“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 11745 & 11767 GRAND UNION COMPANY, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0February 5, 1976?DECISIONBEFORE BARNAKO, Chairman, MORAN and CLEARY,Commissioners.MORAN, Commissioner:A decision of ReviewCommission Judge Henry K. Osterman, dated July 31, 1975, is before thisCommission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i). That decision held thatin each of these consolidated cases the respondent failed to comply with theoccupational safety and health standard codified at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a) inthat its retail store butchers were not protected by wire mesh gloves.In Secretary v. GrandUnion Company, 20 OSAHRC ?? (Docket Nos. 7533 & 7031, October 28,1975), a divided Commission held that 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a) does not requireretail store butchers to wear wire mesh gloves while cutting meat. Thatdecision is dispositive of the instant cases.Accordingly, the Judge?sdecision is reversed and the citations for violations of 29 C.F.R. ?1910.132(a) are vacated.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?William S. McLaughlinExecutive SecretaryDATED: FEB 5, 1976\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 11745 & 11767 GRAND UNION COMPANY, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0July 31, 1975APPEARANCES:AlbertH. Ross, Regional Solicitor U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts byJoan Entmacher, Esq. for the Secretary of LaborStephenAuditore, Esq. Grand Union Company for Respondent?DECISIONAND ORDERTheabove-numbered matters were initiated by the filing of separate Notices ofContest by Respondent following the issuance of separate Citations charging theRespondent with violations of health and safety standards issued by theSecretary of Labor pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 U.S.C. ? 651 et seq. (hereafter the Act).Therecord in Docket No. 11745 shows that on December 19, 1974 subsequent to aninspection of Respondent?s retail store located on Grove Street, Peterborough,New Hampshire, Respondent was issued a Citation charging eleven (11) separatenon-serious violations of the Secretary?s standards. A total of $75 inpenalties was proposed for these alleged violations. Thereafter Respondentfiled a Notice of Contest challenging only one of the alleged violations; i.e.,the allegation that Respondent was in violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a)[Failure to provide protective hand equipment (mesh gloves) for the use ofretail meat-cutters].Therecord in Docket No. 11767 discloses that on December 26, 1974 after an inspectionof Respondent?s retail store located on Daniel Webster Highway, Allenstown, NewHampshire, Respondent was issued a Citation charging thirteen (13) non-seriousviolations. The total penalty proposed was the sum of $60. Respondent?s Noticeof Contest challenged only Item 5 of the Citation which alleged a violation of29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a). 132(a). In both cases herein penalties were notproposed for the items challenged by the Respondent. In both cases those itemsof the Citations not challenged by Respondent?s Notices of Contest have becomethe final order of this Commission by operation of law.Separatehearings in these matters were held in Boston on March 28, 1975. At thehearings it was stipulated inter alia, in each case, that the testimony of fourwitnesses given on February 5, 1974 in the matter of Secretary of Labor v.The Grand Union Company, Docket No. 10813 before Judge David Knight shallbe applicable to the matters herein (Jt. Exh. 1). The testimony of these fourwitnesses is crucial to a determination of the cases at bar.Thetestimony of Wayne Holbrook a meat-cutter in Respondent?s Greenfield,Massachusetts store indicated that he cuts various types of meat for a varietyof cuts required by customers; that he uses knives which necessarily aretapered and sharp; and that he has suffered a number of injuries on hisunprotected hand while boning meat, some of which required medical attention(Tr. No. 10813?26?46).RobertKazakiewich a former meat-cutter in Respondent?s Greenfield, Massachusettsstore testified that he also suffered several injuries to his unprotected handwhile boning and cutting meat. Not all of his injuries were reported (Tr. No.10813?57?59).RogerBranowicki, a director of meat operations for another chain of supermarkets,testified that since June 1973 his organization has made it compulsory formeat-cutters to use 3-fingered mesh gloves to protect the hand which does notwield the cutting knife. As a result of this policy injuries to meat-cuttershave been eliminated in the past two years (Tr. No. 10813?90?103). This witnessalso testified that the use of mesh gloves has not interfered with theefficiency of the meat-cutters using this device (Tr. No. 10813?98).JackCalderone the national meat salesman for the Respondent stated that although hewas not familiar with the record of injuries sustained by Respondent?smeat-cutters he believed that the use of mesh gloves in a retail operation wasnot practicable (Tr. No. 10813?132?134).Inmy view the evidence incorporated herein clearly establishes the need for sometype of protective hand equipment for use by meat-cutters. A mesh glove worn onthe hand which holds the meat would clearly eliminate or diminish substantiallythose injuries which result when a knife slips in a meat-cutting operation. Iconclude, therefore, that in each case the Respondent was in violation of 29C.F.R. ?1910.132(a) for failure to provide protective equipment on therespective dates of inspection.ORDER1.The Citation issued to Respondent on December 19, 1974 relating to Respondent?sstore located on Grove Street, Peterborough, New Hampshire, [Docket No. 11745]is AFFIRMED. of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.132(a) for failure Respondent on December 26,1974 relating to Respondent?s store located on Daniel Webster Highway,Allenstown, New Hampshire, [Docket No. 11767] is AFFIRMED.?HENRY K. OSTERMANJudge, OSAHRCDated: July 31, 1975Hyattsville, Maryland”