“Docket No. 77-3049 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY,GERALDINE DISTRICT,Respondent,OSHRC Docket No. 77-3049DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:Administrative Law Judge Alan M. Wienman affirmed a citation issued to UnionElectric Company.\u00a0 The citation alleged that Union Electric violated 29 U.S.C. ?654(a)(2), section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”), when an unprotected employee came closer to anenergized line than permitted by Table V-1 of 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.950(c)(1).[[1\/]] UnionElectric’s petition for review of the judge’s decision was granted by former CommissionerBarnako under section 12(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i).\u00a0 On review, UnionElectric largely renews the arguments it made before the judge.[[2\/]] We have consideredthese arguments in light of the record and adopt the judge’s decision.\u00a0 We add onlysome additional observations.Union Electric claims that it was error for the judge to conclude that itsown safety rule did not provide the protection required by section 1926.950(c)(1) and thatthe rule was not enforced.\u00a0 Union Electric’s rule requires that: Rubber gloves with protectors shall be put on before coming within reach andworn while within reach of conductors or equipment which is energized or may becomeenergized.It does not, however, speak in terms of specific distances to be maintainedfrom energized lines as does section 1926.950(c)(1). Thus, Union Electric cannot be saidto have fulfilled its duty to comply with the standard because its rule does not encompassthe requirements of section 1926.950(c)(1). See The Kansas Power & Light Co., 77OSAHRC 39\/A2, 5 BNA OSHC 1202, 1206, 1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 21,696, p. 26,059 (No. 11015,1977). Commission precedent also supports the judge’s view that an employer fails toadequately enforce his safety rules by not providing diligent supervision. To adequatelyenforce a workrule, an employer must take steps to discover violations and effectivelyenforce the rule when infractions are discovered. E.g., Farthing & Weidman, Inc., 82OSAHRC 75\/A2, 11 BNA OSHC 1069, 1072, 1983 CCH OSHD ? 26,389, pp. 33,491-92 (No. 78-5366,1982); Marson Corp., 82 OSAHRC 29\/C4, 10 BNA OSHC 1660, 1662, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,075, p.32,804 (No. 78-3491, 1982). Enforcement includes discipline sufficient to preventrecurrence of the violative conduct as well as communication of the occurrence of suchdiscipline to employees to make them aware that workrules will be enforced. See Floyd S.Pike Elec. Contractor, Inc., 78 OSAHRC 50\/E1, 6 BNA OSHC 1675, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,805(No. 3069, 1978). On this record, we affirm the judge’s decision on the ground that UnionElectric failed to sustain the affirmative defense with respect to unpreventable employeemisconduct. See Gulf Oil Co., 77 OSAHRC 216\/B10, 6 BNA OSHC 1240, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,737(No. 14281, 1977).SO ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 MAR 31 1983The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format.\u00a0 To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public InformationOffice by e-mail ( [email protected] ),telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).FOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] At the time of the alleged violation, the standard provided inpertinent part:? 1926.950\u00a0 General requirements.(c) Clearances.\u00a0 The provisions of subparagraph (1) or (2) of thisparagraph shall be observed.(1) No employee shall be permitted to approach or take any conductive objectwithout an approved insulating handle closer to exposed energized parts than shown inTable V-1, unless:(i) The employee is insulated or guarded from the energized part (gloves orgloves with sleeves rated for the voltage involved shall be considered insulation of theemployee from the energized part), or(ii) The energized part is insulated or guarded from him and any otherconductive object at a different potential, or(iii) The employee is isolated, insulated, or guarded from any other conductive object(s),as during liveline bare-hand work.TABLE V-1ALTERNATING CURRENT–MINIMUM DISTANCESVoltage range\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Minimum working (phase to phase)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0and clear hot kilovolt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0stick distance2.1 to 15……………………….. 2 ft. 0 in. 15.1 to 35……………………….2 ft. 4 in. [remainder of table omitted][[2\/]] At the close of the Secretary’s case in chief, Union Electric’scounsel moved to dismiss on the ground that the Secretary had not made out a prima faciecase.\u00a0 The judge took the motion under advisement. Union Electric then chose toproceed with its own case and presented evidence.\u00a0 On review, Union Electric arguesthat the Commission should find that the judge erred in not granting the motion. However,by choosing to proceed with its own evidence, Union Electric waived any objection it hadto the judge’s reservation of a ruling on the motion.\u00a0 See Harrington Constr. Corp.,77 OSAHRC 7\/B3, 4 BNA OSHC 1471, 1473, 1976-77 ? 20,913, p. 25,110 (No. 9809, 1976),citing A.P. Hopkins v. Studebaker Corp., 496 F.2d 969, 971 (6th Cir. 1974).\u00a0 Seegenerally 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ? 41.13[1], p. 41-178 & n.31 (2d ed. 1982).\u00a0 Once a defending party expands a record, the judge must decide the case on theentire record, not on a part of it.\u00a0 We also note that Judge Wienman followed thepreferred Commission practice.\u00a0 See Texland Drilling Corp., 80 OSAHRC 106\/C13, 9 BNAOSHC 1023, 1026, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,954, p. 30,788 (No. 76-5307, 1980); see also White v.Rimrock Tidelands, Inc., 414 F.2d 1336, 1340 (5th Cir. 1969).[[1]] There is no allegation of violation with regard to the other clearance distances setforth in Table V-1.[[2]] The majority cites The Kansas Power & Light Co., 77 OSAHRC 39\/A2, 5 BNA 1202,1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 21,696 (No. 11015, 1977), a case in which the Commission concludedthat the employer’s safety rule was not the equivalent of ? 1926.950(c)(1) and Table V-1.\u00a0 However, in that case the Commission found that the employer’s safety rule wasinadequate for the following reasons:\u00a0 (1) The safety rule was applicable to only aparticular type of operation performed on energized lines; (2) Although some of thevoltage\/clearance ratios set forth in the employer’s manual were more stringent than inthe standard, in other instances the minimum clearances were less stringent; and (3) Theemployer’s manual merely \”suggests\” minimum distances while Table V-1 requiresthat minimum distances be maintained.\u00a0 None of the three factors which the Commissionrelied upon in The Kansas Power & Light Co., are present here.[[3]] I do not mean to suggest, however, that I would necessarily place on anemployer an obligation to do anything more in its safety program than establish andcommunicate safety rules to employees. Since I find Union Electric’s mechanisms fordetecting and imposing sanctions for violations of its safety rules were adequate in thecircumstances, I need not now consider whether an employer should be required to enforceas well as establish safety rules. See H.E. Weise, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 18\/A2, 10 BNA OSHC1499, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 25,985 (No. 78-204, 1982) (dissenting opinion).”