“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 76-3857 COTTER & COMPANY, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0October 26, 1977DECISIONBEFORE: CLEARY, Chairman; and BARNAKO, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:??????????? Adecision of Review Commission Judge John S. Patton, dated March 21, 1977, isbefore this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i). That decision found that Cotter was in violation of thestandard codified at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a)[1] because it did not requireits employees who worked on the shipping and receiving docks at the inspectedworksite to wear safety-toed shoes. The Commission agrees with the decision ofthe Judge and adopts his decision.??????????? Cotteris a hardware wholesaler that supplies merchandise exclusively to True ValueHardware Stores. The violation occurred at Cotter?s warehouse and distributioncenter in Jonesboro, Georgia. Merchandise shipped to this center is distributedto stores throughout the southeastern United States.??????????? Approximately25 employees work on the shipping and receiving docks at this facility wherethey load and unload an average of about 250,000 pounds of freight each day.Packages are moved manually and on hand trucks and forklifts. While the averagepackage carried by an employee weighs considerably less, the employeessometimes carry articles weighing up to at least 40 pounds. Also, they liftarticles weighing up to 150 pounds onto pallets and forklifts. Heavier articleswhich can weigh up to 260 pounds are picked up by forklifts or other mechanicalequipment.[2] Over the preceding twoyears, only one employee had suffered a lost-time injury that would have beenmitigated or prevented by the wearing of safety-toed shoes. There were also twoother foot injuries during this time.??????????? Cotterrequires its employees to wear ?only shoes that fully cover and protect thefeet? and prohibits the wearing of sandals and tennis shoes. It does not,however, require the wearing of safety-toed shoes. Nevertheless, Cotter has aprogram in its plant through which employees who wish to do so can buysteel-toed shoes. About half of the employees have purchased steel-toed shoesthrough this program. Cotter presented evidence that indicates that it is notthe practice in the warehouse and distribution industries for employers torequire the wearing of such shoes.??????????? Cottercontends on review that the citation should be vacated for numerous reasons.Since Judge Patton?s decision is consistent with Commission precedent,[3] this decision will addressthe respondent?s essential contentions that attempt to distinguish this casefrom that precedent.??????????? JudgePatton held that although the wearing of safety shoes was not customary in thewarehousing and distribution industries, a violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a)was established because the evidence showed that the hazard of packages fallingand injuring the feet was sufficiently great to necessitate that employees wearsafety-toed shoes or alternate equivalent protection. In reaching thisconclusion, he relied on McLean Trucking Co. v. OSHRC, 503 F.2d 8 (4thCir. 1974), and Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Brennan, 497 F.2d 230 (5thCir. 1974), cases which involve employers in the trucking and freightindustries. Those cases held that the test to be applied to determine whether29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a) has been violated is whether a reasonable person wouldrecognize that the work environment posed hazards that warranted the wearing ofthe personal protective equipment suggested by the Secretary. Judge Pattonconcluded that while the risk of injury in this case was somewhat less than ineither Ryder or McLean, the weight of packages being handled by Cotter?semployees made the hazard sufficiently severe to make a man of reasonableprudence recognize the need for the use of safety-toed shoes.??????????? TheCommission agrees with this conclusion. While the weight of freight handledmanually by Cotter?s employees, as well as the incidence and severity ofinjuries, may be less than in either Ryder or McLean, the situation here issubstantially similar to the circumstances in more recent cases where theCommission has found a violation of the standard for lack of safety shoes. WilsonFreight Co., 77 OSAHRC 150\/C10, 5 BNA OSHC 1692, 1977 78 CCH OSHD para. 22,041 (No. 13030, 1977); Sunbeam Corp., 76OSAHRC 79\/D3, 4 BNA OSHC 1412 (No. 3664, 1976). Moreover, the fact thatrespondent?s employees have suffered relatively few toe injuries does notestablish the absence of an injury-producing hazard. Wilson Freight Co.,supra; Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., 75 OSAHRC 35\/D6, 2 BNAOSHC 1620, 1974 75 CCH OSHD para. 19,326 (No. 2375,1975), aff?d, 529 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1976).??????????? Cotterargues on review that the Judge, by relying on Ryder and McLean, erroneouslyapplied the standard of knowledge and care in the trucking and freightindustries to a member of the warehouse and distribution industry. Cottermaintains that reliance on these cases was improper because the evidence inthis case shows that it is not customary in the warehouse and distribution industryfor employees to wear safety shoes.??????????? Althoughindustry custom and practice is one factor to be considered in determiningwhether a hazard within the meaning of the standard exists, an employer?s ownknowledge that a hazard exists is also relevant. Cape and Vineyard Divisionv. OSHRC, 512 F.2d 1148, 1152 (1st Cir. 1975). Here, the evidence showsthat Cotter had actual knowledge of the hazard of toe injuries. It not onlyrequired that its employees wear ?shoes that fully cover and protect the feet,?but instituted a program through which half of its employees bought steel-toedshoes. Cotter?s argument regarding its lack of knowledge as to the need forsuch protection is therefore unconvincing.??????????? Cotter?sobjection to reliance on cases involving trucking and freight companies is alsounpersuasive because the environment in which its employees work and the typesof hazards to which its employees are exposed are very similar to those thatwere present in Ryder and McLean. Like the employees in those cases, Cotter?semployees work in an environment where large numbers of packages are movedmanually and by mechanical means. Just as the employees were in Ryder andMcLean, Cotter?s employees were exposed to the risk of injuring their toes fromfalling packages. Moreover, although most of the Commission decisions requiringprotective footwear under 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a) have involved freight andtrucking companies, the Commission decisions requiring such protection have notbeen limited exclusively to freight and trucking companies. See UnitedParcel Service, Inc., 76 OSAHRC 74\/D2, 4 BNA OSHC 1421, 1976 77 CCH OSHD para. 20,847 (No. 6344, 1976); Sunbeam Corp., supra.Relying on 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(d),[4] Cotter also contends thatthe shoes which it required its employees to wear, that is ?shoes that fullycover and protect the feet,? were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 29C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a), in view of the relatively light weight of averagepackages carried by its employees. Cotter asserts that the Judge has in effecterroneously construed the standard to mean that safety-toed shoes are the onlyshoes that can ever qualify as protective footwear under the standard.??????????? Cotter?sinterpretation of the Judge?s decision is incorrect. The Judge did not holdthat only safety-toed shoes or their equivalent constituted protective footwearwithin the meaning of the standard. Rather, he held that the standard requiredCotter?s employees to wear such shoes because of the risks of injury to whichthey were exposed. That holding is supported by the evidence. The respondent?semployees handled some articles weighing up to 150 pounds. They were alsosubject to crushing injuries from the respondent?s forklifts. Moreover, aspreviously indicated, the respondent?s program for the purchasing of steel-toedshoes by its employees demonstrates recognition of the need for suchprotection.??????????? Accordingly,the Judge?s decision is affirmed.FOR THE COMMISSION?William S. McLaughlinExecutive SecretaryDATED: OCT 26, 1977\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 76-3857 COTTER & COMPANY, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0March 21, 1977DECISION AND ORDERAPPEARANCESEdwin A. Hernandez, Esquire, Office of theSolicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf ofcomplainant\u00a0Joseph Szczecko,Esquire, Decatur, Georgia, on behalf of respondent\u00a0STATEMENT OF THE CASEPatton, Judge:??????????? Thisis a proceeding pursuant to section 10 of the Occupational Safety and HealthAct of 1970 (29 U.S.C. ? 651, et seq., 84 Stat. 1590, hereinafter referred toas the Act) contesting a citation issued by the complainant against therespondent under the authority vested in complainant by section 9(a) of theAct.??????????? Thecitation alleges that as a result of the inspection of a workplace under theownership, operation, or control of the respondent located at Jonesboro,Georgia, the respondent has violated section 5(a)(2) of the Act by failing tocomply with Occupational Safety and Health Standard 29 C.F.R. 1910.132(a). Ahearing was held in Decatur, Georgia, on January 10, 1977. Both partiesappeared and submitted evidence. Both complainant and respondent have filedwritten briefs. There was no motion to intervene.LAW AND ISSUES OF THE CASE??????????? It isalleged that the respondent failed to provide safety-toe shoes for its employeesworking on its delivery and receiving dock, in violation of standard 29 C.F.R.1910.132(a). It is necessary to determine whether the employees were subjectedto such hazard as to cause a reasonably prudent man to furnish its employeeswith safety-toed shoes to protect their feet.EVIDENCE IN THE CASE??????????? TheAnswer of the respondent admitted that respondent has a place of business anddoes business, among other places, at 7600 Jonesboro Road, Jonesboro, Georgia,where it is engaged as a general hardware wholesale distributor. It wasadmitted that respondent is and, at all times relevant to this cause, has beenan employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of theAct, and that respondent maintains an office in Chicago, Illinois, and doeswork in the State of Georgia, and respondent receives goods and materialsdistributed originally outside the State of Georgia.??????????? Therespondent sells hardware, paint, and related items and distributes merchandiseto True Value Hardware Stores only (Tr. 121). The respondent has 12 warehousesin other cities (Tr. 122). The respondent unloads railroad cars and commoncarrier trailers. The merchandise is sent out on trailers (Tr. 122). Theadministrative offices of the respondent are at the Jonesboro facility (Tr.123). Respondent maintains a shipping and receiving department (Tr. 137?138).With the exception of line changes, the products are the same all of the time(Tr. 138). The employees are familiar with the products and know how to handlethem. The company carries 23,000 items. The smallest is a lock washer. Therespondent carries bathtub rubber washers which weigh approximately two-tenthsof a pound. The heaviest items are fireplaces weighing 263 pounds (Tr.138?139). The average weight of merchandise received is approximately 22 poundsand the average weight of merchandise shipped is approximately 18 pounds (Tr.138?139).??????????? Somecartons of oil are picked up with a forklift as is true of heavy articles suchas a fireplace (Tr. 140?141). The average carton that is shipped which isunloaded manually with a hand truck would be more than 22 pounds. The averagearticle loaded or unloaded by hand weighs 15 pounds or less (Tr. 141). The dockis approximately the same height as the trailer. They have tried to putnon-skid-type surfaces on the floor (Tr. 143). The total weight of merchandiseshipped in 1975 was 28,750,849 pounds. The first ten months of 1976 it was30,028,737 pounds (Tr. 144). The man-hours worked by respondent were 159,941.25hours.?It was stipulated that the alleged violation relatessolely to the shipping and receiving docks and shipping and receiving employees(Tr. 8). The respondent averages loading outbound approximately six or seventrailers a day, and employees probably load an average of 5 or 6,000 cartons aday. There have been days when they unloaded 1 truck and days when theyunloaded 15 or 20 (Tr. 9). The total volume of business is $32 million dollarsa year (Tr. 9). They unloaded an average of 146,000 pounds of freight at the receivingdock a day and load 110,000 pounds a day. Freight loaded consists of cutlery,gifts, electrical supplies, plumbing, heating supplies, automotive supplies,portable appliances, tools, sporting goods, variety hardware, and lawnmowers,with the weight varying between .2 of a pound and 260 pounds (Tr. 10).??????????? Atthe time of inspection, respondent?s employees were in the process of preparingdifferent types of merchandise for shipping to load on trucks, loading ontrucks, unloading trucks, and breaking down the items which they had to takeback into the warehouse (Tr. 23). Most of the items were relatively small andlightweight, and one person could handle them by himself (Tr. 23). Motor oil,which they loaded, weighed about 40 pounds (Tr. 23). Some of the freight wastransported on dollies. They would pick the freight up and put it on dollies.The respondent used forklifts, dollies, flatbeds, trucks, and so forth (Tr.27). One of the dollies weighed several thousand pounds (Tr. 27). The cartswere fourwheeled flatbeds (Tr. 27). The distancemoved to load them onto the flatbeds, dollies, and so forth, would be only froma foot to six feet (Tr. 27). They were loaded over a concrete floor (Tr. 28).An employee, according to the compliance officer, could get run over by aforklift or relatively light truck or drop something on his foot (Tr. 46). Ahand truck would be taken up the ramp from the dock, and the merchandise wouldbe placed on the truck by hand; the hand truck would be rolled back out, andthe merchandise would be taken to a conveyor belt (Tr. 67?68). Forklifts werealso used for this purpose. The compliance officer recommended a citation issuebecause he saw employees lifting items that weighed in excess of 35 or 40pounds.??????????? A manwho told Mr. Lloyd Black, compliance officer, that he did not have on safetyshoes was seen moving a case of oil weighing approximately 42 to 45 pounds. Hepicked it up with his hands and moved it approximately five or six feet fromthe float or dolly and placed it on the floor, apparently breaking the loaddown (Tr. 82).??????????? Mr. Kimsey Harmon, who worked in the shipping department,testified that the merchandise stacked on the float is pulled inside thetrailer and then is unloaded. He stated the farthest it would be carried wouldbe three feet to be stacked on the floor (Tr. 115). Mr. Harmon testified thatthe average item he would handle would be 30 pounds (Tr. 118). If it was a 200pound article, a forklift would be used (Tr. 118?119).??????????? Mr.Homer Clark, operating manager, testified that the heaviest item an employeewould pick up would be a roto-tiller, weighing approximately 150 pounds. Hestated that plumbing supplies were unloaded by forklift (Tr. 151?153). Theemployee would use a forklift to pick up the roto-tiller (Tr. 143).Approximately 95 percent of what is handled and put on pallets is under 22pounds (Tr. 155).??????????? Theheaviest item handled waist high would be 35 to 40 pounds (Tr. 155).??????????? It isoptional with the employees whether they wear steel-toed shoes (Tr. 12). If anemployee wears them, he has to buy them himself (Tr. 12?13). Mr. Jack Bellah, compliance officer, noticed some employees workingin the shipping and receiving area who did not have on safety-toe footwear.They did not have on any similar type of protection (Tr. 22). There were 10 to15 people in the general area (Tr. 22). One man who had on ordinary leathershoes was asked if they were safety shoes, and he replied they were not. Mr. Bellah stated that he considered safety-toe footwear a minimaltype protection against damage to feet because itreally protects the toes (Tr. 46). Some employees made it a practice of wearingsafety shoes and some did not (Tr. 70). Mr. Clark stated that approximately 50percent of his employees were wearing safety shoes (Tr. 79). He admitted theywere not required by the company. It was strictly up to the employees as towhether they wanted to wear safety shoes (Tr. 107, 110?111). Respondent doesnot allow any open sandals or tennis shoes to be worn but requires full-typecovered shoes, and if the employees want steel-toed shoes, they have theservice available whereby they can be ordered (Tr. 126).??????????? Mr.Clark was of the opinion that some employees felt they might need theprotection of steel-toed shoes, and he believed they had a right to wear them.He stated that on the other hand, he did not believe the particular businesshazards were enough to cause the employer to make employees wear them. (Tr.151).??????????? Respondenthas no safety program as to safety-toed shoes (Tr. 168).??????????? Therespondent?s evidence established that there had only been three injuriesinvolving a foot or toe during the last two years. Only one of these injurieswould have been mitigated or prevented by the wearing of steel-toed shoes. Mostof the time lost by respondent?s employees was as a result of that injury. Theinjury resulted because employees were throwing merchandise which wasdefinitely contrary to the respondent?s rules. Reprimands were issued for thisconduct (Tr. 14?15, 83, 130). Total time lost for all injuries was 25 days (Tr.146). Percentage of total man-hours lost from foot injuries was .04 percent.EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE??????????? Thereis substantial precedent to the effect that employees receiving and loading freightin a trucking company should be required to wear safety shoes. In the cases of RyderTruck Lines v. Brennan, 497 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1974), and McLeanTrucking Co. v. OSAHRC & Sec. of Labor, 503 F.2d 8 (4th Cir. 1974), itwas held that the standard is not void for vagueness, and that the test iswhether a reasonable prudent man should have foreseen that there is a hazardwhich should be protected by safety shoes. In said cases, it was found that thehazard was sufficient to justify such a conclusion. In the Ryder Truck Linescase, there had been ten accidents in five years involving the feet of theemployees, and a somewhat similar number of accidents was found in the McLeanTrucking Company case.??????????? It ismaintained by the respondent, however, that the situation in the respondent?sbusiness is not analogous to that of a freight line. Respondent makes the pointthat the employees handle substantially the same types of freight all the time,whereas there is a greater diversity of freight handled by a freight line. Therespondent argues that employees handling the same type of freight on arepeated basis are better able to handle it, and the risk of being injured isless. There is some merit to the argument that the hazard is not as great undersuch circumstances. The risk of injury would be somewhat reduced by afamiliarity with the freight handled. The evidence in this case alsoestablishes that freight handled by respondent without a forklift is of lessweight than freight handled in either the Ryder or McLean cases.This fact also would reduce the hazard somewhat. The question remains as towhether the hazard at the respondent?s place of business is of sufficientseverity to suggest that precautionary measures be taken. The prior accidentrecords of the respondent do not reflect numerous or serious injuries to thefeet of respondent?s employees. It will be noted that there were only threeinstances in the last two years of foot injuries and two of them were to partsof the foot other than the toes. The remaining injury was as a result of theemployees violating company instructions and throwing merchandise rather thanhanding it to each other. The fact that merchandise happened to hit a part ofthe foot other than the toe does not mean that there was no risk on suchoccasions of the freight falling at such an angle as to strike the toe. Thetoes are certainly as exposed, if not more so, as other parts of the foot. Itsimply happened in these instances that the accidents were such that otherparts of the employees? feet were injured. Respondent?s attorney dropped a 27pound box on his foot three times so as to demonstrate that no harm wouldresult. This demonstration was impressive, but other evidence in the case wasto the effect that if a package had been dropped in such a fashion that thecorner or edge of the package had struck the foot, a broken bone could haveresulted. The average package handled by hand is only 18 to 22 pounds inweight. There was evidence, however, that employees lifted cartons of oil whichweighed between 40 and 46 pounds. A 46 pound article falling and striking thefoot could cause injury. The issue is not what is the average size of thepackage, but what is the weight of the packages which on occasion might belifted and possibly fall on an employee?s foot. Much heavier articles werelifted by forklift. It is therefore concluded that while the hazard is not sogreat as to constitute a serious violation, there is a hazard to the employees?feet if the employees are not wearing safety shoes. This hazard would not beremoved but would be somewhat reduced if safety-toed shoes were worn.??????????? Theemployees apparently have different opinions as to the necessity of safetyshoes. The union business agent testified that employees did not like wearing theshoes because of the fact that they were uncomfortable and cold to the feet.Similar testimony was introduced from employees. On the other hand, therespondent has an optional program, and some employees do wear safety shoes,indicating that these employees at least feel that it is necessary for theirsafety for them to do so. The testimony of the compliance officer was to theeffect that the employees? feet would be adequately protected if the respondentrequired them to put a metal covering over the toe of the shoe, which he statedis on the market and used by some employees. There was no evidence in therecord to indicate that the same objections could legitimately be raised as toa metal plate on top of the shoes that were raised to the wearing of the shoes.The metal would certainly not be cold to the foot as the shoe would be betweenthe foot and metal, and the evidence does not establish the fact that it wouldbe uncomfortable to wear such a protection. The comfort or lack of comfortsimply is not established. The evidence does establish that the metal on top ofthe shoe would be an adequate protection. It is therefore held that anon-serious violation has occurred, but this violation may be abated byrequiring the employees to either wear safety-toed shoes or wear shoes withmetal affixed over the shoes, such as described in the evidence. Therespondent?s position that it is adequate for the respondent to require aheavy-type of shoe which is not normally considered a safety shoe cannot besustained.??????????? Itappears that notwithstanding the fact the evidence establishes wearing ofsafety shoes is not customary in the industry, the fact that the employees werehandling freight of sufficient weight that it could have resulted in injury tothe employees? feet was known and apparent to the respondent. The reasonableprudent man test, therefore, has been met. The risk is not great, the injurywould probably not be devastating, but enough risk is present to justify therequirement that safety shoes be worn.??????????? Therespondent has a good overall safety record and safety program. The issueinvolved in this case, under the evidence, is a close one. It appears that therespondent was acting in good faith belief that the problem incident to thewearing of safety shoes outweighed the likelihood of injury from not doing so.Even if this may be true, the wearing of a metal cover to the toe of the shoeis not established to cause problems which would outweigh the risk of injuryinvolved. In view of the fact that the evidence establishes that the respondentis safety-minded, a penalty should not, in this case, be assessed.FINDINGS OF FACT??????????? 1.Respondent is a corporation having a place of business in Jonesboro, Georgia,where it is engaged as a general wholesale hardware distributor.??????????? 2.Respondent, at all times relevant to this cause, has been engaged in a businessaffecting interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.??????????? 3.Certain of respondent?s employees were engaged in the receipt and loading offreight at respondent?s dock at said location.??????????? 4.Said employees manually lifted packages averaging 18 to 22 pounds each,including packages weighing up to at least 46 pounds.??????????? 5.Freight weighing a substantially greater number of pounds was lifted byforklift.??????????? 6. Respondent?semployees were required by the company rules to wear heavy-duty shoes whichwere not, however, safety shoes.??????????? 7.Respondent had had three instances of injury to its employees? feet in theprevious two years; two of said instances being injuries to parts of the feetother than the toes, and the other injury being as a result of violation ofcompany rules in the throwing of packages.??????????? 8.Wearing of safety-toed shoes was optional and not required by the respondent.Some of respondent?s employees wore said shoes and some did not.??????????? 9. Asubstantial number of respondent?s employees did not wear said shoes becausethey felt they were uncomfortable and because said employees did not deem itnecessary.??????????? 10.Respondent?s employees would have been adequately protected had they worn ametal covering over the toes of their shoes.??????????? 11.The evidence does not establish that the wearing of a metal protection over the?? of the shoes would have caused discomfort.??????????? 12.The employees were subjected to some hazard to their feet by being permitted towear shoes which did not have extra protection to the toe.??????????? 13.Respondent could in the exercise of reasonable care have known that there wassome risk involved in not wearing safety-toed shoes or having a metal plateover the toes of the shoes.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW??????????? 1.Respondent is engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce and is withinthe jurisdiction of the Act.??????????? 2.Respondent, on or about August 5, 1976, was in violation of standard 29 C.F.R.1910.132(a) in permitting its employees to work on its shipping and receivingdocks without adequate protection to the employees? feet.ORDER??????????? It istherefore ORDERED that:??????????? Respondentwas, on August 5, 1976, in violation of standard 29 C.F.R. 1910.132(a) infailing to require its employees to wear either safety-toed shoes or shoes witha metal safety plate over the toes. No penalty is assessed for this violation.Respondent shall abate this violation within two weeks of the date of thisdecision becoming a final order.?Dated this 21st day of March 1977.?JOHN S. PATTONJudge\u00a0[1] That standardprovides that:Protective equipment, including personalprotective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protectiveclothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall beprovided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever itis necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemicalhazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a mannercapable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the bodythrough absorption, inhalation or physical contact.[2] Chairman Clearynotes that the respondent?s chief administrative officer testified that therespondent?s ?employees are close to that cargo.?[3] See, e.g., WilsonFreight Co., 77 OSAHRC 150\/C10, 5 BNA OSHC 1692, 1977 78 CCH OSHD para.22,041 (No. 13030, 1977), and the cases cited therein; United ParcelService, Inc., 76 OSAHRC 74\/D2, 4 BNA OSHC 1421, 1976 77 CCH OSHD para.20,847 (No. 6334, 1976); Sunbeam Corp., 76 OSAHRC 79\/D3, 4 BNA OSHC 1412(No. 3664, 1976).[4] That standardprovides that:All personal protective equipment shall beof safe design and construction for the work to be performed.”