adjustment based on the premise that violations would be corrected within the allotted time for abatement. The witness stated that he agreed with Mr. [*23] Adams as to the danger existing as a result of the alleged violations. The original penalty was $700, but had been adjusted downward because of the above described factors, to $280.00.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
I am of the opinion that the allegations of the petitioner have been substantiated. It was testified that electrical junction boxes were not covered as required by the standards, and it was substantiated by an expert that this created a dangerous condition which could lead to persons receiving electrical shocks. The respondent's defense is that repair work was being performed and the covers, therefore, were temporarily off to permit repairs. This statement, however, by Mr. Rosenthal would appear only to be an asumption on his part, and there is no evidence that this was the case. He was not able to testify as to any repairs being made, but testified that his statement that the covers were off because of repairs was based on reasoning by elimination. He stated that he knew of no other reason for the covers being off and, therefore they must have been off because of necessity for repairs. To merely give an assumption that something is a fact without any testimony [*24] set forth that such condition existed is not evidence. In view of the lack of evidence as to repairs being made, this defense has not been sustained.
The respondent admits that the water cooler was maintained in a method which did not comply with the standards. I am of the opinion that the respondent did use substantial precautions to insure drinking water was sanitary and clean, and I am of the opinion that a penalty would not be justified for this citation. It will be noted that no penalty was assessed in the citation by the petitioner. There is no evidence contradicting the testimony of the petitioner as to the lack of covers to receptacles for disposal of waste in the ladies rest room. Mr. Rosenthal testified that covers were available, but no lady was put on the stand by the respondent to testify that the receptacles were kept covered. No penalty is requested by the petitioner for this violation, and in view of the fact that only paper towels were placed in the receptacles, I am also of the opinion that no penalty should be assessed.
It is admitted by the respondent that there was a failure to provide a ladies retiring room for rest and emergencies. It was also admitted [*25] that the toilet facilities did not meet the standards. It was not denied that people ate on the premises and there was no proper area in which they could eat. There is no testimony contradicting the proof that fire extinguishers were not placed in the positions required by the standards. These allegations are therefore sustained.
Mr. Rosenthal stated that he did not keep a record of accidents and illnesses on the required form, but stated that such records were kept by other means. Said standard provides OSHA Form 100 or its equivalent may be used. The petitioner requested that this citation be withdrawn. I am of the opinion in view of respondent's lack of knowledge of said requirement and the fact that records were kept by other means, that respondent has acted in good faith in this regard, and the purposes of the standard have been substantially met. The request of the petitioner to withdraw this citation should be granted.
The petitioner also requested withdrawal of Citation No. 14 which states that respondent did not post information on rights and responsibilities of employees under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The respondent admits that this was [*26] not done, but states he was not aware of the posting requirements and would have posted them had he known about them. While ignorance of the law is not a defense, I am of the opinion that the respondent has not acted in bad faith. In view of the fact that this violation did not endanger the employees' safety and the lack of bad faith, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the citation should be granted. I, therefore, make the following findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent, General Meat Company, is a corporation having a place of business in Paris, Texas, where it is engaged in the processing, packaging, and transportation of meat and meat products to retail outlets.
2. Respondent is and at all times relevant hereto, has been engaged in a business affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
3. On the 8th of September 1971, the respondent maintained uncovered electrical junction boxes on the wall and ceiling of the pumping room, uncovered electrical junction boxes in the belley pump room, uncovered electrical pull switch box located in the main switch room, and open electrical switch box located in the burner room [*27] for the smoke house.
4. The uncovered electrical junction boxes created a danger of electrical shock to persons touching the wiring either with their hand or with a metal object.
5. Flexible electrical wiring located near the window in the ladies rest room was spliced with bare wire showing at the point of splicing.
6. Ceiling light fixtures in the bacon cold storage room were installed on flexible cords hanging through the ceiling.
7. There was an ungrounded electrically energized table saw located in the administrative office adjacent to the general manager's office.
8. There was an ungrounded electrically operated mixing unit located in the pickle room.
9. The condition that existed as set forth in Finding of Fact Numbers 5 through 8 created a dangerous condition in that a person touching the objects therein described either with his hand or a metal object might suffer an electrical shock.
10. The water cooler located in the netting room was not designed to separate ice from drinking water and ice and water were contained in the same compartment.
11. The receptacle for disposal of waste in the ladies' rest room was not covered.
12. The respondent employed approximately [*28] 32 women employees in its production area.
13. The respondent failed to provide a ladies' retiring room for rest and emergencies.
14. The respondent provided only two water closets for the women in the production area of the plant.
15. The water closets in the women's rest room were not fitted with doors, latches, and clothes hangers.
16. Employees were permitted to eat in the plant, and did eat in the plant including in the rest rooms.
17. The respondent did not provide a lunch area in the plant in which the employees could eat.
18. Fire extinguishers in the compressor and burner rooms were not located in the places required by the standards of the Secretary of Labor.
19. Fire extinguishers in the compressor room and in the burner room for the smoke house were not properly mounted on hangers or brackets or mounted in cabinets, but were located on the floors.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The respondent is engaged in a busines which affects commerce as defined by the Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has jurisdiction of this cause.
2. The condition as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 3 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., [*29] Part 1910.315(n)(4), and a penalty in the amount of $80.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
3. The condition as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 5 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.316(d) and a penalty in the amount of $20.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
4. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 6 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.316(c) and a penalty in the amount of $20.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
5. The condition set forth in Finding of Fact No. 7 above constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.314(d)(4)(iii). The abatement date of September 15, 1971, is proper.
6. The condition as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 8 above constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.314(d)(4)(iii). The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper. Penalty in the amount of $40.00 should be assessed for the combined violations in Finding of Fact Numbers 7 and 8.
7. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 10 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part [*30] 1910.141(b)(1)(iii), but no penalty should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
8. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 11 above was a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(1)(v), but no penalty, should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
9. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 13 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(f), and a penalty in the amount of $20.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
10. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 14 constituted a violation of 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(1)(iii), and a penalty in the amount of $20.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
11. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 15 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(2)(i), and a penalty in the amount of $20.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
12. The condition described in Finding of Fact Numbers 16 and 17 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(g)(1), and a penalty in the amount of $40.00 [*31] should be assessed. The abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
13. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 18 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.151(a)(1), and a penalty in the amount of $10.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
14. The condition described in Finding of Fact No. 19 constituted a violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.157(a)(5), and a penalty in the amount of $10.00 should be assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
15. The oral motion for withdrawal of the citation as set forth in Paragraph III, § 13 of the complaint to the effect that a summary of accidents and occupational illnesses was not maintained on Form 101, should be granted.
16. The oral motion of the petitioner for withdrawal of the citation as set forth in Paragraph III, § 14 of the complaint to the effect that posting was not done as required by the Act, should be granted.
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED as follows: The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.315(n)(4), for which a penalty in the amount of $80.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 15, 1971, [*32] is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.316(d), for which a penalty in the amount of $20.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.316(c), for which a penalty in the amount of $20.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.314(d)(4)(iii), for which a penalty in the amount of $40.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(b)(1)(iii), for which no penalty is assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(1)(v), for which no penalty is assessed. The abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(f), for which a penalty in the amount of $20.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(1)(iii), [*33] for which a penalty in the amount of $20.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(c)(2)(i), for which a penalty in the amount of $20.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.141(g)(1), for which a penalty in the amount of $40.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 30, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.157(a)(1), for which a penalty in the amount of $10.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The respondent is in violation of Standard 29 C.F.R., Part 1910.157(a)(5), for which a penalty in the amount of $10.00 must be paid. The required abatement date of December 15, 1971, is proper.
The motion of the petitioner for withdrawal of the citation as described in Paragraphs III, subparagraphs 13 and 14, of the complaint is granted and said citations are withdrawn.