This case is yet another example of how “legal” and “safety” can be so far apart from each other. This case was won by the company because OSHA did a horrible job in defending their citation; and yet, it will become ammo for companies to use in future cases. Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that a 1/4″ opening around a conveyor does not present a hazard. In this case, a young lady lost her index finger when she tried to remove a piece of chicken from this 1/4″ opening between a conveyor and a plastic back splash. The company argued that 1/4″ openings are deemed acceptable in all guarding AND that this area did not need to be guarded because the rate of the chicken cone conveyor was too fast, thus never allowing the employees to reach into the opening. BOTH of these arguments are badly flawed based on the facts that: 1) an employee reached into the gap and 2) had her finger amputated; yet the review commission vacated the citation based 100% on the legal argument and the fact that OSHA could not defend it’s citation. So yes the company “won”, but there is a lot of safety we can learn from this case. By the way, I personally would have cited 1910.147 seeing how she was “cleaning” or “clearing a jam” when she reached into the opening to remove the chicken and the conveyor had not been locked out.
A poultry processing plant was inspected following a reported finger amputation. OSHA commenced an inspection of the worksite on July 1, 2015, with an additional site visit on July 29, 2015. As a result of the inspection, a Citation was issued alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1) and proposed a $7,000.00 penalty.