View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner

+

Injuries and Accident Causes in the
Brew ing Industry, 1944

Bulletin 7^o. 884

For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 15 cents




Letter o f Transmittal
U nited States D epartment op L abor ,
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C., August 80, 1948.
The Secretary op L abor :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on the occurrence and causes
of work injuries in the brewing industry.
This report was prepared in the Industrial Hazards Division by Frank S.
McElroy and George R. McCormack as a part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
regular program of compiling industrial-injury information for use in accident
prevention work. Frank C. Ball, W. A. Klenota, P. L. Schuler, E. J. Steinkellner, and Guy T. Yates, safety engineers in the industry, assisted greatly by
suggesting specific methods of accident prevention drawn from their experience.
E w an C lagu b , Commissioner.
Hon. L. B. SCHWELLENBACH,
Secretary of Labor.




(H)

Bulletin 7^o. 884 of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

Contents
Page.

Summary__________________________________________________________
Departmental injury frequency rates--------------------------------------------------Brewhouse operations_____________________________________
Bottling operations_____________________________________________
Delivery operations_____________________________________________
Miscellaneous operations________________________________________
Regional, State, and city injury-frequency rates_______________________
Injury-frequency rates and size of plant______________ - _______________
Kinds of injuries experienced:
Plant-wide experience___________________________________________
Departmental experience:
Brewhouse departments_____________________________________
Bottling departments__________________
Delivery departments_______________________________________
Agencies involved in accidents_______________________________________
Accident types_____________________________________________________
Accident causes_____________________________________________________
Unsafe working conditions__________________.______ _____________
Hazardous arrangements and procedures.------------------------------Defective agencies__________________________________________
Inadequate guards________________
Unsafe acts__________
Unsafe position or posture___________________________________
Use of unsafe equipment or using equipment unsafely__________
Other unsafe acts___________________________________________
Non disabling injuries_______________________________________________
Repeat injuries_________________________________________________
Bottling department__________________
Brewhouse department__________
Other departments____________
Work experience and injuries____________________________________
Sex of injured workers__________________________________________
Typical accidents and suggestions for their prevention__________________
Brewhouse accidents____________________________________________
Bottling department accidents__________________
Shipping and delivery department accidents._____________________
Maintenance department accidents_______________________________
Miscellaneous accidents________________________________
Appendix: Statistical tables_____ ________________________________- ___




(m)

1
4
4
5
7
7
7
9
10
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
25
27
28
29
30
31
31
33
35
35
36
36
38
38
39
41
45
46
47
49

CHART I

PART OF BODY AFFECTED
BY DISABLING INJURIES
IN BREWERIES
1944

/

6 % - HEAD (NOT EYES)

- FOOT OR TOES

I % - OTHER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS




Injuries and Accident Causes in the
Brewing Industry, 1944
Summary
Industrial injury-frequency rates for breweries, as compiled by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicate that accidents constitute a
major problem in this industry. In the year 1942, brewery workers
experienced an average of 38.2 disabling injuries in the course of every
million employee-hours worked, which was nearly double the average
of 19.9 for all manufacturing activities. Similarly, in 1943, the
average injury-frequency rate for the brewing industry was 35.3 as
compared with an average rate of 20.0 for all manufacturing. In
1944 the divergence became even more pronounced, as the volume of
recorded disabling injuries in the brewing industry climbed to an
average of 46.2 per million employee-hours worked, whereas pre­
liminary reports indicated a decline in the all-manufacturing average
to about 18.8.
The significance of the 1944 frequency rate becomes more apparent
when it is realized that it indicates the occurrence of about 1 disabling
injury for every 10 workers in the brewing industry during the year.
In actual numbers it is estimated that approximately 8,100 employees
of breweries experienced such injuries during 1944. About 15 of
these were fatal and approximately 660 resulted in some form of
permanent physical impairment; the remainder, or about 7,425
cases, were temporary disabilities.
Without any allowance for the continuing loss in production and
earning power arising from the deaths and permanent impairments,
it is estimated that the actual employment losses resulting from the
injuries experienced by brewery workers amounted to at least 162,000
man-days during 1944. On the basis of standard time charges for
deaths and permanent impairments, it is estimated that the future
economic loss accruing from the more serious injuries will eventually
amount to at least 900,000 man-days. The total employment loss
arising from the injuries which occurred in the course of brewery
operations dining 1944, therefore, will be equivalent to over 1,000,000
man-days of work.
Broad industry figures, such as the foregoing, amply demonstrate
the existence of a safety problem in the brewery industry and, in a
general way, serve to indicate the magnitude of that problem. The
successful development of a safety program, however, requires much
more detailed information as to where, how, and why the accidents
occur. This survey was designed to supply some of those details.




(l)

2
In response to the Bureau's request, 321 breweries submitted sum­
mary reports showing for each of their operating departments the
number of workers employed, the number of employee-hours worked,
and the number and types of injuries experienced by their employees
during 1944. From these data it was possible to make a number of
comparisons which indicate more specifically where the major
hazards of the industry are concentrated and thereby to point out
the most effective line of approach to the achievement of greater
safety.
On the basis of the 1944 record there is an apparent need for greater
attention to safety in each of the major operating departments of the
industry. The necessity for immediate attention is most apparent,
however, in the delivery departments. The delivery departments
had an average of 64.1 disabling injuries for every million employeehours worked, the bottling departments had an average of 52.5, and
the brewhouse departments had an average of 50.8. The most
hazardous type of delivery work was that of handling draught beer.
The workers in this particular operation had the extremely high
average frequency rate of 93.1. Pasteurizing, with an average fre­
quency rate of 59, was the most hazardous operation in the bottling
department, and loading, with an average frequency rate of 76*6, was
the most hazardous of the specific operations reported in the brewhouse departments.
Comparisons based upon the volume of employment in the report­
ing plants indicated that, on the average, breweries employing fewer
than 100 workers and those employing over 500 workers had better
safety records than the medium-size plants in which employment
ranged from 100 to 500. It is noteworthy, however, that the propor­
tion of serious injuries (that is, cases resulting in permanent impair­
ments) was greater among the plants employing 1,000 or more workers
than among those of any other size group. Generally speaking,
this pattern corresponds with the conditions found in other industries,
and reflects the greater attention devoted to safety by management
in the smaller plants and the existence of safety departments in the
larger plants.
The injury records of the participating breweries varied extensively.
About 17 percent of the plants reported that none of their employees
had experienced a disabling injury during the year. However, most
of these plants were quite small and none had over 150 employees.
In contrast there were 4 plants with injury-frequency rates of over
200. One brewery with an average employment of about 240 workers
reported 169 disabling injuries, which gave it a frequency rate of 289.6.
Regional comparisons indicated that, in general, brewery operations
were conducted most safely in the southeastern part of the country
and that the relative volume of accidents was greatest in the north­
eastern area. Regional average frequency rates ranged from 31.4
in the East South Central to 67.9 in the New England region. In
the areas which contain the greatest number of breweries the regional
averages were 46.0 for the East North Central and 52.6 for the
Middle Atlantic region. Among the 19 States for which separate
average frequency rates were computed, Florida had the lowest
(13.9) and Indiana had the highest (69.8). Both the highest and
the lowest of the 16 city averages were for Pennsylvania cities; in



3
Wilkes-Barre the reporting breweries had an average frequency rate
of 23.3, and those in Pittsburgh had an average of 128.0. Various
factors enter into these regional, State, and city differences: State
safety laws and the extent to which they are enforced, the general
size of the plants in an area, and the general interest in safety as
evidenced by the safety activities of local associations.
In addition to supplying summary reports for use in evaluating the
magnitude and general aspects of the injury problem in brewing opera­
tions, 82 of the cooperating breweries also made their original accident
records available for detailed analysis. This analysis was designed to
determine how and why most brewery accidents occur and to indi­
cate, wherever possible, the preventative measures which could help
to eliminate such occurrences. These 82 plants were distributed
among 15 States and, as a group, employed over 38,000 workers.
Their combined injury-frequency rate was 53.3, which is somewhat
higher than the industry average, but not sufficiently higher to indi­
cate that their accident experience was other than typical of the
industry. A total of 4,276 accident cases, each of which resulted in
a disabling injury, were included in the major part of this analysis.
Supplementary details relating to the occurrence of over 16,000 acci­
dents which resulted in nondisabling injuries were also compiled for
use in a portion of the analysis. The latter records, however, were
all obtained in one plant and may not be entirely typical of the experi­
ence of other plants.
A representative of the Bureau of Labor Statistics visited each of
these 82 cooperating breweries and, insofar as the data were available,
transcribed from their records the following items regarding each
accident: Place where the accident occurred; the occupation, age,
experience, and sex of the injured worker; the nature of the injury
and the part of body injured; the type of accident; the object or
substance (agency) which caused the injury; and the unsafe condition
and/or the unsafe act which led to the accident. These data were
then analyzed according to the American Recommended Practice for
Compiling Industrial Accident Causes, as approved by the American
Standards Association.
In order of their numerical importance, the leading injury-producing
agencies were found to be barrels and kegs, defective working surfaces,
machines, cartons or boxes, and vehicles. Most common among the
unsafe working conditions which led to accidents were defects in
bottles, slippery floors, lack of proper lifting equipment, and inade­
quately guarded machines or conveyors. Inattention to footing and
failure to maintain a proper grip on objects being lifted or carried
were the most outstanding unsafe acts. Increased utilization of per­
sonal protective equipment such as safety shoes, gloves, goggles, and
face shields would undoubtedly do much to reduce the volume of
injuries. The record indicates, however, that the most effective
accident prevention measures would include more effective guarding
of machines and conveyors; better housekeeping to eliminate slipping
and tripping hazards; increased use of mechanical devices in handling
heavy materials; and more thorough inspection of materials and
equipment, coupled with prompt repair or replacement of items which
are found to be defective.




4
Departmental Inju ry Frequency Rates
The extent to which details were available concerning the experience
of workers engaged in particular operations varied greatly among the
reporting breweries. In many of the small plants there was very
little departmentalization, and most employees whose time could not
be broken down on the basis of specific operations were reported as
general workers. Practically all of the plants, however, were able to
report their experience in broad categories such as brewhouse work,
bottling operations, and delivery operations. Such break-downs help
to direct safety activities to the general divisions of the plants in
which injuries are most common. Most suited for the development of
an organized safety program, however, are those data which detail
the experience of workers in specific activities within the broad
operating divisions. About half of tbe reporting plants were able to
furnish detailed records of the latter type.1
BREWHOUSE OPERATIONS

Brewhouse operations as a group had an average frequency rate of
50.8 disabling injuries for every million employee-hours worked.
Although this average is very high in comparison with the frequency
rates prevailing in most other manufacturing industries, it was lower
than the averages for the bottling and delivery departments of the
brewing industry. Temporary injuries in this division, as meas­
ured by the average amount of time lost, were generally more severe
than those of the other major divisions. This was balanced, however,
by the fact that there were proportionately fewer cases of permanent
impairments reported in the brewhouse units than were reported in
either tbe bottling or the delivery divisions.
The frequency rates of the individual departments of the brew­
house division were sharply divided into a “very high” rate group and
a “high” rate group. The group with the more favorable average
frequency rates was composed of the brewing, fermenting, and filter­
ing departments, while the higher rate group included the racking,
washing, and loading departments. It is significant that the operations
in which injuries were less common were those in which the work
involves comparatively little manual handling of heavy materials.
The filtering departments7 average frequency rate of 23.9 was the
lowest in the group. The brewing and fermenting departments had
nearly identical frequency rates, 32.4 and 32.8, respectively. All
three of these rates were higher than the average injury-frequency
rate for all manufacturing, but they were each substantially lower
than the rates for the washing, racking, and loading departments.
Loading operations, which involve the intraplant transportation
and storage of filled barrels and kegs, had an average frequency rate
of 76.6—the highest for any of the brewhouse departments. In
many of the loading departments much of the lifting and handling of
the heavy barrels is performed manually, and as a result strains and
sprains are relatively common. Permanent injuries, however, were
1See Appendix, table 1.




5
less common in these departments than in many of the other
operating units.
Washing operations constituted the second most hazardous
activity in the brewhouse division. In these units disabling injuries
were reported to have occurred at the average rate of 58.3 per million
employee-hours worked. In washing operations, empty barrels are
usually placed by hand upon an automatic washing machine. On the
machine, the barrels are mechanically rotated to place the bunghole
in line with a water nozzle and are then lowered over the nozzle.
Water is alternately sprayed into and drained out of the barrels
several times, after which they are removed for inspection. If the
coating of pitch on the interior of a barrel is found to be thin or
broken, the barrel is placed on a second machine which operates
similarly to the washer except that it sprays hot pitch into the barrel
instead of water. The barrel is then rotated to insure that all inner
surfaces are coated, and the excess pitch is drained out. The pro­
portion of injuries resulting in permanent impairments was com­
paratively low in the washing departments. The average amount of
time lost for each temporary disability, on the other hand, was
very high.
In racking operations the empty barrel is placed, bunghole up,
under the nozzle of the beer pump. The nozzle is lowered into the
barrel and the beer is pumped in. When the barrel is full the bung
is placed by hand and driven in with a hammer. Then the filled
barrels are rolled from the rack to the loaders. The racking depart­
ments also bad a very high frequency rate, their average being 51.8
disabling injuries per million employee-hours worked. The proportion
of injuries resulting in permanent impairments was comparatively
high, but the average time lost per case of temporary disability was
identical with the industry average.
B O T T L IN G O P E R A T IO N S

The average frequency rate for the departments comprising the
bottling division was slightly higher than that of the brewhouse
division, but was substantially lower than that of the delivery de­
partments. As a group, the bottling departments had an average of
52.5 disabling injuries in every million employee-hours worked. One
in every 14 of these injuries was a permanent impairment, as compared
with averages of about 1 in 18 in the brewhouse group and about 1 in
8 in the delivery departments. Although there were 2 fatalities
among the 1,031 disabling injuries reported for the brewhouse units,
and 4 among the 1,172 injuries reported for the delivery departments,
there were no deaths among the 2,423 disabling cases reported in the
bottling departments. Temporary disabilities in the bottling
departments, on the average, required 14 day£ for recovery. This
time loss was identical with the corresponding average in the delivery
departments, but was substantially lower than the average of 18
days of lost time per temporary disability in the brewhouse units.
Bottling operations, other than casing and loading, are generally
highly mechanized and involve comparatively little physical exertion.
Consequently, these operations are now largely performed by women.
717039°— 46------ 2




6
Empty bottles are loaded by hand into an automatic washing ma­
chine from which they pass onto a conveyor on which they generally
remain until delivered to the casers. As they leave the washing
machine they are given their first inspection by a worker who sits
at the side of the conveyor and looks through each bottle as it passes.
At this stage the inspection involves little hazard. At the later
inspection points, however, there is continual danger that the filled
bottles may explode and that the inspectors or other conveyor at­
tendants may be struck by flying glass.
The conveyor carries the bottles from the washing machine suc­
cessively to the filling machine, the capping machine, the pasteurizer,
and the labeling machine, and then delivers them to the casers, who
place them in cases or cartons. Casing is usually a manual opera­
tion, although a few breweries have installed machines to perform
this function. The filled cases or cartons are then taken by the
loaders to be stored or shipped out of the plant.
Bottle explosions are quite common at all stages of the bottling
operations after the beer has been placed in the bottles. These
explosions present a double hazard in that the flying glass may strike
anyone in the vicinity, and the workers may receive hand cuts as
they remove the broken glass from the machines, the conveyor, or the
floor.
Inquiries addressed to a number of brewery safety engineers elicited
various reasons for the occurrence of these explosions. The pressure
used to speed the filling operations frequently is great enough to
burst weak or defective bottles. In the pasteurizer the beer is heated
and the gas contained in the liquid expands, thus increasing the
internal pressure which may then burst the bottles. Most of the
safety engineers were in agreement that the tendency for bottles to
explode is increased when they are roughly handled. Worn ma­
chinery and conveyors add greatly to this hazard by causing the bottles
to be bumped and shaken as they pass along the line. The safety
engineers also agreed that the larger-size bottles are more likely to
explode than are the bottles of standard size.
A few breweries have placed wire-mesh guards over the conveyor
lines and have installed metal shields .around the filling machines.
At the inspection points the mesh guards are replaced by panels of
shatter-proof glass. Most of the conveyor guards are constructed in
sections which may be raised to permit the removal of rejected! or
broken bottles from the line. The use of such guards, however, is
far from universal. Instead of guards, some breweries provide
impact goggles for all bottling-department workers. These goggles
prevent eye injuries, but do not eliminate other cuts caused by the
broken glass.
At the present time very little beer is put in cans, because of the
shortage of metal. I t is pertinent to note, however, that from a
safety point of view the use of cans has a distinct advantage in that it
automatically eliminates all the hazards of bursting bottles.
Pasteurizing was the most hazardous operation in the bottling
division. These units had an average of 59 disabling injuries for
every million employee-hours worked. Casing operations, which
had an average frequency rate of 55.1, were only slightly less haz­
ardous. Loading operations in the bottling division had a frequency




7
rate of 47.9, which is high by most safety standards; nevertheless,
it was much lower than the average of 76.6 for the brewhouse loading
departments. Bottle washing (with the lowest frequency rate in
the bottling division) and the filling and capping units had average
frequency rates of 43.4 and 45.4, respectively.
In comparison with the average time loss for each temporary dis­
ability in the other divisions, the recovery time for temporary injuries
in the bottling units was generally low. The proportion of injuries
resulting in permanent impairments, however, was unusually high
in some of the bottling operations, ranging as high as 20 percent in
the filling and capping units.
D E L IV E R Y O P E R A T IO N S

In large measure the very high frequency rates of the delivery
departments reflect the considerable volume of heavy manual work
performed in these departments. The extremely high average fre­
quency rate of 93.1 for the units delivering draught beer is seldom
equaled in any of the operations of other industries. Similarly, the
high proportion of serious injuries, represented by 2 deaths and 73
permanent impairments out of a total of 403 disabling injuries re­
ported for this operation, is unusually high.
Although the units engaged in delivering bottle beer had a much
better record than those handling draught beer, their experience
nevertheless was considerably less favorable than that of most other
industrial activities. This operation had an average of 56.5 dis­
abling injuries per million employee-hours worked and, similarly, had
a very high proportion of deaths and permanent impairments among
the reported injuries.
M IS C E L L A N E O U S O P E R A T IO N S

Relatively few of the participating breweries reported any malting
operations. The few reports received, however, showed an average
frequency rate of 81.9, indicating a high degree of hazard in tins
operation. The maintenance departments had a fairly high average
frequency rate of 41.0, and the garage units had a relatively high
average of 32.9. The reporting power-plant units had an average
frequency rate of 28.1, and the refrigeration units had an average rate
of 22.0. The sales and the administrative and clerical units had
average rates of 4.2 and 1.9, respectively, which are comparable with
the experience of similar departments in other industries.

Regional, State, and City Injury-Frequency Rates *
As brewery operations are largely standardized and follow much
the same pattern regardless of the geographic location of the various
plants, it is unlikely that the considerable variations in the average
injury-frequency rates for different areas represent differences in
inherent hazards. Primarily, the frequency-rate differences reflect
variations in safety activities. Many factors contribute to these
differences, and in particular instances it may be very difficult to
specify which is the controlling factor. Differences in State safety
requirements and in the degree to which the requirements are en­
forced have a very direct influence upon the frequency-rate levels in



8
different States. Similarly, safety activities, or the lack of such
activities, on the part of trade associations or other organizations
may have considerable effect upon the general accident record of an
area. The average size of the plants in different areas and the avail­
ability or lack of experienced personnel are also factors which may
influence the injury-frequency rate levels.
The 321 breweries participating in the survey were distributed
among 35 States. As there were a number of States from which
only one or two plants reported, representative State averages could
be computed for only 19 States. The totals were combined, how­
ever, to provide averages for each of the nine geographic areas cor­
responding to the regions used in the tabulations of the United States
Bureau of the Census.2 In addition, it was possible to compute
average frequency rates for 16 cities.3
The highest of the regional average frequency rates was that of
the 10 breweries reporting from the New England States. These
plants reported an average of 67.9 disabling injuries for every million
employee-hours worked. As 8 of the 10 plants were located in
Massachusetts this rate primarily reflects the experience of that
State. The Massachusetts average frequency rate of 65.4 was ex­
ceeded only by the averages for Indiana and Colorado.
The East South Central region, with an average frequency rate of
31.4 based upon the experience of 6 plants, had the lowest of the
regional averages. The Kentucky average of 37.4, computed from
the reports of 4 of these breweries, was well below the national aver­
age. There were, however, 5 other States among the 19 for which
averages were computed, which had lower rates.
In the Middle Atlantic region reports were received from 78 brew­
eries. These plants had the high average frequency rate of 52.6, which
was exceeded only by the average of the New England region. Within
this region it was possible to compute separate averages for New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The New Jersey frequency rate of
27.6, based upon the records of 6 plants, was among the lowest of the
State averages, and the Pennsylvania and New York averages (52.9
and 63.5, respectively), were among the highest. Separate city
averages were computed for three cities in Pennsylvania and for two
in New York. In Pennsylvania the 3 breweries reporting from
Pittsburgh had an average frequency rate of 128.0, the highest of all
the city averages. In the same State, three breweries in Wilkes-Barre
had an average rate of 23.3, which was lower than the average for
any other city. The Philadelphia average of 38.9, based upon the
records of 8 plants, was somewhat better than the industry average.
The 7 breweries reporting from New York City had a very high
average, 70.2, which was exceeded only by the rates for Pittsburgh
and Chicago. The Rochester (N. Y.) average, 40.0, covering the
experience of 3 plants, was close to the median in the range of city rates.
The largest volume of reports received from any of the regions came
from the East North Central States. The 136 reporting breweries in*
* T he regional groupings and the States included in each region are as follows: N ew England.—Con­
necticut, Maine, Massachusetts, N ew Hampshire, Khode Island, and Vermont. Middle Atlantic.—New
Jersey, N ew York, and Pennsylvania. East North Central.—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and
Wisconsin; West North Central.—Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
South Dakota. South Atlantic.—Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, and W est Virginia. East South Central.—Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
West South Central.—Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Mountain .—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, N evada, N ew Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Pacific.—California, Oregon, and Washington.
* See Appendix, table 2.




9
this area had an average frequency rate of 46.0, which almost exactly
matched the national average for the industry. Among the separate
States comprising this region, Ohio had the lowest average frequency
rate, 37.3. At the other extreme, Indiana had an average rate of 69.8,
which was the highest State average computed. The rates of Michigan
(42.4), Wisconsin (44.4), and Illinois (51.1) were all in the upper range
of the State averages. Chicago had the highest city average in the
region, 72.4, while Cleveland had the lowest, 33.4. Cincinnati and
Columbus had average rates of 41.3 and 48.0, respectively; Milwaukee
had an average rate of 47.2; and Detroit had a rate of 43.5.
The 25 breweries reporting from the West North Central States
had an average injury-frequency rate of 39.2. These plants included
13 breweries in Minnesota for which the average rate was 35.6, and 9
breweries in Missouri, which had an average rate of 40.0. The 4 plants
reporting from Minneapolis and St. Paul had an average frequency
rate of 34.4, which was among the lowest of the city averages. The 4
breweries reporting from St. Louis had a slightly higher, but never­
theless better than average, rate of 38.9.
In the South Atlantic region the 11 reporting breweries had a rela­
tively low average frequency rate of 33.6. The 4 Florida plants
included in this group had an average rate of 13.9, which was the
lowest among the entire group of State rates. The average frequency
rate of 40.4 for the 3 breweries reporting from Maryland was relatively
high in comparison with the Florida average, but was the median in
the range of State rates.
In the West South Central region 10 breweries reported an average
of 49.1 disabling injuries per million employee-hours worked. The 4
plants in Louisiana, all of which were in New Orleans, had an average
rate of 51.4. The Texas average, based upon the experience of 5
plants, was 38.9.
For the Mountain States the regional average frequency rate,
computed from the records of 18 breweries, was 48.1. Three of these
plants (in Colorado) reported an average frequency rate of 67.1, which
was the second highest State rate recorded.
Reports were received from 27 breweries in the Pacific region. As a
group, these plants had an average frequency rate of 38.6, which
ranked in the lower half of the regional averages. The 9 plants in the
State of Washington, however, had a record substantially better than
the regional average. The Washington rate (29.4) ranked third among
the lowest of the State averages. In California the 14 reporting
breweries had an average frequency rate of 40.3. The Los Angeles
and San Francisco city averages of 37.2 and 37.4, respectively, were
both in the lower half of the range of city rates.
Injury-Frequency Rate and Size of Plant
In many industries analysis of the accident experience of various
plants has shown a direct correlation between the injury-frequency
rates and the size of the plants as measured by employment. The
most common findings have been that the small plants, in which the
owners are in close contact with actual operations, and the large
plants, which generally have safety engineers on their pay rolls,
usually have the lowest average frequency rates. The medium-size
plants, which are too large for intimate supervision by top management



10
and too small to have regularly established safety departments, com­
monly constitute the group which has the highest average frequency
rate. -In the brewery industry the same general pattern prevailed,
although it did not appear to be so clear-cut as in some other industries.
Breweries employing from 100 to 499 workers had the highest
general level of injury-frequency rates. For those with 100 to 249
employees the average rate was 51.3, while those with 250 to 499
employees had an average rate of 50.7. The group with the lowest
average frequency rate (36.6) was composed of plants which employed
from 25 to 49 employees. The plants with 50 to 99 employees and
those with 500 to 999 employees, however, had only slightly higher
averages, 37.7 and 38.7, respectively. The very small plants, with less
than 25 employees, had an average frequency rate of 43.5, and the
very large plants, with 1,000 or more employees, had an average of
48.3*
*
Comparisons among the various size groups revealed another in­
teresting relationship for which no positive explanation can be of­
fered. The disability distribution indicated that, as the size of the
plants increased, the proportion of permanent impairments also
tended to increase. In none of the size groups composed of plants
having fewer than 250 employees was the volume of permanent im­
pairments greater than about 4.5 percent of the total volume of in­
juries reported. In the larger plants this proportion increased con­
siderably, reaching 16 percent in the group made up of plants with
over 1,000 employees. A possible explanation of this may be found
in the fact that the larger plants frequently have medical service
available on the premises, whereas most small plants must send their
injured workers out of the plant for treatment. This means that
some minor injuries must be counted as disabling5 in the small plants,
because the workers lose time in going outside for treatments, while
identical injuries are not counted as disabling in the large plants be­
cause treatments can be obtained without the w orked taking time
off. This circumstance would not affect the volume of permanent
impairment cases, but would affect the volume of injuries counted as
temporary disabilities, and thereby would affect the relationship be­
tween the permanent impairments and the total number of disabling
injuries reported. A plant reporting a given volume of permanent
impairments, therefore, might show either a high or low proportion
of such cases, depending upon whether or not medical attention was
available on the premises.
K inds of Injuries Experienced
PLANT-WIDE EXPERIENCE

Inasmuch as the basic purpose of an accident prevention program
is to prevent the occurrence of events which result in injuries, analysis
of the injuries which have occurred can serve a definite purpose in
setting the stage for the more pertinent analysis of accident causes.
It also performs a direct “ injury prevention” function by indicating
the possibilities of utilizing personal protective equipment to supple­
ment more specific accident prevention methods.
* See Appendix, tables 3 and 4.
* A disabling injury is one which results in death or permanent impairment, or causes the loss of time
beyond the day of injury. Only disabling injuries are counted in computing the standard injury
frequency rate




11
Personal protective equipment does not prevent accidents, but its
use does reduce the probability of injury when accidents of certain
types occur. Consideration of the need for personal protective
equipment, therefore, is fundamental in any successful safety program.
In the course of this survey it was observed that workers in the
bottling departments generally were very conscious of the eye hazards
created by breaking bottles. As a result, the use of impact goggles
by workers in these departments was quite common. Other types
of personal protective equipment, however, were seldom seen in the
breweries which were visited.
In the broad review of the types of injuries which were disabling,
the most striking fact was the high proportions of strains, sprains,
hernias, bruises, contusions, and concussions, which together consti­
tuted over 55 percent of the entire group of cases examined.6 These
are all types of injuries which are commonly associated with heavy
work, particularly with the manual moving of heavy materials. In
this connection it is pertinent to note that previous studies of this
nature have been made in the foundry and longshore industries, both
of which have a great deal of heavy manual work.7 In the stevedoring
industry, however, only 53 percent of the disabling injuries were in
these categories; and in the foundry industry the proportion of such
injuries was only about 40 percent. Of specific interest is the fact
that hernia cases alone constituted 1.5 percent of the disabling in­
juries in breweries, but amounted to only 0.9 percent in stevedoring
and 1.3 percent in foundry operations. The implication involved in
these figures obviously is that further investigation should be made
to determine why injuries of the types listed above outrank all others
in the brewery industry.
Injuries to hands and fingers were more common among the brewery
disabilities than were injuries to any other part of the body. These
cases accounted for nearly 29 percent of the entire volume of disabili­
ties. More than half of the hand and finger injuries were cuts or
lacerations. Most of the others consisted of bruises, fractures, or
sprains, which commonly occurred as a result of pinching, crushing,
lifting, or striking-against types of accidents. No satisfactory type
of personal protective equipment to guard hands and fingers from
such injuries has been designed. On the other hand, cuts and lacera­
tions arising from contact with sharp or rough materials frequently
can be avoided through the use of gloves or other flexible hand cover­
ings. It appears, therefore, that increased use of hand coverings in
the brewing industry might effect a substantial reduction in the
number of hand and finger injuries.
Injuries to legs, feet, and toes, as a group, accounted for nearly 28
percent of all the brewery disabilities. The most common leg injuries
were bruises, sprains, cuts, and fractures. Leg sprains and fractures
probably cannot be effectually minimized through the use of personal
protective equipment. The use of aprons made of leather or other
heavy material, however, is an effective means of avoiding leg cuts
and bruises, particularly above the knee. The possibility of extend­
ing the use of such equipment, therefore, should be given consideration.
About 40 percent of the foot injuries were sprains or strains. It is
improbable that any personal protective equipment could have
6 See Appendix, tables 5 to 9.
7 See Bureau of Labor Statistics Bull. N o. 764: Injuries and Accident Causes in the Longshore Industry,
1942; and Bull. No. 806: Injuries and Accident Causes in the Foundry Industry, 1942.




12
prevented many of these injuries. Most of the other foot injuries
and practically all of the toe injuries, however, consisted of bruises,
cuts, punctures, or fractures. Many of these injuries undoubtedly
would have been avoided if the injured workers had been wearing
safety shoes.
The third major group of disabilities consisted of injuries to the
trunk. This group included over 27 percent of the recorded cases.
Approximately two-thirds of these were strains, sprains, or hernias,
and about one-fourth were bruises. Personal protective equipment
probably would not have prevented any appreciable number of these
injuries. It is apparent, however, that measures should be taken to
avoid overexertion and that the methods of moving materials in
breweries should be given close scrutiny.
Head injuries accounted for about 9 percent of the disabilities.
Somewhat more than a third of these cases were eye injuries. The
rather general practice of wearing impact goggles in the bottling
departments undoubtedly prevented the eye-injury total from being
far higher. Wider use of such protective equipment in all operations
involving eye hazards might have eliminated nearly all of the eye
injuries which did occur. The use of face shields and hard hats
wherever the danger of being struck by falling or flying material
exists probably would have substantially reduced the volume of other
head injuries.
To summarize, therefore, the over-all injury analysis indicates that
a substantial volume of injuries could be avoided in the brewing in­
dustry through improved material-handling methods and by increasing
the use of personal protective equipment, particularly gloves, goggles,
safety shoes, leather aprons, face shields, and hard hats.
It was expected that the incidence of the various types of injuries
would vary from one department to another and that the relative
importance of the indicated protective measures would be different
in the separate departments. To throw some light on this subject,
therefore, the injuries were classified into the three major operating
divisions of the industry and reexamined.
D E P A R T M E N T A L E X P E R IE N C E

Brewhouse Departments

Trunk injuries, accounting for nearly 35 percent of the brewhouse
disabilities, were of primary importance in these departments. Strains
and sprains resulting from incorrect lifting procedures were particu­
larly common. About one-fourth of the trunk injuries, however, re­
sulted from accidents in which employees fell, bumped into objects,
or were struck by moving objects. From the injury prevention
standpoint, therefore, the development of safe methods of moving
heavy materials and a general improvement in housekeeping should
be recognized as being of first importance in the brewhouse depart­
ments.
Next in numerical importance were the leg, foot, and toe injuries.
As a group, these cases accounted for nearly 30 percent of the brew­
house disabilities. The leg injuries consisted primarily of bruises,
sprains, and fractures. Many of these injuries resulted when workers
were struck by barrels which were being rolled from the racking
machine. The development of a safer procedure for moving the



13
barrels at this point would improve the injury record of many brew­
eries.
Foot injuries in the brewhouse departments consisted primarily of
bruises and sprains, while toe injuries were mainly fractures and
bruises. Most commonly, foot and toe injuries were inflicted by
dropped materials. It is apparent, therefore, that the use of safety
shoes should be encouraged in the brewhouse departments.
Arm, hand, and finger injuries together were responsible for over
one-fourth of the brewhouse disabilities. Within this group, oyer
half the cases were finger injuries. The finger injuries were primarily
cuts, fractures, or bruises, while the hand injuries were mainly cuts,
sprains, or bruises. The cuts were largely the result of contact with
imbedded metal or glass in kegs or with loose hoops on kegs or barrels.
The bruises and fractures most often were the result of hands or
fingers being pinched or crushed between barrels in piling operations.
More general use of gloves when handling kegs or barrels undoubtedly
would be effective in reducing the number of hand and finger cuts,
but probably would not reduce the volume of bruises and fractures.
Injuries to the head accounted for about 9 percent of the brewhouse
disabilities. Burns or scalds affecting the face or eyes were particu­
larly important in this group, which indicated a need for increased
use of goggles and face shields in operations involving the handling
of hot liquids.
Bottling Departments

In the bottling departments, injuries to the upper extremities were
by far the most common. Hand and finger injuries alone consti­
tuted about 40 percent of the disabilities in these departments. Most
of these injuries consisted of cuts or lacerations resulting from contact
with broken glass or the sharp edges of bottle caps.
Because of the large number of hand and finger cuts, extensive
inquiries were made as to why hand coverings were not more widely
used by workers in the bottling departments. Generally the re­
sponses to these inquiries indicated that the workers were not con­
vinced of the need for hand coverings or that they found such equip­
ment inconvenient. Canvas gloves were the most common hand
coverings in use. However, objections to their use were raised on
the ground that they are not durable. Leather gloves had been
tried in some plants, but it was reported that they had been discarded
because dampness led to mold on the leather, which in turn had pro­
duced a number of cases of dermatitis on the hands of the wearers.
Metal gloves similar to those used in the slaughtering and meat­
packing industry had been tried in one of the breweries which were
visited, The workers there, however, objected to using them, claim­
ing that the metal cut into their hands and fingers. In this connec­
tion it seems pertinent to note, however, that despite the widespread
use of metal gloves in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry not
one complaint of this nature was encountered in the course of the
Bureau’s study of injuries in that industry.
In view of this record there can be little doubt as to the desirability
of increasing the use of hand coverings in the bottling departments.
The selection of the particular type of hand covering to be used,
however, obviously presents a problem which must be resolved in
each plant.
717039°— -46------3




14
Injuries to legs, feet, and toes as a group accounted for about 21
percent of the disabilities in the bottling departments. Injuries which
were limited to the toes were not very numerous. Nearly all of the
toe injuries, however, could have been avoided if the injured persons
had been wearing safety shoes. Safety shoes also might have pre­
vented a considerable number of the disabilities designated as foot
injuries. One in every three of the foot injuries was a sprain and one
in every eight was a burn or scald inflicted by hot liquid. Safety
shoes would not prevent injuries of these types. The fact that most
of the foot sprains resulted from slips on loose material or slippery
working surfaces, however, indicates that improved housekeeping in
the bottling departments could effect a substantial reduction in the
volume of foot injuries.
Leg injuries in the bottling departments consisted primarily of
bruises, cuts, and sprains. Many of these were the results of slips or
falls on wet or cluttered working surfaces. A considerable number of
the leg cuts and bruises, however, came from forcible contacts with
filled cases which the injured persons were handling. Leather aprons
probably would have prevented some of these injuries.
As a group, trunk injuries represented over 19 percent of the bottling
department disabilities. Back strains were particularly common
among these cases. Most of the back strains resulted from improper
lifting, such as lifting cases or cartons with the back bent, lifting
while in a cramped or awkward position, or lifting heavy materials
from heights beyond easy reach. Bruises were second in numerical
importance among the trunk injuries. Accidents in which employees
fell, bumped into objects, or were struck by moving objects were
responsible for most of the bruises.
About 11 percent of the disabling injuries in the bottling depart­
ments were head injuries. A majority of these were cuts or lacera­
tions, most of which were inflicted by flying glass from exploding
bottles. Despite the rather general use of goggles to protect the
eyes from flying glass, eye injuries constituted over 43 percent of the
head-injury group. It appears, therefore, that the use of eye-pro­
tection devices could profitably be extended. Cuts on the face were
very common—an indication that goggles alone do not furnish
complete protection. Plastic face shields probably would be helpful
in avoiding such injuries.
Delivery Departments

In the delivery departments, injuries to the trunk and injuries to
the lower extremities each accounted for about one-third of the dis­
abilities. In the trunk injury group nearly three-fourths of the cases
were strains or sprains, with back sprains predominating. Most of
these injuries were the results of lifting accidents.
Strains and sprains were also common among the leg and foot
injuries, but were not nearly so numerous as were bruises. Slips and
falls were the sources of a large proportion of the sprains to legs and
feet and similarly were responsible for many of the bruises. Most of
the bruises to the Iowct extremities and practically all of the rather
numerous fractures, however, were caused by dropped materials.
Safety shoes or metal foot guards could have prevented many of
these foot and toe injuries, and leather aprons probably would have
been effective in eliminating some of the leg injuries.



15
Nearly a fourth of the delivery department disabilities consisted of
injuries to hands or fingers. Many of these were cuts resulting from
contact with rough or sharp materials. A substantial proportion,
however, were fractures or bruises caused by hands or fingers being
crushed under or between the cases or barrels which the workers
were handling. Greater use of gloves would eliminate many of the
hand or finger cuts. Improved material-handling procedures are
necessary, however, to reduce the volume of bruises and fractures.
Head injuries were relatively less numerous in the delivery depart­
ments than in the other departments of the brewing industry. There
were, however, a sufficient number of eye injuries to indicate that the
use of goggles should be encouraged in some of the delivery department
operations.
Agencies Involved in Accidents
The determination of the particular physical items which are most
commonly involved in the occurrence of injuries constitutes a funda­
mental step in the development of a successful safety program. When
these items are known it becomes possible to take direct action to
learn why and how they contribute to the occurrence of injuries, and
CHART 2

MAJOR AGENCIES INVOLVED IN BREWERY
ACCIDENTS
1944

BARRELS*
KEGS
WORKING
SURFACES
MACHINES
CARTONS,
BOXES

VEHICLES

CONVEYORS

B O TTL E S

UNITEO STATES DEPARTMENT OF LASOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS




16
then to take measures to overcome the accident-producing possibili­
ties of these items. To permit the precise determination of these
items, which are commonly termed “agencies,” the American Recom­
mended Practice for Compiling Industrial Accident Causes defines an
agency as “the object or substance which is most closely associated
with the injury, and which in general could have been properly guarded
or corrected.”
Analysis based upon this definition points directly to barrels or
kegs, working surfaces, machines, cartons or boxes, and vehicles as
the outstanding injury-producing agencies in the brewing industry.8
Barrels and kegs were the indicated agencies in over 16 percent of the
cases analyzed. In many of these instances, the accident grew out of
faulty handling procedures rather than from defects in the barrels or
kegs. Working surfaces, constituting the second most prominent
agency group, were involved in 13 percent of the accidents. In this
group, slippery or rough floors predominated although there were a
substantial number of cases involving defective platforms, roadways,
and other working surfaces.
Machines, other than elevators or conveyors, were involved in the
occurrence of nearly 12 percent of the injuries. The importance of
this group of cases, however, was enhanced by the fact that a relatively
large proportion of the injuries associated with machines resulted in
permanent disabilities. This was particularly true among the cases
in which contact with the machine occurred at the “point of opera­
tion.” The most striking fact about the accidents associated with
machines, however, was that well over half of the injuries resulted
from workers being struck by or cut by glass from bottles which burst
while in the machines. Among the cases in which labeling machines
were the designated agency over 75 percent of the accidents were of
these types, and in the group involving pasteurizers the proportion
was more than 80 percent. It is specifically indicated, therefore,
that greater attention should be given to the provision of guards on
these machines which will prevent broken glass from flying, and to
the development of safer procedures for the removal of broken glass
from the machines.
Conveyors and chutes were the designated agencies involved in
nearly 10 percent of the accidents. In this group of cases, as in the
group associated with other machines, the proportion of injuries
which developed into permanent disabilities was particularly high.
Most commonly, the injuries resulted from contact with the materials
which were being carried upon the conveyors or chutes. There were,
however, a substantial number of cases involving contact with belts,
pulleys, gears, and other moving parts of conveyors—an indication
that additional attention should be given to the guarding of this type
of equipment, particularly at nip points.
Accidents in which vehicles were indicated as the agencies were
responsible for over 11 percent of the disabling injuries. In the
majority of these cases the vehicle involved was a delivery truck.
There was, however, a substantial number of cases involving other
types of vehicles, such as hand trucks, railroad cars, and horse-drawn
wagons.
Cartons and boxes were the injury-producing agencies in another
11 percent of the accidents analyzed. In most instances these were
8 See A ppendix, table 10.




17
“struck by” accidents, in which the cartons or boxes either were
dropped while being lifted or carried or fell from improperly built
piles. There was, however, a substantial number of cases in which
the injury resulted from the worker getting a part of his body caught
and pinched or crushed between boxes or cartons in the course of
piling or moving the materials. Sharp edges, splinters, and sharp
wires on the boxes and cartons also produced many injuries.
Bottles were directly associated with about 7 percent of the injuries.
These cases included many cuts from handling chipped bottles or
from bottles which burst after they had been removed from the
machines and conveyors. Bottles which burst while in the machines
or on the conveyors were not designated as agencies, inasmuch as at
that stage they were considered as being integrated with the machines
and not as being independent units.
Among the other agencies of lesser prominence, but nevertheless of
importance as producers of disabling injuries, were slippery or cluttered
stairways, defective ladders, and defective tanks or vats. The defec­
tive stairways were responsible for about 3 percent of the disabilities,
while the defective ladders, tanks, and vats together accounted for
another 3 percent.
Accident Types
Most common among the accidents which resulted in disabling
injuries were those in which the injured workers were struck by
moving, falling, or flying objects.9 This type of accident was respon­
sible for 21 percent of the entire group of injuries for which details
relating to the manner of their occurrence were available. From the
accident prevention point of view, however, it is pertinent to note
that there were wide variations in the relative importance of these
accidents in the various departments. In the delivery departments
“struck by” accidents were particularly outstanding, accounting for
over 28 percent of the recorded disabilities. In the brewhouse depart­
ments they accounted for nearly 23 percent of the disabling injuries,
but these cases were slightly outnumbered by the injuries resulting
from overexertion. In the bottling departments, on the other hand,
the “struck by” cases accounted for only 13 percent of the disabling
injuries and were definitely outnumbered by the accidents of the
explosion and “striking against” types. Generally speaking, the
agencies most frequently involved in the “struck by” accidents were
cases and kegs.
In the aggregate, accidents ascribed to overexertion were only
slightly less important than were the “struck by” cases. It is note­
worthy, however, that all but 1 of the 769 injuries resulting from acci­
dents of this type were temporary in nature, whereas 5 percent of the
injuries resulting from “struck by” accidents ended in death or perma­
nent disability. Overexertion accidents also were of much greater
importance in the delivery and brewhouse departments than in the
bottling departments. In the brewhouse departments they accounted
for over 23 percent of the disabling injuries, outnumbering the cases
in any other accident-type category. In the delivery departments
the overexertion accidents accounted for 24 percent of the disabilities,
but were second in number to the “struck by” cases. In the bottling
* see Appendix, tables 11 and 12.




18
departments somewhat less than 12 percent of the disabling injuries
resulted from overexertion, placing this category fourth among the
more important accident types.
The volume of disabling injuries resulting from falls was practically
identical with the number ascribed to overexertion. In this group
of cases, the accidents in which the injured employee fell only to the
CHART 9

MAJOR TYPES OF ACCIDENTS
IN BREWERIES
1944

STRUCK BY

FALLS

OVEREXERTION
STRIKING
AGAINST
EXPLOSIONS
CAUGHT IN, ON,
OR BETWEEN
SLIPS
(NOT FALLS)

OTHER

UNITEO STATES DEPARTMENT OP LABOR
BUREAU OP LABOR STATISTICS

surface on which he was walking or standing outnumbered by 2 to 1
the instances in which the fall was to a lower level. As might be
expected, however, the injuries resulting from falls to lower levels
were generally more serious than those resulting from falls on the
same level. In the brewhouse departments, falls were particularly
common, accounting for over 23 percent of all the disabling injuries.
In large measure the falls in the brewhouse departments were due to
slippery floors and tripping hazards, such as hose lines extending
across the working areas. In the delivery departments, falls were the
source of about 18 percent of the disabling injuries. A substantial
proportion of the falls experienced by the delivery department workers




19
occurred away from the employers' premises. However, many of
these accidents consisted of falls on or from the employers' trucks.
Falls at the shipping area of the plants commonly resulted from slip­
pery surfaces, tripping hazards, unbridged openings between the docks
and trucks, or from such unsafe practices as jumping from the dock
or from trucks, or from climbing on unstable or irregular piles of
materials. In the bottling department, falls were a somewhat less
important source of injury than in either the brewhouse or the de­
livery department. Nevertheless, falls on the same level produced
about 10 percent of the bottling department disabilities, and falls
from one level to another accounted for over 3 percent more. Most
of the falls in the bottling department resulted from slippery floors or
from tripping hazards in the work areas.
Accidents in which the injured person bumped into or struck
against objects or equipment accounted for over 11 percent of the
entire group of disabling injuries. This type of accident was particu­
larly common in the bottling departments, where it was responsible
for nearly 16 percent of the injuries. In the brewhouse and delivery
departments about 8 percent of the injuries resulted from “ striking
against" accidents. Cuts and lacerations from contact with broken
bottles were the most common injuries resulting from these accidents
in the bottling departments. In the brewhouse and delivery depart­
ments the objects most frequently bumped into were kegs, cartons,
and cases.
Accidents involving explosions, nearly all of which were bottle
explosions, produced about 10 percent of the disabling injuries. The
great majority of these accidents occurred in the bottling depart­
ments, where they produced more injuries than were ascribed to any
other type of accident. A high proportion, nearly 7 percent, of the
injuries produced by explosions resulted in permanent disabilities,
the most common of which was the loss of vision in one eye.
Accidents in which employees were caught in, on, or between
objects or equipment also accounted for about 10 percent of the
disabling injuries. Gears, pulleys, and belts were the agencies most
commonly involved in these accidents, and the resulting injuries
frequently were very severe. More than 13 percent of these injuries
developed into permanent disabilities.
Accidents in which the injured workers slipped on wet, greasy, or
irregular surfaces, but did not actually fall to the floor or ground,
were responsible for over 5 percent of the disabling injuries. These
accidents were most common in the brewhouse and delivery depart­
ments. As a rule, the resulting injuries were strains or sprains.
Accidents involving contact with extreme temperatures, which
accounted for 3.5 percent of the entire group of disabling injuries,
were rare in the delivery departments, but were the source of over 5
percent of the brewhouse injuries and of nearly 4 percent of the bottling
department injuries. In most instances these accidents involved
contact with hot liquids.
Accident Causes
Modern accident prevention is based upon two premises—first,
that there is an identifiable cause for every accident; and second,
that when an accident cause is known, it is generally possible to



20
eliminate or to counteract that particular cause as the probable source
of future accidents of the same character. In many instances, it is
true that a variety of circumstances contribute to the occurrence of
an accident, and the line which accident prevention should take may
seem confused because of the multiplicity of the possible courses of
action. It is generally recognized, however, that every accident may
be traced to the existence of some unsafe working condition, to the
commission of an unsafe act by some individual, or to a combination
of these accident-producing factors. In the analysis of individual
accidents for the purpose of establishing an effective safety program,
therefore, it is essential that particular attention be given to the
identification of these elements in the chain of circumstances leading
to the accidents. Concentration upon the elimination of the unsafe
conditions and practices identified'by such analysis, with emphasis
upon the elimination of the elements which are found to have con­
tributed to many accidents, will almost invariably result in improved
safety records.
The correction of unsafe working conditions generally is entirely
within the powers of management. The avoidance of unsafe acts,
on the other hand, requires cooperation and understanding by both
management and workers. Management must take the lead, how­
ever, by providing safety-minded supervision and by making sure
that all workers are acquainted with the hazards of their operations
and are familiar with the means of overcoming them.
U N S A F E W O R K IN G C O N D IT IO N S

Within individual plants the relative importance of the various
types of unsafe conditions noted in the course of the survey varied
widely. Similarly, the types of hazards prevailing in the various
departments of individual plants differed greatly. The broad con­
clusions derived from the study, therefore, may not be taken as apply­
ing in their entirety to any particular plant or to any particular
department. Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that
there are a number of simple precautionary measures which are fre­
quently overlooked in brewery operations and that a substantial
improvement in the industry’s accident record could be achieved if
these safety measures were established as fundamental parts of the
safety program in every brewery. No safety program will be com­
plete if it is based only upon these measures; but, on the other hand,
it is apparent that no brewery safety program can be fully effective
unless it stresses attention to the following:1
0
1. Machines and conveyors which carry bottles should be com­
pletely enclosed to eliminate the hazard of flying glass in the event of a
bottle explosion.
2. The nip points on all power conveyors should be fully guarded
and all conveyors should be equipped with rails or guides to prevent
materials from falling from the conveyors.
3. The space under conveyors should be closed off so that employees
cannot pass under them except at designated passageways. Where
there is insufficient head room for passageways under conveyors,
steps or stiles should be built to provide safe cross-overs.
1 See A ppendix, tables 13 and X4.
0




21
4. Adequate guards should be provided at the point of operation of
all machines and over all gears, pulleys, belts, or other moving parts
of machines.
5. All delivery trucks and trailers should be equipped with steps
and hand holds to provide safe access to the body of the vehicles.
6. All bottles should be tested under pressure for strength before
filling.
7. All barrels, cartons, and cases should be inspected for rough
edges, projecting nails, and embedded pieces of glass or metal as well
as for other defects.
8. All premises, equipment, and hand tools should be inspected
frequently and immediately replaced or repaired if found to be
defective.
9. Guard rails or hand rails should be installed on all platforms and
stairways. Stiles over conveyors should have hand rails on each side.
10. All portable ladders should be equipped with ladder safety
shoes. Substantially anchored permanent ladders should be provided
wherever frequent access to particular elevations is necessary.
11. Guide rails or runways should be provided wherever it is cus­
tomary to move barrels or kegs by rolling. These runways should
slope slightly toward the destination of the barrels to prevent their
rolling back.
12. Nonslip surfaces should be provided in all working areas and
on all stairways and steps.
13. Personal protective equipment should be provided where needed
and employees should be required to use such equipment.
14. Adequate provision should be made for the safe removal of
broken glass from machines, conveyors, and floors; and employees
should be thoroughly trained in the safe performance of this function.
15. Mechanical equipment should be used in the moving of filled
barrels, kegs, and cases wherever possible both in the plant and in
making deliveries. Where mechanical equipment cannot be used,
limits should be set upon the weights to be handled by individuals and
adequate assistance provided when overweight or awkward materials
must be lifted.
16. Housekeeping conditions generally should be improved, with
' * 1a,r attention to the prompt removal of tripping and slipping
Hazardous Arrangements and Procedures

The importance of careful planning for all plant operations and of
maintaining strict supervision throughout such operations as a means
of avoiding accidents cannot be overemphasized. When agencies
which are not inherently hazardous are arranged or regularly used so
as to create hazards, the unsafe conditions and the resulting accidents
must be ascribed to a failure on the part of management to exercise
one of its proper functions.
More than 43 percent of the accidents which occurred because of an
unsafe working condition were caused by hazardous arrangements or
procedures in operations which normally can be carried on safely.
Such hazards were particularly prominent in the brewhouse and
delivery departments. The most common unsafe procedure was that
of laying out material-handling operations without provision for the
717039°— 16------ 1




22

C AT MAJOR TYPES OF UNSAFE WORKING
MR4
CONDITIONS IN BREWERIES
1944

25

n
HAZARDOUS
ARRANGEMENT
OR PROCEDURE

DEFECTIVE
AGENCIES

IMPROPERLY
GUARDED
AGENCIES
OTHER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

use of mechanical equipment or adequate assistance to insure safety in
lifting.
Generally, brewery safety engineers agreed that the maximum weight
which any worker should be expected or permitted to lift or to push
up an incline without assistance should not exceed that of a filled
quarter barrel or a single case of beer. The accident record, however,
indicated a number of instances in which over-limit loads were being
handled. Assignment of additional help when heavy materials are
to be handled, however, cannot be considered an effective solution
for this problem. In many of the reported cases of overlifting suffi­
cient help had been provided, but workers had had no training in
working as a team.
Basically it should be the duty of the immediate supervisor to see
that proper safe procedures are followed in handling heavy materials.
He should be held responsible for training the workers in those safe
procedures and should be expected to observe such operations closely
to insure that violations are quickly discovered and corrected.
Unsafely stored or piled kegs, barrels, cartons, or cases also con­
tributed to a substantial volume of accidents in the delivery depart­



23
ments and, to a somewhat lesser volume, in the brewhouse and bottling
departments. Unstable piling was the chief unsafe condition in this
category. Generally, these conditions resulted from piling containers
on irregular surfaces or from a failure to interlock properly the tiers in
the piles. In some instances, it was reported that kegs were piled
on their sides without sufficient blocking to keep the bottom tier from
rolling. The lack of proper bracing to hold barrels or cases in trucks
or freight cars also caused many injuries when gates or doors were
opened for unloading. In numerous reported instances, workers were
injured in reaching above their heads to place or remove materials at
the top of piles, or fell when they attempted to climb up or down the
vertical side of a pile. Strict limitations upon the height of hand lifts
and the construction of stepped piles win do much to avoid such
accidents.
Tripping and bumping hazards, created by misplaced material or
debris in walkways or on working surfaces caused many accidents in
each of the three departments (bottling, brewhouse, and delivery)
but were most prominent in the,bottling and brewhouse departments.
Broken glass on the floor was the chief hazard of this type in the
bottling departments. Most plants had rules that broken glass
should be cleaned up promptly,^but generally enforcement was rather
lax. Dust pans and brooms should be used for this work and gloves
should be worn when it is necessary to handle the broken material.
In the operation of some machines, however, the use of gloves is a
definite hazard; the gloves may easily become caught in the moving
parts and pull the operator’s hands into the machine. When the
operators are required to clean up broken glass around their work­
places they must be trained to remove tbeir gloves before returning
to their machines.
The principal tripping hazards in the brewhouse departments were
created by hose lines lying on the floor. In some sections the com­
plete elimination of this hazard is probably impossible without
extensive plant remodeling. In new units, however, there seems to
be little reason why facilities cannot be incorporated which will elimi­
nate practically all of these hazards. Existing plants can minimize
the hose hazard by providing fenced or marked-off areas or lanes in
which hose lines may be laid, particularly when not in actual use.
Where hose lines must cross aisles or walkways, it is frequently possible
to carry them overhead, or to place warning standards over them,
thus eliminating some tripping. The use of white hose will also
attract attention and thereby prevent some accidents.
2S
A substantial number of falls were reported to have occurred because
bottles or other materials were left on steps or in passages. Such
poor housekeeping within a plant is inexcusable evidence of lax
supervision. Delivery department records showed numerous cases
of such falls on the premises of customers. Brewery management can
exercise little control over unsafe conditions on the customer’s prem­
ises, but delivery personnel can be specially trained to acquaint them
with methods of overcoming hazards encountered outside the plant.
Such training probably should include instructions not to carry or
move any materials into a customer’s premises until the route is
thoroughly checked for tripping, bumping, or falling hazards. Any
such hazards probably should be reported both to the customer and
to the delivery superintendent. When extreme hazards or frequently



24
recurring hazards are encountered it would be advisable for a company
representative to visit the customer and insist on improvements.
The number of accidents in which workers were struck by barrels
rolling from the racking machines or experienced strains or sprains as a
result of kicking barrels into motion indicates a need for completely
revamped procedures. It was common for the racking-machine
operator to start the filled barrels rolling by kicking them and to allow
them to roll freely across the floor away from the machine. In some
plants, the floor was constructed with a slight slope away from the
racking machine; in others the floor was level. The freely rolling
barrels frequently left their intended path and at times struck workers
or machines. The employee engaged in moving the barrels from the
floor to the conveyor or to the storage racks was constantly faced with
the possibility of being struck by the freely rolling barrels. Many
plants eliminated these hazards by installing a sloping track on which
the barrels are rolled directly from the racking machine to the point of
transfer to the conveyor or storage racks. Good safety practice
should also bar the kicking of barrels into motion.
In the bottling departments many reported injuries resulted from
employees striking their heads as they attempted to walk under con­
veyors. Some plants tried to minimize such bumping hazards by
placing pads (sometimes discarded beer hose) over the corners and
projections on the under side of conveyors. This procedure, however,
cannot be recommended, except as a temporary expedient. All
spaces under conveyors which do not have sufficient head room to be
used as passageways by persons walking erect should be barricaded.
When walkways are necessary to cross conveyors at points where
head room is insufficient under the conveyors, steps or stiles should
be provided.
The hazards connected with cleaning tanks are generally well
known in the brewing industry, but the volume of injuries incurred
in this operation indicates frequent neglect of the proper precautionary
measures. Workers who must enter closed spaces where there is
any possibility of toxic fumes or of oxygen deficiency should be fur­
nished with air-line respirators and life lines. The door into any
tank in which work is being done should be blocked open and posted
with a prominent notice that employees are inside, and the valves
on all pipes leading into the tank should be locked in closed position.
Because of the great slipping hazards inside most tanks, particular
attention must be given to the design and manner of using the neces­
sary equipment. Ladders in use should be anchored at the top, if
at all possible. In any event, all ladders should be equipped with
effective nonslip ladder safety shoes. Generally, however, the pref­
erable safety measure is to substitute scaffolds for ladders.
It is doubtful if any safety engineer, representative of manage­
ment, machine operator, or maintenance man will question the funda­
mental safety rule that no cleaning, repairing, or adjusting of
machinery or other moving equipment should be performed whue it
is in operation. Nevertheless, injuries resulting from violations of
this rule were relatively frequent in the brewing industry. This
indicates that many supervisors were permitting if not encouraging
this procedure. Workers were frequently caught in moving parts
while removing broken glass from machines oi*.while cleaning beneath
machines. Others were injured while repairing or adjusting machines



25
during regular production operations. Similarly, in numerous
instances employees were injured in attempting to release materials
which had jammed on conveyors without first stopping the conveyors.
In other instances, workers who were repairing or adjusting stopped
machines were injured when other persons started the machines.
Thorough training in the safe methods of cleaning, adjusting, or
repairing machines for all employees who work on or about machines
and strict supervision to enforce the instructions are essential for the
elimination of such accidents. Moreover, the control switch on every
machine or power circuit should be constructed so that it may be
padlocked in its open position, and repair men should be required to
lock any machine or power circuit before starting work.
In the delivery departments there was a considerable volume of
accidents in which workers fell while attempting to climb into or
out of trucks which were not equipped with steps or footrests for use
in entering or leaving the truck body. In several instances, side or
end gates were utilized as ladders and the employees were thrown to
the ground when the gate slipped. Although enforcement is difficult
when employees are working away from the plant, management
should see that delivery personnel are thoroughly instructed in safe
procedures. Each driver should be responsible for the enforcement
of safe procedures on the part of his helpers. Management should
also see that every truck is equipped with steps and hand holds.
Ropes used as hand holds should be inspected frequently and renewed
at the first sign of wear or weakness.
Other unsafe practices which led to numerous accidents included
the use of barrels or cases as platforms or in place of ladders, and
allowing operations to extend into aisles or passageways. Safe lad­
ders, platforms, or scaffolds should be made easily available for use
when it is necessary for any one to work at levels beyond easy reach
from the floor; the use of boxes or barrels for such purposes should be
strictly prohibited. Frequently traveled aisles or passageways should
be fenced insofar as practicable. If fencing is impracticable, the
boundaries of the aisles should be marked with painted stripes and
the area between the stripes should be kept clear at all times.
Defective Agencies

Unfortunately, the record indicates that in many breweries the
safety and safety-inspection standards appear to be much below those
applied to product quality. In the brewhouse, for instance, barrels
are inspected for cleanliness and strength, yet numerous injuries
resulted from contact with projecting metal or glass imbedded in the
barrels. Similarly, in the bottling department the bottles passed
through several inspections during the various operations, but many
bottle explosions were ascribed to defective bottles by the plant
safety engineers.
In the aggregate, 40 percent of all the accidents associated with any
unsafe working condition were attributed to defects in materials and
equipment. In the bottling departments the proportion was 46
percent; in the brewhouse it was 34 percent; and in the delivery de­
partment it was 36 percent.
Slippery or otherwise defective working surfaces were the most
common of all unsafe working conditions. Wet floors caused many
slips and falls, particularly in the brewhouse departments. This



26

hazard was generally recognized and most of the breweries which
were visited were making an effort to overcome it. In one plant,
large fans had been installed to speed the drying of the floors through
evaporation. The most effective installation was nonslip flooring,
several varieties of which are available commercially. Slippery
stairways also caused a considerable number of injuries. Nonslip
surfaces on the stair treads and stout hand rails on both sides should
be considered as absolute minimum provisions for safety. Holes,
bumps, and other irregularities in floors, roadways, and platforms
were also responsible for a number of injury-producing accidents.
Most of these conditions were the result of wear or gradual deteriora­
tion resulting from inadequate maintenance.
Defects in the vehicles or their parts were directly responsible for
a third of all the accidents involving vehicles. Falls on or from slippery
truck bodies were the most common accidents in this group. From
the continual sliding of heavy materials over the metal surfaces
of truck bodies, surfaces wear smooth and are slippery when wet.
Therefore, it is advisable to install some form of corrugated or other
nonslip truck flooring. Corrugated surfaces should also be provided
and maintained in rough condition on all steps used for entrance into
trucks. In a number of cases it was reported that ropes, which were
being used as hand holds to assist employees in climbing into trucks,
had broken and caused the workers to fall. Such ropes should be
inspected regularly and should be replaced on discovery of the first
sign of wear. During the period covered by the survey, many of the
plant garages were understaffed because of the difficulty in finding
competent automobile mechanics. For this reason, the trucks were
frequently operated while in need of repairs and rather numerous
accidents resulted from efforts to start motors by cranking when the
starting units failed.
CHART 5

MAJOR UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS
IN OPERATING DIVISIONS OF BREWERIES
1944

j HAZARDOUS ARRANGEMENT
| OR PROCEDURE
D E F E C TIV E

AGEN CIES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS_________




IMPROPERLY
AG EN C IES
O TH ER

GUARDED

27
Most breweries inspect cartons and cases before putting them into
service. However, substantial evidence existed that this inspection
was not sufficiently thorough. A considerable number of injuries
were caused by the bottoms dropping out of filled cases and some
times more than one person was injured by flying glass from the
bursting bottles. Sharp or splintered edges on the cases also produced
many hand injuries. Similarly, loose or bent ends of wire or metal
strapping on cartons and loose hoops on barrels or kegs frequently
caused injuries.
Inadequate Guards

About 15 percent of the accidents arising from unsafe working
conditions resulted from a lack of adequate guards on machines,
elevators, conveyors, or other hazardous equipment. This propor­
tion is relatively small in comparison with the volume of accidents
resulting from hazardous arrangements or procedures or from defects.
However, 1 in every 11 of the accidents caused by inadequate guards
resulted in an injury involving death or some form of permanent
impairment.
The need for guards was apparent in all three of the major plant
departments, but the departmental record indicates that efforts to
improve conditions should be emphasized particularly in the bottling
departments. In such departments 1 in every 4 of the disabling in­
juries resulted from accidents which could be traced to the need for
some form of a guard.
Specifically, adequate guards on machines and conveyors were
needed to protect the workers from the hazard of being struck by
flying glass from bottle explosions. Some breweries had partially
solved this problem, but no instances of complete guarding were
observed in the course of this survey. Guards were generally pro­
vided at the filling machines and many plants had installed shatter­
proof glass panels at the inspection points along bottle-conveyor lines.
Only one plant had tried to guard an entire bottle-conveyor line, and
the guard had been applied only to the conveyors carrying the largersized bottles. Fine mesh wire completely enclosed the conveyor fine
and was constructed in sections which could be opened to remove
bottles or parts of bottles from the line. Shatterproof glass replaced
the wire at the inspection points.
In many bottling departments impact goggles were provided for
protection against eye injuries and some plants required all employees
in the department to wear goggles. In most instances the plant safety
engineers reported difficulty in convincing the workers of the necessity
of wearing goggles at all times. Other plants had experimented witn
the use of face shields to protect the entire face from flying glass.
Almost invariably resistance was encountered among the workers who
objected to the shields on the grounds of weight and discomfort,
particularly in warm weather. Nevertheless, in the absence of
complete guarding on the machines and conveyors, all bottling de­
partment workers should wear goggles, thereby practically eliminating
eye injuries (the most serious cases resulting from bottle explosions).
As goggles do not afford face protection, face shields may be preferable
to goggles. In the final analysis, effective permanent guards should
be utuized to prevent fragments from flying into the air.
In addition, many conveyors in breweries were inadequately
equipped with guards to prevent other types of accidents. Many



28
conveyors used for moving cases and cartons lacked side rails to keep
materials from falling off the conveyor surface, and on many of the
belt conveyors the ends of the rollers were exposed so that it was not
uncommon for workers to catch their hands or fingers in the mechan­
isms. Similarly, in a number of instances workers’ hands were
pulled by the belt into the space between the last belt roller and the first
of the free rollers at the end of belt lines. Under good safety practice
the first free roller would be spaced 3 or 4 inches from the end of the
belt to prevent the hand from being caught before it could be with­
drawn. The first free roller should also be set in open slots from which
it can be lifted rather than to have it fixed firmly in place. With this
type of design a back pull on the hand or object which might become
caught between the end of the belt and the free roller wifi cause the
free roller to rise in the slots and thereby release the pinching pressure.
The lack of adequate guards on other types of machines, on ele­
vators, elevated working surfaces, stairways, and ladders also resulted
in numerous accidents. Those caused by unguarded gears, pulleys,
and points-of-operation of machines, and unguarded elevators often
resulted in very serious injuries. The number of injuries resulting
from falls from low platforms often used in breweries indicates strongly
the need for guard rails at the edge of all elevated working surfaces,
regardless of their height. Similarly, the stiles or steps over conveyor
lines which commonly are constructed with a hand rail on only one
side should have substantial hand rails on both sides. The record
also indicated that many of the ladders used in breweries were with­
out ladder safety shoes which should be considered a minimum safety
requirement for all straight ladders. In addition, if ladders are used
repeatedly at the same location, facilities should be provided for
anchoring them at the top, or permanently constructed fixed ladders
should be erected.
UNSAFE ACTS

For the purpose of accident analysis an unsafe act is defined as “a
violation of a commonly accepted safe procedure.” 1 Literally this
1
definition means that no personal action shall be designated as unsafe
unless there was a reasonable and less-hazardous alternative procedure.
There is, however, no implication that the alternative safe procedure
must have been known to the person who acted in an unsafe manner,
nor that his unsafe act was the result of a considered choice between
the two alternative procedures. In many instances it is apparent
that the individual knew the safe procedure and consciously decided
not to follow it. Strict supervision coupled with disciplinary action
is essential to eliminate unsafe acts of this category. In other in­
stances circumstances indicate that the person who acted unsafely
did so, not as a matter of choice, but simply because he did not know
the alternative method. The first step toward the elimination of
unsafe acts, therefore, consists of making sure that all workers are
thoroughly instructed in the safe methods of performing their duties
and that they are familiar with the hazards connected with deviations
from those safe procedures. Insofar as possible the safe procedures
should then be established as working rules. The second essential
step is to exercise strict supervision to see that unsafe procedures are*
“ American Recommended Practice for Compiling Industrial Accident Causes, approved by the
American Standards Association, August 1,1941.




29
prohibited. It is of utmost importance, however, to realize that
successful instruction in safe practices cannot be limited to an indoc­
trination program at the beginning of employment, but rather must
be continued throughout employment and must include the “old
timers,, as well as the new employees.
Most of the brewery accidents which occurred because of the com­
mission of an unsafe act were associated with (1) the assuming of an
unsafe position or posture; and (2) the use of unsafe equipment or
equipment in an unsafe manner. Analysis indicated that a program
of instruction and enforcement for the elimination of accident-pro­
ducing unsafe acts should emphasize proper methods for (1) lifting,
carrying, and other handling of barrels, kegs, cases, and cartons;
(2) piling of materials and equipment, particularly kegs and cases;
and (3) the removal of broken glass from equipment and floors.1
2
Unsafe Position or Posture

More than half of the accidents resulting from unsafe acts were
the direct outcome of the injured person's placing himself unnecessarily
in an unsafe position or posture. Five of the six fatal accidents re­
ported by the 82 breweries reporting were classified in this general
group.
Most prominent among the specific actions designated as assuming
an unsafe position or posture were inattention to footing; lifting
unsafely; running or jumping; working, standing, or walking in the
path of moving vehicles; climbing on boxes or barrels instead of using
ladders; taking shortcuts instead of using the provided walkways,
particularly in respect to crawling under or climbing over conveyors;
and attempting to adjust or repair moving equipment.
Inattention to footing was a common source of injury in all
brewery departments. In the delivery departments most of these
instances occurred in the course of climbing into or out of trucks or
freight cars. In the other departments accidents on stairways and lad­
ders were frequently ascribed to inattention to footing.
Injuries resulting from manual lifting of heavy objects are a serious
problem in breweries. Every such accident involves the lifting of
excessive weight—that is, excessive under the existing circumstances
for the individual involved. Variations in the strength and skill of
different individuals make it difficult if not impossible to determine
the safe maximum weight to be lifted by one person. However, a
knowledge of and the strict application of proper lifting procedure—
lifting with the legs instead of the back—will render safe the handling
of greater weights than is safe by hit or miss procedures. In classifying
the lifting accidents, an effort was made to exclude those cases in
which individuals attempted to lift weights which obviously should
have been handled mechanically or by a team. As far as possible,
those included represent injuries which resulted from lifting weights
ordinarily handled by individuals and normally considered to be
within the lifting ability of most workers. These cases represented
10 percent of all accidents resulting from unsafe acts.
Most injured persons can report only that in lifting, pain was
suddenly felt. Only rarely has a witness observed the operation with
sufficient care to identify accurately the specific faulty procedure.
n See Appendix, tables 15 and 16.

717039°— 46------ 5




30
CHART *

MAJOR TYPES OF UNSAFE ACTS
IN BREWERIES
1944
PERCENT OP ALL DISABLING INJURIES

TAKING UNSAFE
POSITION
OR POSTURE

USING UNSAFE
EQUIPMENT
OR EQUIPMENT
UNSAFELY
UNSAFE LOADING
OR PLACING

OTHER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

It is well known, however, that strains, sprains, and hernias frequently
result from lifting with the back muscles instead of the leg muscles;
from lifting in cramped or awkward positions; or from lifting while
standing on irregular or insecure surfaces. Most of the accidents in
this group undoubtedly resulted from the lifter assuming one or the
other of these unsafe lifting positions.
Use of Unsafe Equipment or Using Equipment Unsafely

Relatively few injuries resulted from the use of unsafe mechanical
equipment or from the use of mechanical equipment unsafely. Over
one-fourth of all the cases resulted from the unsafe act of gripping
objects insecurely or taking hold of objects incorrectly. In most
of these accidents heavy objects, such as barrels, kegs, cases, or
cartons, slipped from the hands of workers and fell upon their feet.
There were, however, numerous instances in whiqh workers crushed
their fingers while piling cases or kegs. In the bottling departments,
numerous employees mashed their fingers when the cases which they
were removing were struck by other cases moving upon the conveyors.




31
Insistence upon the general use of steel-toed safety shoes by
all workers who handle heavy materials would materially lessen the
volume of injuries resulting from improper handling methods. The
elimination of such accidents, however, requires intensive instruction
in the proper procedures and close supervision to insure their observ­
ance.
The unsafe act of picking up broken glass with bare hands instead
of using brushes and dust pans, and the practice of attempting to
remove broken bottles from conveyors or machines by hand instead
of using the tools generally provided for this purpose, were responsible
for many cut fingers in the bottling departments. The elimination of
these unsafe acts is largely dependent upon the development of worker
interest in safety and strict supervision to enforce rules prohibiting
such practices.
Other Unsafe Acts

In the general category of unsafe arrangement or placement of
materials and equipment, stacking materials in insecure piles was
outstanding. The improper placement of equipment, however, was
of nearly equal importance, as, for example, the placement and use of
portable slides or chutes without seeing that they were securely
anchored in place.
Other tjyes of unsafe acts, which produced accidents in sufficient
volume to indicate that they are fairly common in brewery operations,
included operating equipment without authority; failing to shut off
equipment when not in use; operating equipment at unsafe speeds;
and failing to use proper safety equipment or proper clothing.
Nondisabling Injuries
Because many plants do not maintain records of nondisabling
injuries, the customary procedure in evaluating the accident experi­
ence of a plant or an industry is to consider only the record of disabling
injuries. It is true that the disabling injury cases represent the more
serious segment of the accident problem, but it must be recognized
that the prevention of accidents which result in nondisabling injuries
is also an essential part of any successful safety program. In respect
to total costs, including interruptions to production, it is frequently
contended that nondisabling injuries are just as important as the
more serious disabling injuries. Nearly every nondisabling injury
involves some expense and results in the loss of some productive time
even though the injured person does not leave the premises.
In a broad industry-wide study of accident causes, in which it is
possible to include a large volume of cases drawn from the experience
of many plants, it is possible to reach valid conclusions of general
application based entirely upon consideration of disabling injuries.
Analysis on the same basis within a single plant for the purpose of
developing a safety program for that plant is often hampered, how­
ever, by the fact that the volume of disabling cases available for
analysis is frequently too small to lead to accurate conclusions as to
the prevailing unsafe conditions and unsafe acts which should be
counteracted. In such instances it is very desirable to apply cause
analysis to the nondisabling injury cases as well as to the disabling
injury cases. The analysis of nondisabling injuries in many instances



32
will also produce collateral information regarding such questions as
whether or not accident proneness, sex of workers, or the experience
of workers have any bearing upon the occurrence of accidents. This
collateral information, which may be of great value in a plant safety
program, seldom can be drawn from an analysis of disabling injuries
alone.
Studies made over a long period in a wide variety of plants have
indicated that for manufacturing as a whole about 29 nondisabling
injuries occur, on the average, for every disabling injury.1 This
3
generality has received wide acceptance as a basis for making broad
comparisons. Its author, however, has pointed out that tins ratio
cannot be considered as representative of conditions in any specific
industry and that it is to be expected that there will be wide variations
in the experience of different industries and of different plants.
In the present survey an attempt was made to collect information
concerning nondisabling injuries in order to provide some indication
of the volume of such injuries in the brewing industry and, inciden­
tally, to indicate how the volume of nondisabling injuries in this in­
dustry compares with the ratio generally accepted as normal for
manufacturing as a whole. However, because of the scarcity of
complete records relating to nondisabling injuries, and because of
limitations as to the time which could be devoted to this work, such
data were compiled for only one plant. The sample, therefore, is
insufficient to support any generalization regarding the industry as a
whole. The data, however, have a definite value in that they give
some indication of the size of the nondisabling injury problem in
brewing operations. It is also hoped that the conclusions reached
in respect to this one plant will interest other plants in making similar
studies of their nondisabling injury cases.
The brewery in which the nondisabling injury data were compiled
was a large plant employing over 2,500 workers. In 1944 its injury
frequency rate was 41.0. A professionally staffed first-aid room was
maintained upon the premises, and every effort was made to have all
injured employees report at once to the first-aid room regardless of
how minor the injury might seem to be. A complete record of each
case, including subsequent treatments, was maintained in the first-aid
room.
In order to insure homogeneity in the data, so that all comparisons
would be upon the same basis, some of the injury records were omitted
from the tabulations. For this purpose the first step was to prepare
from the personnel records a list of all workers'who had been employed
throughout the year 1944. All office workers were then eliminated
from this list. The final list, containing the names of 2,210 full-year
employees, was then checked against the first-aid records, and all
injuries and treatments reported for these employees were tabulated.
In the course of the year these 2,210 workers experienced 16,336
injuries, of which only 109 were disabling. For this group, therefore,
there was an average of 149 nondisabling injuries for every injury
involving disability, a ratio much higher than the 29 to 1 ratio com­
monly considered typical for manufacturing as a whole.1
4
13 Industrial Accident Prevention, by H. W . Heinrich.
m See Appendix, tables 17 to 19.




New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1941.

33
No record was kept of the amount; of productive time lost because
of the nondisabling injuries. There were, however, complete records
as to the number of treatments given, from which it was possible to
determine that each nondisabling injury required an average of 1.9
visits to the medical office. Allowing only a half hour for each treat­
ment and disregarding the additional time lost by the many workers
who were sent home for the rest of the day on which they were injured,
the time lost during the year because of the nondisabling injuries
amounted to at least 7 hours for every employee in the group.
Wide variations were apparent in the ratio of nondisabling to
disabling injuries in the three major operating divisions of the plant.
In the bottling department the ratio was 170 to 1; in the brewhouse
it was 92 to 1; and in the delivery department it was 80 to 1.
Nearly three-fourths of the total volume of injuries were classified
as cuts, lacerations, or punctures. In this group there were 451 non­
disabling cases for every disabling injury. On the other hand, in the
group of cases designated as bruises and contusions, which constituted
nearly 15 percent of the entire group of injuries, there were only 54
nondisabling injuries for every disabling case.
Finger and hand injuries were very numerous, but the proportion
of these cases resulting in lost time beyond the day of injury was low.
Among the finger injuries, for example, there were 587 nondisabling
cases for each disabling injury. Injuries to the lower extremities
were much less common than were the hand and finger injuries, but
the percentage of disabling injuries in these groups was considerably
higher. One in every 25 injuries to legs, feet, or toes was disabling,
and 1 in every 10 injuries to the trunk was disabling.
R E PE A T IN JU R IE S

In planning an accident prevention program for any plant it is
very helpful to know not only where accidents are concentrated and
what are the common accident causes, but also whether or not there
.are particular workers who need special training or reassignment for
their own safety. In other words, it is desirable to determine whether
or not there are individual workers who are more likely to be involved
in accidents than are others who face identical hazards. This, of
course, is specific information which must be collected in the plant
where it is to be used. A knowledge of the existence of a consider­
able group of accident-prone workers in one plant, however, can be
taken as an indication of the need for investigation along this line in
other plants. With this in mind, an analysis was made to determine
how many cases of repeat injuries were included in the experience of
the 2,210 full-year employees whose records were discussed in the
preceding section.
For the entire group the reported cases indicated an average of 7.4
injuries for each employee. However, the average number of cases
varied rather widely among the various departments. In the bottling
department the average was 10.3 injuries per employee, and in the
delivery department the average number of cases was 9.5. The serv­
ice and maintenance department had an average of 5.6 injuries per




34
employee, and the brewhouse group had an average of 4.4 cases per
worker.1
5
The most striking fact immediately apparent from the break-down
of the case records was that despite these high averages, there were a
considerable number of individuals who worked the entire year with­
out reporting a single injury. This group constituted over 30 percent
of the 2,210 employees whose records were examined. No information
was available regarding the specific work assignments of these un­
injured employees. However, since the sample was restricted to the
operating departments and excluded all office workers, it may be as­
sumed that they were generally exposed to much the same hazards as
were encountered by those who were injured. The obvious conclu­
sion, therefore, is that there are some workers who successfully practice
safety.
There was, however, strong evidence in the record indicating that
accident proneness is a factor meriting serious consideration in the
establishment of a program designed to reduce accidents. Over half
(51 percent) of all the reported injuries were experienced by a group
of workers who comprised only 11 percent of the employees. Even
more striking was the fact that in the bottling department a small
group of 13 workers, representing only 1.4 percent of the employment
m the department, experienced 984, or 10.5 percent, of all the bottling
department injuries. Each of these workers averaged more than one
injury per week. Similarly, in the brewhouse division a small group
of 10 employees, comprising only 2.8 percent of the brewhouse em­
ployment, experienced 407 injuries, representing over 25 percent of all
brewhouse injuries. Two possible conclusions may be drawn from
these facts, either (a) that some employees were working under special
conditions involving extreme possibilities for injury without much
provision being made for their protection, or (b) that these particular
employees were either incapable or unwilling to observe the ordinary
rules of safe procedure. Inasmuch as the brewery in which these
observations were made employed a full-time safety engineer and gen­
erally tried to maintain safe conditions throughout the plant, the
latter conclusion, i. e., that these employees were “accident prone,”
seems to have the greater validity. In the interest of safety for these
workers, therefore, it would seem logical to analyze their particular
injury experience with a view to reassigning them to work which
would not present injury possibilities similar to those which they
seemingly cannot avoid.
Great care must be exercised, however, in applying the information
concerning “ repeaters” which may be derived from an analysis of the
medical office records. If the impression is given to the workers that
these records may be used to their disadvantage, the net result will
be that many employees will discontinue reporting seemingly minor
injuries. This will undoubtedly result in a great increase in the
volume of infections and will lead to disabilities, in many cases, which
would remain in the minor category if they were given prompt medical
attention.
To exemplify the extreme instances of repeat injuries, a few of the
outstanding individual records are outlined below.
18 See Appendix, table 20.




35
Bottling Department

The most outstanding individual record of repeat injuries in the
entire plant was that of a bottling department worker for whom 108
injuries were listed. None of these injuries was disabling, but the
medical record indicated that it was necessary for him to visit the firstaid room for treatment 258 times during the year. It is impossible
to specify exactly how much time was consumed in these treatments,
but with due allowance for the time required to get ready for a visit
to the infirmary and to resume work after the visit, it seems reasonable
to assume that each visit would probably involve about a half hour of
employee time. On this basis, the 108 nondisabling, or so-called
no-lost-time injuries, of this employee probably resulted in the loss of
his productive efforts for 129 hours during the year. On a 40-hourweek basis, that is equivalent to over 3 weeks of lost time in a single
year. Five of the injuries experienced by this employee were bruises,
1 was a burn, and 102 were cuts or lacerations. The cuts included
94 cuts on his hands and fingers, 4 cuts on his arms, and 4 cuts on his
head. The particular propensity of this employee to experience cuts
on his hands carries the specific implication either that his methods of
handling broken glass should be revised or that he should be transferred
to work which will not involve his coming into contact with broken
glass.
A second bottling department worker, this one a woman, had 99
nondisabling injuries listed upon her record for the year. As a result
of these injuries she received 235 treatments in the first-aid room.
Allowing a half hour for each of these visits to the infirmary, it is
estimated that the productive time lost because of her injuries also
was equivalent to nearly three 40-hour weeks during the year, although
she actually did not take any time off because of the injuries. The
great majority of her injuries (73) consisted of cuts on her fingers,
hands, or arms. In this brewery it was an established plant rule that
all bottling department workers must wear face shields. The record
of this particular employee, however, included 7 injuries consisting of
foreign bodies becoming imbedded in her eyes, which appears to indi­
cate that she did not always observe the accepted safety rules.
Ninety nondisabling injuries were listed during the year for a third
bottling department worker, and the records of 5 other employees
included from 70 to 90 injuries each. One of the 463 injuries expe­
rienced by these 6 workers was disabling. Approximately threefourths of this group of injuries consisted of cuts on fingers or hands.
Fifteen of the injuries were eye cases, despite the face-shield rule.
Brewhouse Department

In the brewhouse department the greatest number of injuries
reported for any one employee was 58. All but one of these were
hand or finger injuries, consisting of 53 cuts and 4 bruises. The one
other injury was a strained back.
The second most extensive injury record in the brewhouse depart­
ment was that of a female worker for whom 55 nondisabling injuries
were listed. All but one of her injuries were cuts, primarily on her
fingers, hands, and arms.




36
Four other brewhouse employees had betewen 40 and 50 injuries
each during the year. Nearly all of the 174 injuries experienced by
these workers were cuts. The record for one of the group, however,
included 7 bruises and 4 instances of flying particles becoming im­
bedded in the eyes.
Other Departments

Four percent of the employees working in departments other than
the bottling and brewhouse departments experienced 26 or more
injuries each during the year. As a group, the injuries of these 39
employees represented 30 percent of afl the injuries recorded in these
departments. In contrast, one-third of the employees worked the full
year without a single injury and 45 percent reported only 1 injury
apiece.
Two of the employees in the repeater group had 74 injuries each.
All of these were nondisabling injuries. One of the two workers, a
woman working in the yard department, had 54 cuts, 10 bruises, and
5 sprains among the cases on her record. All but 2 of the cuts were
on her arms, hands, or fingers. The second employee, also a woman,
had 69 hand or finger cuts among her 74 injuries.
Another female yard employee reported 69 injuries, of which 67 were
cuts, primarily on her arms, hands, and fingers. A male yard employee
had a record of 71 injuries, among which were 52 cuts and 14 bruises.
In the maintenance department one employee was recorded as hav­
ing been treated for 60 injuries during the year. His record listed 41
cuts, 15 bruises, and 2 strains. All of the cuts and 12 of the bruises
affected his hands or fingers. A second maintenance worker had 50
injuries during the year, including 32 cuts, 12 bruises, and 4 burns.
One delivery department worker also reported 50 injuries during
the year. His record included 44 cuts and 4 bruises. All but 3 of
these were injuries to his fingers, hands, or arms. A somewhat higher
volume of injuries (57) recorded for a malthouse employee included
51 hand and finger cuts, 2 bruises, 2 sprains, and 2 cases of flying
particles lodging in the eyes.
W O R K E X P E R IE N C E A N D IN J U R IE S

Experience on the job frequently is cited as a factor of importance
in explaining the injury record of a group of workers, usually with the
implication that workers who have had little experience are more
likely to suffer injuries than are workers with long experience who
have become familiar with the hazards of the operations in which
they are engaged. Taken at face value this contention appears to
be based upon sound logic. Too often, however, it is accepted with­
out investigation merely because it seems logical, whereas actual
analysis will indicate that this generality does not always hold true.
A safety program designed to concentrate upon training the less ex­
perienced workers in safe procedures and leaving the “ old timers” to
carry on on their own because they are assumed to know all the angles,
therefore, may fall short of full effectiveness. To illustrate this point
the results of a comparison between the injury experience of 910




37
bottling department workers and their job experience is presented
below.1
6
These 910 workers comprised all of the bottling department employ­
ees who had worked throughout the 12 months of 1944. It was impos­
sible to determine the exact details concerning the experience that some
of these workers may have had in other breweries, so the experience
classifications had to be based upon the length of their employment in
the plant where the study was made. The experience classifications,
therefore, were established to represent the length of the employment
of each worker in this plant as of the beginning of the period studied.
The injuries tabulated included all cases which were reported to the
first-aid room during the 12-month period, with no differentiation
between disabling and nondisabling injuries. For the entire group of
910 workers there were records of 9,405 injuries, representing an aver­
age of 10.3 injuries per employee.
Among the various length-of-service classifications, the best injury
record was that of the group composed of workers who had been em­
ployed in the plant for at least 2 years prior to the year of the study.
These workers, comprising about 11 percent of the total employment,
had only 8 percent of the injuries—averaging 7.3 injuries per person.
Because of their seniority, however, this group of “ old timers” in­
cluded a number of workers who were performing supervisory or semisupervisory functions, which kept them from coming constantly into
contact with the operating hazards faced by the nonsupervisory group.
Their better-than-average record, therefore, should be interpreted in
this light and should not be credited entirely to their greater skill in
avoiding injuries as acquired through experience in the plant.
A striking degree of uniformity prevailed in the injury records of
the workers who started the year with less than 2 years’ experience to
their credit. The group holding a year or more of service credit rep­
resented 28.2 percent of the total employment and accounted for
27.6 percent of the injuries—an average of 10 injuries per individual.
Fully 60 percent of the workers in the department had had less than a
year of service at the beginning of 1944. To secure greater detail in
the comparisons, therefore, these workers were classified into smaller
groups representing 3-month service intervals. The least experi­
enced group, composed of workers with less than 3 months’ seniority
in the plant at the beginning of the period, represented 8.9 percent of
the employment and suffered 9 percent of the injuries—averaging
10.3 injuries per individual. For the other groups the corresponding
figures were: 3 to 6 months’ experience, 16.5 percent of employment,
16.4 percent of the injuries, average 10.2 injuries per individual; 6 to
9 months’ experience, employment 14.8 percent, injuries 14.4 percent,
average 10.0 injuries; 9 to 12 months’ experience, employment 20.2
percent, injuries 24.6 percent, average 12.5 injuries. The poorest
injury record among all of the experience classifications, therefore,
was that of the workers who started the year with from 9 to 12 months’
experience to their credit. The difference, however, was small enough
to have been due entirely to chance, and in view of the uniformity in
the records of the other groups, it seems to have little significance.
w See Appendix, table 2l.




38
The conclusion in this instance must be, therefore, that the more ex­
perienced employees in this plant were no less likely to be injured
than were new employees, and that the safety training program should
be directed with equal vigor to all workers regardless of their length
of service.
SEX OF INJURED WORKERS

For the purpose of comparing the injury experience of men with that
of women, the records of 904 full-year bottling department workers
were tabulated in a break-down by sex. In this group there were 491
men and 4 J3 women. Inasmuch as it was impossible to analyze the
work assignments of each of these employees in order to establish
exactly comparable groups on the basis of exposure to identical haz­
ards, it was necessary to assume that because all worked in the same
surroundings the hazards which they faced were generally about the
same. In tabulating the recorded injuries, no distinction was made
between* disabling and nondisabling cases.
In general, the men had a better injury record than the women.
The male employees experienced 4,398 injuries, or an average of 9
injuries each, while the female employees had 4,969 injuries, or an
average of 12 injuries each. Over 32 percent of the men worked the
entire year without reporting a single injury. Only 24 percent of the
women were successful in avoiding all injuries during the period.
In respect to repeat injuries, the women also had a somewhat less
favorable record that that of the men. Nearly 15 percent of the
women were listed as having experienced 26 or more injuries each, as
compared with 10 percent of the men. Similarly, a division of the
employees at the level of 21 or more injuries each included 21 percent
of the women but only 12 percent of the men. A further division at
the level of 6 or more injuries each included 53 percent of the women
and 47 percent of the men.
Typical Accidents and Suggestions fo r Their Prevention
To illustrate the general types of accident problems encountered in
the brewing industry, brief descriptions of a number of actual acci­
dents were collected. Typical examples of these were then studied
to determine what specific procedures might be employed to prevent
their recurrence. The intention was not to make all-inclusive recom­
mendations i nor to attempt to propound authoritative safety rules.
On the contrary, the purpose was merely to indicate that there is a
simple approach to the prevention of practically every type of acci­
dent. Many safety engineers no doubt would attack the problems
involved in these accidents from a different angle and would achieve
equally good or possibly better results. The method of prevention,
however, is of secondary importance so long as it accomplishes its
purpose. It is of prime importance to emphasize that there is some
practicable method of minimizing nearly every type of accident.
The selected accident descriptions, accompanied by suggestions w
as to the preventive measures which might prevent their recurrence,
are given on the following pages.
m Frank C. Ball, W. A. Klenota, P. L. Schuler, E . J. Steinkellner, and Guy T . Yates, safety engineers
in the industry, assisted greatly in the preparation of these suggested preventive measures. In general, the
suggestions presented in this section represent their collective thinking.




39
B R E W H O U S E A C C ID E N T S

1. Employee was carrying 100-pound bags of grain from the chute.
his back in the process. Lost 4 days.

He strained

In moving packages such as these, a hand truck should be used. I f the distance
between loading, unloading, and storage points is too short to warrant use of a
hand truck, sections of a chute or gravity conveyer should be used; or additional
help should be provided. In any event, employees should be given thorough train­
ing in the proper methods of lifting ana close supervision should be exercised to see
that safe procedures are employed.

2. Hot wort boiled from a brew kettle and burned an employee's leg and foot.
Lost 8 days.
(a) Temperature controls should be installed on the kettles to prevent the kettles
from boiling over.
(b) Kettles should be provided with a cover equipped with sliding doors and a
glass inspection opening. Doors should be constructed so that they may be op­
erated from a safe distance.
\

3. An employee was opening the bottom of a brew kettle. Hot wort running
from the kettle splashed into his eye. Lost 15 days.
(a) The valve at the base of the brew kettle should be fitted with a reach rod or a
chain and sprocket so that it may be operated from a safe distance.
(b) A splash guard should be provided to protect the operator.
(c) When opening this valve the operator should wear a face shield, gloves, and
boots.

4. An employee was cleaning a fermenting tank. When a co-worker left the
tank and closed the door, the employee was overcome by fumes. Lost 11 days.
When work is to be performed inside any tank where toxic fum es or an oxygen
deficiency may be encountered, the following precautions should be taken:
(a) Workers in the tank should be equipped with air-line respirators and life
lines.
(b) A trained co-worker should be assigned to watch the air supply and the
life lines. This employee should have no other duties to distract his attention and
should be held strictly accountable for any neglect of his duty or for any departure
from his post.
(c) A ll doors into the tank should be blocked open and posted with warning
signs.

5. An employee who was cleaning the inside of a fermenting tank fell from
a scaffold and hurt his back. Lost 31 days.
Cleaning fermenting tanks is a frequently recurring routine operation for
which safe equipment should be designed and provided. The scaffolds should be
substantially constructed with a guard rail and should have a nonslip surface
applied to the floor boards. Each time a scaffold is erected the foreman should
inspect it before it is put into service.

6. Employee was standing on a ladder cleaning a settling tank. The ladder
slipped and the employee fell 7 feet injuring his back. Lost 8 days.
(a) Working from ladders is dangerous. Wherever possible, scaffolds or
platforms should be used.
(b) A ll ladders should be equipped with safety shoes and, if possible, anchored
or tied at the top.

7. An employee, who was cleaning inside a tank, slipped and fell on the concave
bottom of the tank. Lost 30 days.
(a) Tanks should be thoroughly flushed out with water before employees are
required to enter them.
(b) Boots with corrugated soles and heels should be worn by workers who are
engaged in this work.
(c) Plank platforms are sometimes used inside such tanks in an effort to pro­
vide a level working surface. There is some question , however, whether plank
platforms may not create additional hazards as great as those which they elimi­
nate. I f plank platforms are used it is essential ( 1) that the planks be wide, (#)
that a nonslip surface be applied to the planks, and (3) that the planks be firm ly
fixed in place.
(d) Proper tools are essential in this work. For instance , both short-handled
and long-handled brushes should be provided so that the employee may work with­
out stretching or twisting his body.




40
8. An employee was checking beer being pumped into tanks. He tripped over
a hose on the floor and strained his back. Lost 24 days.
(a) Hose should he kept out of passageways as much as possible. Where
operations require frequent use of hose, parking areas for the lines should he
marked on the floor at the sides of the aisles, and employees should be required to
see that the hose lines are laid in those spaces.
(b) Lighting at the floor level should he adequate to make hose lines fu lly
visible.
(c) A ll hose should he white to contrast with the color of the floor, so as to
increase visibility.

9. Employee was squaring off hops press.
floor and sustained a hernia. Lost 54 days.

He slipped and fell on the wet

Floors should he kept as dry as possible to prevent slips. Working areas should
also have “anti-slip ” surfaces; concrete floors should he rough-finished with
carborundum particles or grit worked into the surface.

10. An employee was washing the pump-room floor with a caustic solution.
The solution penetrated a hole in his boot and burned his toe. Lost 4 days.
(a) Whenever possible the use of caustic soda should be eliminated.
(b) A ll safety equipment, such as boots, should be inspected before use. I f
worn or defective, they should be discarded.

11. Employee was inspecting and repairing barrels. While he was driving a
hoop with a hammer, a chip flew from the hammer and longed in his eye. Lost
8 days.
(a) Evidently the head of this hammer had crystalized. To prevent accidents
of this kind , all hand tools should be inspected regularly and replaced when worn
or defective.
(b) Goggles should be worn by employees performing this type of work.

12. An employee was moving full half-barrels in the racking room by kicking
them. When his foot slipped, he felt a sharp pain in his hip. Lost 8 days.
(a) The practice of moving barrels by kicking them should be prohibited. The
racking room should be equipped with power conveyors to m inim ize the handling
of barrels and kegs. Where power conveyors are not available, barrels should be
rolled by hand or by use of keg pusher, and barrel runs should be installed.
(b) Floors should be kept as dry as possible to prevent slips. Working areas
should also have “anti-slip ” surfaces; concrete floors should be rough-finished
with carborundum particles or grit worked into the surface.

13. An employee in the keg-pitching department bumped his knee on the end
of a skid which was used for the transfer of kegs. Lost 50 days.
(a) Skids should have rounded and preferably padded ends to m inim ize
injuries of this type.
(b) Skids, either permanent or portable, should not be placed haphazardly,
but should be located so as to allow the maximum clearance possible and so as not
to infringe on aisles.

14. While trying to adjust the spray of hot pitch, an employee was burned
when the pitch splashed on his arms. Lost 2 days.
(a) The spray should not be adjusted while in operation.
(b) Asbestos gloves and other safety clothing should be worn by employees
working near the spray.

15. A racking-machine operator was struck by a barrel rolling from a co-worker's
machine. Lost 5 days.
*
The area around racking machines should be designed so that, when the barrel
is pushed from the racking machine, it will move by its own momentum away
from adjacent machines and toward the storage space. Where possible, barrel
runs from the racking machines to the storage space should be installed.

16. An employee who was removing barrels from a racking machine lacerated
his hand on a piece of glass which was imbedded in the side of a barrel. Lost 11
days.
(a) Close inspection of barrels is necessary to prevent this type of accident.
(b) Gloves or other palm protection should be provided for workers handling
barrels or cases.

17. Employee was stacking filled half-barrels two-high in the racking room.
Strained hip muscles resulted in 11 days lost time.
Employees should not be required nor permitted to lift fu ll half-barrels without
assistance. Mechanical equipment should be used, or two workers who have been
trained to lift together should be assigned to such work.




41
18. An employee was transferring empty barrels, which were piled three-high
to a chute. As he attempted to remove the top one, it caught the barrel beneath
it, pulling it from the pile. The falling barrel struck the employee's great toe.
Lost 31 days.
(a) Close supervision and proper instruction in job procedure are necessary to
prevent accidents of this type. Two men should be used in removing the top tiers
when barrels are piled more than two-high.
(b) A ll workers who handle heavy materials should wear safety shoes.

19. An employee was pushing filled kegs through the door at the loading dock.
A barrel Which he had passed out rolled back against the barrel which he was
handling, crushing his hand. As a result of fractured fingers, he lost 25 days.
(a) No keg should ever be passed through the opening from the racking room
until the dockman has signaled that he is ready to receive it.
(b) To prevent barrels from rolling back, either of the following suggestions
may be adopted:
(i) A teeter-totter arrangement installed at the racking-room opening will per­
mit only one keg to be passed to the dockman , while holding the next in check un­
til the dockman is ready to receive it.
(ii) Barrel lines should be installed with a slight pitch. I t is important in
this instance , however, to design the line properly so that the speed of the barrels
will not be excessive for handling on the dock.
BOTTLING DEPARTMENT ACCIDENTS

20. Employee was adding caustic to the soaker. The solution boiled over and
spilled on his back. As a result of the chemical burn, he lost 3 days.
(a) Caustic m ay react violently when dumped into water. For this reason
it should not be added directly to the liquid in the soaker but should he made into a
solution in a separate tank and piped into the soaker. The valves for the control
of this solution should be placed at a safe distance from the outlet.
(b) Proper protective clothing should be worn by all employees handling
caustic.

21. When a bottle exploded in the filling machine, a piece of glass struck em­
ployee in the eye. Lost 4 days.
A guard should be placed around the filling machine at the point where the
bottles move. This w ill protect both the operator and any other person who mcty
be near the machine from being struck by flying glass.
'
In the absence of an effective guard all persons who work near filling machines
should be required to wear face shields or goggles.

22. Blisters formed on the hand of a female employee who was working at a
filler. The doctor diagnosed the blisters as resulting from a yeast infection com­
mon to people whose hands are wet a great deal of the time. Lost 10 days.
(a) Supervisors or plant nurses should frequently examine the hands of em­
ployees engaged in this and sim ilar work to detect infection before it becomes
serious. Employees who are susceptible to this infection should be placed on dry
work.
(b) Rubber gloves or protective creams may be used to prevent this type of
infection .

23. The operator of a can filler injured his hand as he attempted to remove a
can which had become wedged. Lost 49 days.
N o adjustments, repairs , or removal of wedged material should be permitted
on any machine until the power has been shut off and the machine has stopped.
Supervisors should be required to enforce this rule strictly.

24. An employee scratched his finger on the crown of a bottle while placing
bottles in the pasteurizer. The scratch became infected and the employee lost 7
days.
(a) Modern plants have eliminated the handling of bottles at this point by
installing mechanical equipment for placing bottles in the pasteurizer.
(b) Where bottles must be placed in the pasteurizer by hand, gloves should be
worn.
(c) A ll injuries should be treated prom ptly at the first-aid room to prevent
infections.

25. A bottle exploded in the pasteurizer. When an employee attempted to
remove the broken glass, he cut his finger. Lost 7 days.
(a) A special tool or brush should be used to remove broken bottles from the
pasteurizer.
(b ) Proper gloves should be worn by dll employees handling broken glass.



42
26. A bottle coming from the pasteurizer tipped. As the attendant reached to
straighten it the bottle exploded, lacerating his hand and causing a permanent
impairment to one of bis fingers.
(a) This is the point in the bottling process where the hazard of bursting bottles
is greatest. Conveyor equipment at the pasteurizer, therefore, should be inspected
frequently and thoroughly, and should be maintained in good operating condi­
tion so that there will be no jerk s to ja r or tip the bottles during temperature
changes.
(b) Goggles and gloves should be worn by all employees working at the
pasteurizer.

27. A female employee was inspecting bottles at the lights. A bottle exploded
lacerating her hand. Permanent impairment of one finger.
(a) A ll bottle conveyors between the pasteurizer ana labeling machine should
be covered with a heavy wire-mesh guard. To permit removal of broken glass from
the conveyor, the guard should be made in sections and hinged at the top. A t
inspection light stations, a movable safety-glass panel w ill protect the inspector’s
eyes and face in case of an explosion.
(b) Employees removing bottles from the conveyors should wear light leather
gloves and goggles or face shields as protection against explosions.

28. When a female employee reached for a carton on the conveyor, she caught
her hand between the rollers of the conveyor and the belt. Permanent impair­
ment of hand.
(a) Spaces between rollers should be closed with sheet-metal guards.
(b) Conveyors should have power-driven belts instead of power-driven rollers .
29. Cartons on a belt conveyor jammed at a high point in the line. An em­
ployee piled cases 15-high and stood on the pile in order to release the jammed
cartons. He lost his balance and fell to the floor. Lost 62 days.
Standing on cases is dangerous and should be prohibited. A substantial
ladder equipped with safety shoes should have been used.
I f there are points along an elevated conveyor line at which materials frequently
stick, platforms with guard rails should be installed at those points.

30. Bottles had been placed upon the bottom three steps of a stile over a con­
veyor. An employee descending the steps fell and injured his chest when he at­
tempted to step over the bottles. Lost 5 days.
This is a case of poor housekeeping and poor supervision.
should see that no material is placed on steps or stairways.

Supervisors

31. A female employee was transferring cases of beer from one conveyor to
another. One case passed her and as she stretched to reach for it, she suffered a
strain in the lower abdomen. Lost 11 days.
(a) Wherever practicable, a stop should be installed on conveyors to prevent
cases from traveling beyond easy reach of workers. Where stops are not available,
employees should be provided with a hooked rod to draw back cases which have
passed.
(b) Employees should be warned against overreaching and supervisors should
enforce this rule.

32. Employee was removing filled cases from the conveyor. When the cases
became jammed, he jerked one to release it. As it came free, it struck him in the
abdomen. Lost 3 days.
Job instruction and close supervision are necessary to prevent accidents of this
kind. Conveyors should be stopped before any attempt is made to remove gammed
cases.

33. An employee crawled under a conveyor.
it on a part of the conveyor. Lost 7 days.

As she lifted her head, she struck

Stiles should be provided for crossing conveyors and barricades installed to
prevent employees from crawling under them.

34. As an employee walked under a conveyor, he struck his head against its
edge. Lost 8 days.
W alkways should be placed only where there is adequate clearance. Where
there is insufficient head room for passage under conveyors, stiles should be pro­
vided. Barricades should be installed to prevent workers from passing under
conveyors at points other than regularly established passageways.




43
35. An employee standing near a conveyor placed his hand on the conveyor
belt. A co-worker started the conveyor and the employee’s hand was caught
between the pulley of the line conveyor and a gravity conveyor. Lost 16 days.
(a) Where gravity and power conveyors meet, a piece of metal extending from
the power conveyor to the gravity conveyor w ill cover the danger point. i f this
is im practical, more clearance between the two conveyors will perm it the employee
to remove his hands. This can be done by removing the first roller next to the power
belt or by placing the roller in slotted supports so that it can easily be pulled free.
(b) No powered equipment should be placed in operation without sufficient
warning.

36. An employee, working near an overhead conveyor, was injured when a
filled carton dropped from the conveyor and struck him on the head. Lost 16
days.
A ll overhead conveyors should be guarded with side rails to prevent material
from falling from the conveyors, or metal screens should be installed under the
conveyors to catch falling material. Where this is not feasible, barriers should be
installed to prevent employees entering the area under conveyors.

37. Employee was using a hoe to remove broken glass under a labeling machine.
He had stopped the machine, but a co-worker turned on the switch. The hoe was
caught by the bottle carrier and the employee was thrown to the floor. Lost 11
days.
Switches should be locked in an open position while powered equipment is
being cleaned, adjusted, or repaired.

38. A female employee was cleaning a labeling machine with hot water. While
removing labels from the machine, she put the nozzle of the hose in a bucket. The
hose twisted and threw the nozzle from the bucket to the floor, spraying hot water
on her foot. Lost 11 days.
(a) The nozzle should have been equipped with an open-and-close control valve
and the valve closed before she placed the hose in a bucket or on the floor.
(b) Rubber boots should be worn by employees engaged in this work.

39. While working at a labeling machine, an employee stepped on a piece of
glass. Lost 9 days.
(a) Broken glass should be removed from the floor immediately after a bottle
breaks or explodes.
(b) Employees should wear substantial footwear to prevent injuries of this kind.

40. When an employee tried to tighten a nut under the bumper on a labeling
machine, the prong on the machine came down and caught his finger, amputating
it.
No repairs or adjustments on powered equipment should be undertaken with­
out first shutting off the power and locking the control switch in an open position.
This rule should be rigidly enforced.

41. As an employee was placing the cover on a case, a bottle exploded. Flying
glass severed a tendon in the worker’s wrist causing him to lose the use of his hand.
(a) A ll casers should wear gloves with gauntlets, and goggles for protection
against flying glass.
(b) aough handling of cased bottles leads to m any explosions. Supervisors
should watch this operation closely to see that proper procedures are followed.
(c) Strength tests should be applied to all bottles before they are filled.

42. An employee was closing cartons on a sealing machine. As he reached down
to remove a piece of carton from under the machine, the arm of the sealing machine
pulled his arm into the machine. Fractured hand.
(a) A ll moving parts of machines should be guarded to prevent accidental con­
tact with the moving parts.
(b) Supervisors should enforce the rule that no powered equipment be cleaned,
oiled , or adjusted while it is in motion.

43. While using a strapping machine to place metal bands around filled cartons,
an employee was injured when the handle of the machine struck him as it was re­
turning to its normal position. Lost 6 days.
Handles which return to position automatically should be guarded or so located
that they cannot strike the operator.




44
44. An employee was gluing stamps on cases. The glue which was being used
caused a rash on his hands. Lost 9 days.
(a) A chemical analysis of the glue should first be made to determine whether
any ingredients in the glue are injurious. I f such an ingredient is found, the
glue should be replaced by another kind.
(b) Skin lotions may be used by employees in this operation to prevent sim ilar
injuries.
(c) I f employee is allergic to the glue, he should be transferred to other workm

45. An employee stood on a box in order to reach a box of crowns at the top of
a pile. The box on which he stood tipped, throwing him to the floor. Lost 10
days.
(a) Suitable safe ladders, step stools, or platforms should be furnished for em­
ployees’ use whenever it is necessary for them to work at an elevation. The use of
boxes, cases, or other makeshift means to gain access to elevations should be pro­
hibited.
(b) Slides, skids, or sim ilar equipment should be used in removing cases from
piles which are not within easy reach from the floor.

46. Employee was stitching the bottom of a carton.
entered her finger. Lost 23 days.

A staple from the machine

Stitching machines should be so guarded that it is impossible for workers to
reach into the danger zone.

47. Employee had to pass through an area where a co-worker was sorting car­
tons and throwing them on a pile several feet away. The employee was struck in
the face by a carton. Lost 10 days.
This is an instance of poor supervision and poor planning of work procedures.
Cartons should not be thrown across passageways without barricading the aisle.

48. While handling cases, an employee cut his hand on a metal band that bound
one of the cases. Lost 5 days.
(a) Adequate case inspection should have indicated this unsafe condition and it
should have been corrected immediately.
(b) Workers handling cases should wear gloves.

49. As employee picked up a case of filled pints, the bottom of the case loosened.
Several bottles dropped out and exploded. The employee was struck on the face
and leg by flying glass. Lost 10 days.
Proper inspection of empty cases at the point where they are placed on the
filling line should have revealed the defect. It should then have been removed
for repair.

50. When an employee lifted an empty case, he cut his finger on a rough edge.
Lost 20 days.
(a) Close inspection and repair of cases is necessary to prevent this type of
accident.
(b) Gloves should be worn by employees handling cases.

51. While placing a case of beer on a truck, an employee strained his back.
Lost 3 days.
Close supervision and adequate instruction in lifting procedures are necessary
to prevent injuries of this kind. Each employee should be im pressed with the
importance of lifting with a straight instead of a bent back.

52. While piling cases of beer 5-high, a female employee strained her back as
she put the fifth case in place. Lost 20 days.
(a) Men should be used in this work as it is too heavy for most women. A ll
employees performing this type of work should be thoroughtly trained in lifting
procedures.
(b) Wherever possible, mechanical equipment should be used in piling filled
cases.

53. An employee was piling cases 10-high.
injured his back. Lost 17 days.

He fell from the top of the pile and

Close supervision and adequate job instruction are necessary for the prevention
of injuries in piling operations. Standing or working on cases piled 10-high is
dangerous and should be avoided. To lessen the danger of falling over the sides
of piles, the cases should be piled in bins or inside wooden frames which will
hold the cases and also act as a guard against falls. Cases should also be piled
stepwise and interlocked by turning alternate rows. For better footing while
working on piles, employees should work from planks.



45
54. As an employee walked under a slide, a case fell from it and struck him in the
eye. Lost 7 days.
Slides should be equipped with side rails to prevent material falling over the
sides. I f the slides are not guarded in this way, barriers should be placed to
prevent employees entering the area beneath the slides.
S H IP P IN G

A N D D E L IV E R Y D E P A R T M E N T A C C ID E N T S

55. While loading filled half-barrels from the loading dock, a worker cut his
finger on a sharp hoop. Lost 22 days.
(a) Adequate barrel inspection should have indicated this unsafe condition
and proper maintenance should have eliminated it.
(b) A ll employees handling barrels should wear heavy gloves.

56. A truck was parked 10 inches from the loading platform. It had been raining
and the metal edge of the truck was slippery. As an employee attempted to step
to the truck, he slipped and caught his leg between the truck and the platform.
Lost 7 days.
(a) Trucks should be parked close to platforms to eliminate openings between
the trucks and the platforms. I f trucks cannot park adjacent to the loading
areas without leaving a space between them and the area , the space should be
spanned with portable platforms.
(b) Metal sections that are smooth and on which employees must step or stand
should be replaced with corrugated sheet metal.

57. As an employee jumped from a truck, he slipped and strained his knee.
Lost 9 days.
Ladders or steps should be provided for access to and from all elevated plat­
form s , trucks , and railroad cars.

58. A truck driver was using the side gate of his truck as a ladder to enter and
leave the truck. The gate slipped as he was climbing on it and threw him to the
ground. Lost 17 days.
(a) A ll trucks should have permanent nonslip steps and handholds to permit
safe access to the bed of the truck.
(b) When there are no steps on the truck , the driver should be provided with a
short ladder so designed that it can be firm ly hooked at the top. Truck gates
should never be used as substitutes for ladders.

59. When an employee attempted to roll a barrel of beer over a step at the en­
trance of a tavern, he wrenched his back. Lost 4 days.
Employees should not attempt to handle filled barrels by themselves. Suffi­
cient help should always be provided. Where possible , a skid should be used in
moving barrels.

60. An employee was carrying a full half-barrel of beer into a tavern. lie
missed his step and dropped the barrel on his feet. Lost 20 days.
(a) No employee should be required to carry filled half-barrels single-handed.
When filled kegs are moved horizontally they should be rolled. When moved
down grade they should be lowered with a rope or skidded. Whenever it is nec­
essary to carry filled kegs which are larger than one-quarter barrel, they should be
handled by two men using barrel tongs. Small hand trucks can also be used to
move filled kegs on even surfaces, but not to move them up or down steps.
(b) Employees handling filled or empty kegs should be required to wear safety
shoes.

61. An employee was using a hand truck to pull cases of quart bottles up a
stairway. He strained the ligaments of his leg at the hip and as a result lost
29 days.
Loaded hand trucks should not be pulled up a stairway. I f other facilities ,
such as elevators, were not available , the cases should have been carried one at a
time.

62. While carrying two cases of beer, an employee stepped on a piece of wood
and fell down a flight of stairs. Lost 58 days.
(a) Before making any deliveries, the employee should have inspected the
premises and removed any such hazards.

(b) Employee should carry only one case of beer at a time.




46
63. Because of an approaching storm a truck driver attempted to place a tar­
paulin over the load. He climbed to the top of the load by holding to a rope.
The rope broke and he fell to the pavement. Lost 4 days.
The driver and his helper should have drawn the tarpaulin into place with
ropes thereby eliminating the climbing on the load.

64. An employee was putting stakes in a trailer when a slide, which had been
placed against a door, fell and hit his foot. Lost 5 days.
(a) Slides or skids should always be laid in a horizontal position or hung on
hangers when not in use. N o material of any kind should be placed beside or
against a door which might move.
(b) A ll workers in delivery departments should wear safety shoes. In this
instance , safety shoes probably would have avoided or minim ized the injury.

65. Employee was unloading cases of empty bottles from a truck. One section
of the slide which was being used for this work slipped off a pile of cases upon which
it rested. Employee was struck by the falling slide. Lost 9 days.
Because these operations are usually a part of the regular routine , employers
should furnish permanent equipment for these jobs which would eliminate make­
shift set-ups. Skids should have sound supports , such as light metal A-frames.
Cases, particularly cartons, should never be used as skid supports.

66. As an employee was leaving a freight car which he had been loading, he
stepped on a beer case. When it overturned, he fell and struck his leg against
the corner of the case. Lost 13 days.
Cases should never be used as substitutes for steps or ladders. Ladders equip­
ped with safety shoes should be furnished and their use enforced on all jobs where
the need for ladders exists.

67. While placing a bulkhead in a railroad car, an employee caught his finger
between the car and the bulkhead. Permanent injury to the finger.
Thorough training and close supervision are necessary for the prevention of
accidents of this type. Bulkheads are frequently heavy as well as unwieldy , and
employees should not be required to put them in place without assistance.

68. Employee struck his back when he stooped to walk under a case conveyor
which was being used to load a railroad car. Lost 38 days.
The space under portable conveyors should be closed off and employees pro­
hibited from attempting to go under such equipment.
M A IN T E N A N C E D E P A R T M E N T A C C ID E N T S

69. An employee, not an electrician, was working on an electric fuse box. A
flash resulting from a short circuit, burned his face. Lost 41 days.
(a) Only qualified electricians should be permitted to work or make repairs on
electrical equipment.
(b) Before work is begun on any electrical installation , the circuit should be
opened and the switch locked in the open position.

70. A machinist was putting a link in the conveyor between the labeler and
packer. A second employee started the conveyor line, which caught the machin­
ist^ hands and resulted in amputation of a thumb and two fingers.
Before repair work is started on any machine or mechanical equipm ent the
starting switch should be locked in an open position to prevent starting of the
equipment. I f the switch cannot be locked, the fuse should be pulled or the motor
disconnected. Warning signs, which are sometimes attached to the switch instead
of locking it open , give inadequate protection as they may be knocked off or
disregarded.

71. Employee attempted to remove excess grease from the gear case of the main
drive on a soaker without stopping the machine. The guard on the gear case had
been removed. The employee had a finger amputated when it was caught in the
gears.
(a) Supervisors should enforce the rule that all guards must be in place before
starting or using machinery.
(b) N o powered equipment should be repaired , cleaned, or adjusted while it is
in operation .

72. While painting pipes near the ceiling in the brewhouse, an employee col­
lapsed as a result of heat exhaustion. Lost 5 days.
(a) Painting should be done during nonoperating periods of the brewhouse.
When it is necessary to paint during the brewing operation , forced ventilation
should be provided.
(b) Salt tablets should be provided for employees working in omr-heatcd are os.



47
73. A painter was washing mold from walls with a chemical compound. When
a fellow worker handed him a beer can filled with the chemical, the employee
drank it thinking it was beer. Lost 1 day.
(a) Chemicals should never be put in beer cans; proper cans labeled to show
the nature of the contents should be used.
(b) Plant rules should prohibit the consumption of beer on the premises
except at specified times and places. I f this rule had been in effect the employee
would not have thought that the can contained beer.

74. An employee was using a scaffold to paint the walls in the bottle shop. He
fell 15 feet from the scaffold to the concrete floor, fracturing his skull. Lost 85
days.
A ll scaffolds should be equipped with guardrails and toeboards. Construc­
tion of scaffolds should be in accordance with a safe standard , and both the instal­
lation and use of scaffolds should be under the close supervision of a responsible
employee.
M IS C E L L A N E O U S A C C ID E N T S

75. An employee was using a rope to pull a hand truck. The rope broke and
the truck pinned another employee against the wall, injuring his arm. Lost 6
days.
Hand trucks are never under complete control when they are being pulled with
ropes. For this reason the use of ropes should be prohibited.
AU hand trucks should have handles by which they can be pushed and their
movements controlled. Truckers should be required to push trucks rather than
to pull them.

76. While walking backward and pulling a 4-wheeled truck, an employee was
caught between the truck and a post. Lost 69 days.
(a) Hand trucks should be pushed not pulled.
(b) Workers should never walk backward.
77. A warehouse employee was pushing a 4-wheeled truck. He stepped to the
side of the truck to open a door. As he did so, his trouser cuff caught on the
truck and one of the wheels of the truck passed over his foot. Lost 4 days.
(a) Supervisors should forbid employees to wear loose, wornf or torn clothing.
Work clothes should not have cuffs.
(b) Employees who are handling materials should wear steel-toed safety shoes.

78. While making his regular inspection, a guard lifted the elevator gate, step­
ped into the shaft, and fell 6 feet. As a result of a fractured leg, the employee
was disabled 6 months.
A ll openings into elevator shafts should be equipped with gates (a) interlocked
with the controls so that the elevator will not operate when any gate is open and
(b) interlocked with the car so that no door can be opened withoul a special key
unless the car is stopped at its level.

79. Employee was using a hand truck to wheel a can of alkali solution. The
truck struck a rough place on the platform causing the solution to splash and
strike employee’s eye. Loss of eye.
(a) Covered containers should be used for transporting alkali solutions.
(b) A ll workers handling this material should be required to wear gogglest
gloves, and other protective clothing.
(c) Linder an adequate program of plant inspection and repair , the platform
would not have been allowed to remain in poor condition.

80. An employee was shoveling alkali.
causing a chemical burn. Lost 22 days.

Some of the alkali fell into his shoes,

A ll employees handling dangerous chemicals should be provided with proper
wearing apparel , such as ]goggles, rubber gloves, rubber aprons , and proper
footwear.







Appendix.— Statistical Tables




(49)




T able 1.— Industrial Injury Rates for 321 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Department and Extent of Dis<xbility
Number of disabling injuries

D epartm ent1

Number
of units
reporting

Number
of em­
ployees

Employeehours
worked
(thousands)

Injury rates3
4

Resulting in !
Death or
permanent Permanent Temporary
partial dis­ total dis­
total dis­
ability
ability
ability 1
2

Total

Total days
lost

Fre­
quency

Average
days lost
per tem­
porary
Severity total dis­
ability

T otal.............................................................................

4 321

54,759

124,305

5,745

(1) U

468

5,266

735,486

46.2

5.9

15

M alting........................................................................

18

311

720

59

0

2

57

1,259

81.9

1.7

12

B rew house..................................................................
Filtering................................................................
Brewing, including mashing...........................
Fermenting..........................................................
Racking.................................................................
W ashing...... .........................................................
L o a d in g ...............................................................
O ther....................................................................
B ottling departm ent................................................
W a sh in g ..............................................................
Filling and capping...........................................
Pasteurizing.........................................................
Casing....................................................................
Loading.................................................................
O ther.....................................................................
D elivery.......................................................................
D raught................................................................
B ottle.....................................................................
Service and maintenance............. ...........................
Administrative and clerical...........................
Oarage.......................... .......................................
Plant m ain tenance-.........................................
Power............ .......................................................
Refrigeration........................................................
Sales.......................................................................
Other......................................................................

1,017
129
171
160
162
149
106
13
908
153
152
144
146
150
29
375
110
107
1,220
278
122
219
182
110
217
92

8,826
431
1,106
870
786
868
516
174
20,068
1,305
880
768
1,440
1,970
606
7,862
1,882
2,399
14,665
5,877
484
2,691
1,404
512
1,894
1,803

20,278
1,004
2,590
2,044
1,758
1,973
1,175
409
46,114
3,109
2,070
1,812
3, 412
4,720
1,406
18,291
4,328
5,613
32,232
12,443
1,093
6,176
3,137
1,183
4,001
4,199

1,031
24
84
67
91
115
90
18
2,423
135
94
107
188
226
83
1,172
403
317
686
24
36
253
88
26
17
242

2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
(1) 4
1
0
1
1
0
0
(1) 1

55
1
7
0
6
3
3
3
173
6
19
6
16
20
7
154
73
39
73
1
8
26
3
0
1
34

974
23
77
67
85
111
86
15
2,250
129
75
101
172
206
76
1,014
328
276
609
22
28
226
84
26
16
207

99,996
4, 240
10, 485
1,119
5,494
13, 374
8,551
1,471
228,722
6,030
13,482
9,681
21,398
31,175
7,093
232,273
98,120
80,187
149,208
6,619
18,116
51,849
12, 362
338
4,378
55,546

50.8
23.9
32.4
32.8
51.8
58.3
76.6
44.0
52.5
43.4
45.4
59.0
55.1
47.9
59.0
64.1
93.1
56.5
21.3
1.9
32.9
41.0
28.1
22.0
4.2
57.6

4.9
4.2
4.0
.5
3.1
6.8
7.3
3.6
5.0
1.9
6.5
5.3
6.3
6.6
5.0
12.7
22.7
14.3
4.6
.5
16.6
8.4
3.9
.3
1.1
13.2

18
10
19
17
15
23
16
25
14
10
14
12
12
16
10
14
16
14
19
15
29
24
21
13
24
13

1 Totals include figures not shown separately because of insufficient data.
2 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disability cases included.
2 T he frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked. The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand
employee-hours worked.
4 N um ber of breweries reporting.




T able 2.— Industrial In ju ry Rates for 321 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Geographic Area, Stole, orerf City,

fey Extent of Disability
Injury rates3

Number of disabling injuries

Geographic area, State, and c it y 1

United States: Total.......................-..........
New England: Total....................... ........ .......
M assachusetts................ ......................................

Middle Atlantic: Total.............. .........................
N ew Jersey...........................................................
N ew York.............................................................
Brooklyn-N ew York.................................
Rochester.......................................................
Pennsylvania.............. ..........................................
Philadelphia............... ..................................
Pittsburgh............. .. .....................................
Wilkes-Barre................................................

E N Central: Total............. .. .................
ast orth
Illinois....................................................................
Chicago............... ........ .....................................
Indiana................................................................ M ichigan................. ............................................
D etroit...........................................................
Ohio.......................................................................
Cincinnati.....................................................
Cleveland......................................................
Columbus.........- ..........................................
W isconsin_______________ ______ ________
M ilwaukee....................................................

W N Central: Total.................. .............
est orth
M innesota........ ....................................................
M inneapolis-St. Paul.................................
Missouri---------------- ------------- ---------------St. Louis.............— .........- ................ .........




Number of Number of Employeehours
establish­ employees
worked
ments
(thousands)

Resulting inTotal

T otal days
lost

Death or
permanent Permanent Tem porary
total
partial
total dis­
disability disability
ability *

Fre­
quency

Average
days lost
per tem­
porary
Severity total dis­
ability

321

54,759

124,305

5,745

(1) 11

463

5,266

735,486

46.2

5.9

10
8

1,470
1,004

3,226
2,294

219
150

1
0

2
2

216
148

11,943
2,796

67.9
65.4

37t ~
1.2

78
6
22
7
3
50
8
3
3

14,380
2,621
6,464
4,124
519
5,295
1,194
863
608

32,763
6,519
14,728
9,343
1,314
11,517
2,696
1,867
1,244

1,724
180
935
656
52
609
105
239
29

(1) 6
0
(1) 4
3
(1) 1
2
1
1
0

328
109
212
172
0
7
0
1
1

1,390
71
719
481
51
600
104
237
28

481,486
150,195
308,817
260,206
6,951
22,474
7,533
9,181
878

52.6
27.6
63.5
70.2
40.0
52.9
38.9
128.0
23.3

14.7
23.0
21.0
27.8
5.3
2.0
2.8
4.9
.7

14
13
15
16
19
14
15
12
21

136
26
13
11
19
8
26
3
4
4
54
8

20,638
2,859
1,412
1,908
2,639
2,181
3,862
1,156
1,232
424
9,370
7,292

47,626
6,738
3,302
4,326
6,294
5,215
9,149
2,733
3,023
958
21,119
16,216

2,191
344
239
302
267
227
341
113
101
46
937
766

3
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0

61
18
6
1
2
1
5
0
3
0
35
32

2,127
326
233
301
265
226
333
112
98
46
902
734

124,703
27,932
10,095
3,543
5,038
3,965
36,773
7,875
10,589
947
51,417
45,245

46.0
51.1
72.4
69.8
42.4
43.5
37.3
41.3
33.4
48.0
44.4
47.2

2.6
4.1
3.1
.8
.8
.8
4.0
2.9
3.5
1.0
2.4
2.8

14
9
7
11
16
16
21
17
24
21
13
13

25
13
4
9
4

7,940
1,917
1,596
5,678
5,135

17,584
4,124
3,403
12,696
11,510

689
147
117
508
448

0
0
0
0
0

36
3

653
144
116
475
418

56,277
8,966
4,144
46,922
44,843

39.2
35.6
34.4
40.0
38.9

3.2
2.2
1.2
3.7
3.9

20
20
16

15
—

1

33
30

15

1
7
1
7

South Atlantic: Total..................................................
Florida..................................................................
Maryland..............................................................

11
4
3

1,448
444
737

3,395
1,079
1,807

114
15
73

0
0
0

5
1
4

109
14
69

10,712
498
9,939

33.6
13.9
40.4

3.2
.5
5.5

18
14
22

East South Central: Total..........................................
Kentucky................................................. ..........

6
4

1,388
1,051

3,089
2,221

97
83

0
0

3
2

94
81

7,503
4,819

31.4
37.4

2.4
2.2

16
15

West South Central: Total.......................................
Louisiana..............................................................
N ew Orleans.................................................
Texas......................................................................

10
4
4
5

2,112
1,022
1,022
1,041

4,519
2,371
2,371
2,030

222
122
122
79

0
0
0
0

17
4
4
13

205
118
118
66

16,443
3,130
3,130
13,266

49.1
51.4
51.4
38.9

3.6
1.3
1.3
6.5

16
16
16
20

Mountain: Total...................... .................... ..............
Colorado...............................................................

18
3

1,015
521

2,265
1,162

109
78

1
1

2
1

106
76

11,729
7,017

43.1
67.1

5.2
6.0

13
9

Pacific: Total_____ - - - - - ...........................................
California.............................................................
Los Angeles............... ..................................
San Francisco...............................................
W ashington..........................................................

27
14
3
5
9

4,368
3,034
492
1,996
1,051

9,839
7,143
1,130
4,789
2,105

380
288
42
179
62

0
0
0
0
0

14
12
6
2
2

366
276
36
177
60

14,690
12,955
4,207
5,348
1,473

38.6
40.3
37.2
37.4
29.4

1.5
1.8
3.7
1.1
.7

18
20
11
25
15

* Totals include figures not shown separately because of insufficient data.
> Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disability cases included.
» The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
employee-hours worked.




The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand

T able 3.— Industrial Injury Rates for 321 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Size of Establishment and Extent of Disability
Number of disabling injuries

Size of establishment

N um ber of Number of Employeehours
establish­ employees
worked
ments
(thousands)

Injury rates *
Average
days lost
per tem­
porary
Severity total dis­
ability

Resulting in Death or
permanent Permanent Tem porary
total
partial
total dis­
disability
disability
ability i

Total

Total days
lost

Fre­
quency

T otal..............................................................................

321

54,759

124,305

5,745

(1) 11

468

5,266

735,486

46.2

5.9

15

Under 25 employees...................................................
25 to 49 em ployees....................................................
50 to 99 employees......................................................
100 to 249 employees..................................................
250 to 499 employees..................................................
500 to 999 em ployees........... .......... .........................
1,000 employees and over.........................................

47
80
75
65
35
12
7

737
2,951
5,561
9,914
12,785
7,974
14,837

1,678
6,562
12,401
22,803
28,224
18,679
33,958

73
240
468
1,170
1,431
722
1,641

0
0
3
(1) 4
1
1
2

3
7
15
20
109
50
264

70
233
450
1,146
1,321
671
1,375

7,149
9,939
38,687
54,903
160,143
99, 580
365,085

43.5
36.6
37.7
51.3
50.7
38.7
48.3

4.3
1.5
3.1
2.4
5.7
5.3
10.8

15
16
14
14
17
18
14

1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disabilities included.
* The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
employee-hours worked.

The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand

T able 4.—Distribution of Industrial Injury-Frequency Rates of 321 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Size of Establishment
Total
Size of establishment

of estab­
lish­
ments

T otal........................................................................... ...............
Under 25 employees
_____________ _ __________
25 to 49 employees....................................................................
50 to 99 employees....................................................................
10ft t .n 9 4Q A m p l n y P A S

409 e ir ip ln y e e s
son to 999 employees
-1,000 employees and over________________ _

2 50 t a




_
_____

Number of establishments with frequency rates o f1 to 9

0

321

55

47
80
75
65
35
12
7

22
17
11
5

11
1
10

10 to 19

20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 99 100 and
over

33

41

46

37

31

15

21

5

6

► 20

16
7
9
1

5
8
9
8
5
5

1
10
12
11
8
2
2

3
6
8
8
8
3
1

4
7
7
8
4
1

3
4
2
3
2

1
4
3
6
4
1
2

1
1
2
1

4
1
1

8
2
4
4
2

1

55
T able 5.—Disabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Nature of Injury
and Extent of Disability
Number of disabling injuries
Total

Resulting in

Nature of injury
Number Percent1

Total.................................................

4,276

100.0

Amputations...................................
Bruises, contusions, concussions.
Without infection...................
With infection.........................
Burns, scalds..................................
Without infection...................
With infection........ ................
Cuts, lacerations, punctures___
W ithout infection.................
With infection.........................
Dislocations....................................
Foreign bodies in eyes..................
Without infection...................
With infection.........................
Fractures.........................................
Without infection...................
W ith infection.........................
Hernia..............................................
Industrial diseases.........................
Strains, sprains (except hernia).
Without infection..................
W ith infection.........................
Other................................................
Unclassified—insufficient d a ta ..

37
1,154
1,111
43
145
130
15
1,123
952
171
19
57
46
11
454
453
1
63
20
1,161
1,160
1
22
21

Death

.9
27.1
26.1
1.0
3.4
3.0
.4
26.4
22.4
4.0
.4
1.3
1.0
.3
10.7
10.7
(2)
1.5
.5
27.3
27.3
(2
)
.5

Per­
manent
partial
dis­
ability

6

162
37
8
7
1
2
2

1
1

62
56
6

2
2

50
50

1
2
2
1
1

i Percentage of cases for which nature of injury is known.

1

2

Average
number
of days
lost per
tem­
porary
Tem­
total
porary
dis­
total dis­ ability
ability
4,108

17

1,146
1,104
42
143
128
15
1,060
896
164
19
57
46
11
402
401
1
62
20
1,159
1,158
1
20
20

13
13
18
15
15
15
12
12
14
24
9
7
18
35
35
48
47
16
16
14
12

Less than 0.05.

T able 6.—Disabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Part of Body Injured
and Extent of Disability
Number of disabling injuries
Total

Resulting in

Part of body injured
Number Percent1

Tntal

Death

Per­
manent
partial
dis­
ability

Tem­
porary
total
dis­
ability

Average
number
of days
lost per
tem­
porary
total
dis­
ability

_______________________

4,276

100.0

6

162

4,108

17

Head
irTir
_
F.ye(s)
"Ftrain n *skull
<
____
Other
Trunk
________
Chest (hmgs), ribs, etc _
Bank
Abdomen
_ ._ _
TTip(si of pelvis
.......
Shoulder
___
_
. . .
Other
(T ppr extremities
Arm(s)
"Rand (s) (including wrist)
_
Finger(s) and/or thumh(s)
Lower extremities_ _
_
Leg(s)
___
____ _ _ _
Foot or feet (including ankle)
Toe(s)
___
General.. .........
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

379
147
105
127
1,158
210
553
125
68
131
71
1,493
262
550
681
1,182
471
517
194
43
21

8.9
3.4
2.5
3.0
27.2
4.9
13.0
2.9
1.6
3.1
1.7
35.1
6.2
12.9
16.0
27.8
11.1
12.1
4.6
1.0

1

26
14
1
11
1

352
133
103
116
1,155
209
553
123
68
130
72
1,383
259
531
593
1,156
465
512
179
42
20

13
11
14
16
20
17
18
30
29
18
16
15
17
14
14
17
20
16
13
18
14

*Percentage of cases for which part of body injured is known.




1
2
1
1

1

1
1
1
1

110
3
19
88
25
6
4
15

T able 7.—Disabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Department, Part of Body Injured, and Nature of Injury
Nature of injury
Department and part of body injured

Total
number
of dis­
abling
injuries

All departments: T otal............—..................

4,276

Head__________________________ _______
E ye(s).________ ____________________
Brain or s k u l l ____ ______ _______ _
Other________ _ _____________ ; ___
_
_
Trunk..................................................... ...........
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc_______ ______
B ack______________________________
Abdoman
Hip (s') or pelvis______________ _ __
Shnnldpr
Other______________ ______________
TTppAr AYtrAmitiAS _
Arm (s) _________________________
Hand (s) (including wrist)
. __
Finger(s) and/or thumb(s)
Lower extremities______________________
Leg(s)___________ ____ ____________
Foot or feet (including ankle)_______
T oe(s)._......................... .................... .........
General _____________________________
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

379
147
105
127
1,158
210
553
125
68
131
71
1,493
262
550
681
1,182
471
517
194
43
21

Brewhouse: T otal............ ...............................

752

Head
......................................................
F,ye(s)
Brain nr skull
Other........... ................................................

67
26
18
23




Bruises,
Amputa­ contu­
sions,
tions
and con­
cussions
37

34
34
3
3

4

Bum s
and
scalds

Cuts,
lacer­
Disloca­
ations,
tions
and
punctures

Foreign
bodies Fractures
in eyes

145

1,123

105
16
54
35
271
104
71
16
25
37
18
269
75
90
104
489
235
176
78
19
1

47
29
1
17
11
4
1
3
1
2
30
10
15
5
50
14
35
1
6
1

151
44
47
60
17
6
1
3
3
4
811
104
293
414
139
74
50
15
3
2

49

94

6

22
3
10
9

20
13
1
6

12
1
6
5

454

19

14
1
2

3
5
78
64
4

11

6
4

63

63

20

1,161

22

5

5
1

1
1

5
695
27
472
42
30
73
51
144
42
89
13
308
100
208

4
5
3

1
63

185
28
52
105
183
43
45
95

1
3
1
1
1

Unclassi­
fied—
insuffi­
cient
data

Other

1

8

2
1

211

57
57
57

1,154

Strains
and
Hernia Industrial
diseases sprains

15
1
10
4
1
1

1
1

21

3
1
1

1
3
1
1
1

2
1
1

4

2
1
1

9
1

4

9
250

2

4

2
9

110

9
9

4
1
3

13

7

T runk........................................... _....................
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc...........................
B a c k .._____I___ .....................................
Abdomen.......................................... .........
Hip(s) or pelvis...................... ..................
Shoulder.’. ..................................................
Other..........................................................
Upper extremities..........................................
’ ’Arm(s)...... ................................................ .
Hand(s) (including w rist).......... ..........
Finger (s) and/or thumb (s).....................
Lower extremities...........................................
Leg(s).__....................................................
Foot or feet (including ankle)...............
T oe(s)...........................................................
•General............................................. ...............
TTnelassififtd—insnffiniATit data
_

261
62
106
25
18
32
28
195
38
57
100
222
84
91
47
5
2

B ottling department: T otal.........................

1,655

H ead___________________ _____________
E ye(s)......... ................................................
Brain or skull............................................
Other................ ...........................................
T ru nk..................................................................
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc...........................
B ack.............................................................
Abdom en....................................................
Hip(s) or pelvis____________________
Shoulder......................................................
Other.................... ......................................
Upper e x tr em itie s..,.............. ........................
Arm (s).......... ....................... ......................
Hand(s) (including w rist)......................
Finger (s) and/or thum b (s)__________
Lower extremities______________________
Leg(s)__________ _______ _____ _____
Foot or feet (including ankle)...............
T oe(s)................................ .........................
General...............................................................
Unclassified—insufficient data.....................

178
77
48
53
317
61
133
49
21
37
16
800
144
320
336
347
162
155
30
8
5




54
23
14

4
4

5
9
3
47
13
10
24
86
36
34
16
2

2
1

2
2

10
2
5
3
16
4
11
1
1

63
8
20
35
17
8
7
2

20
17

3

1

3

2
1

2
1

13
13

43
8
7
28
43
10
5
28

i
1
1

2
15

14
14
1
1

363

60

750

38
10
19
9
93
33
23
12
6
11
8
100
29
44
27
130
78
39
13
2

16
13

96
32
29
35
11
3

3
4
1
1
1
1
11
6
4
1
27
8
19
2

3
2
3
569
87
216
266
71
36
31
4
1
2

4

3

22

94

22
22

1
1
22
17
1

21

1
1

2
1
1

2

297

7

1

2

2

1

2
159
6
107
12
9
18
7
53
14
33
6
82
28
54

2
3
1

21

3
1
41
7
15
19
30
10
10
10

1

13

21
3

2
1

165
8
92
12
10
18
25
24
5
15
4
59
25
34

11
1
7
3
1
1

1
1

i
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

9

3
1
1
1
2
2

T a b l e 7.— Disabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Department, P art of Body Injured, and Nature o f Injury—Continued
Nature of injury
Department and part of body injured

Total
number
of dis­
abling
injuries

Delivery department: T otal........ ..... ...........

1,364

Head . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
E ye(s)..........................................................
Brain or skull....................._....................
Other................................... ........................
Trunk..................................................................
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc.................. .........
Back............................................... ............
Abdomen____ _____________________
Hip(s) or pelvis . _
_
_ _ ____
Shoulder_________ _________________
Other.................. .................. ......................
Upper extrem ities._____ _______________
Arm (s)_____________ ____ __________
Hand(s) (including wrist)__________
Finger(s) and/or thum b (s)__________
Lower extremities______________________
Leg(s)_____________ ________ _______
Foot or feet (including ankle)_______
T oe(s)................. ........................................
General.................................................. ............
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

69
20
21
28
448
66
251
40
19
52
20
366
59
120
187
451
159
197
95
21
9

Other departments: T otal............................

505~

Head _ _ _
_ _ _
Fye(s)
_
. _______ _
Brain or skull _ _ .. _.
Other.................. .................. ......................
Trunk________________________________
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc____ _________
B a c k _____________________________
Abdomen
_
.. _ _ _
H ip(s)..........................................................
Shoulder
Other____ _________________________

65
24
18
23
132
31
63
11
10
10
7




Bruises,
Amputa­ contu­
sions,
tions
and con­
cussions
9

7
7
2
2

_____
9

Cuts,
lacer­
Disloca­
ations,
tions
and
punctures

Bum s
and
scalds

432

4

206

26
3
12
11
89
34
25
3
7
14
6
94
25
26
43
208
86
82
40
14
1

1
1

29
7
8
14
3
1
1

148

32

73

19

10
2

14
4
4
6
1

13
6
35
14
9
1
7
3

1

1

Foreign
bodies Fractures
in eyes

9

180

9
9

8

7
1
2

1
1
23
20
1

4

1
1

1

1
1
1

133
8
39
86
39
25
6
8
2

19

19

1

1

1

1

1
1

19

1
1

483

304
9
221
18
10
32
14
51
18
31
2
123
37
86

17

70

17
17

6

1

10

1
1

5

3

131
3

T
i
i

1

1

13
10
2

1

1

4

2
1
1

3

2

_____

_____ ___

8
4
2

4

Unclassi­
fiedinsuffi­
cient
data

Other

2

79
8
22
49
76
10
21
45

1

1

Industrial Strains
and
diseases sprains

2

1
1

Hernia

10
10

3
67
4
52
1
5
5

i
i

3
4

Upper extremities______________
A rm(s)__________ ____ _____
Hand(s) (including w rist)___
Finger(s) and/or thum b(s)_
_
Lower extremities.............................

Leg(s).......................................

Foot or feet (including ankle)
T oe(s)............. .............................
General................................................
Unclassified—insufficient data___




132
21
53
58
162
66
74
22
9
5

9
9

28
8
10
10
65
35
21
9
1

8
2
5
1
6
2
4
3
1

46
1
18
27
12
5
6
1

22
5
8
9
34
13
9
12

3
2
1

16
5
10
1
44
10
34
1

1
1
3
1

2
2

60
T a b l e 8. —Disabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Part of Body

Injured and Department
Bottling department

Brewhouse
Part of body injured

Delivery

Number of disabling Number of disabling Number of disabling
injuries
injuries
injuries
Number Percent1 Number P ercen t1 Number Percent *

T otal...................................................................

752

100.0

1,655

100.0

1,364

100.0

H e a d .................................................................
E ye(s)..........................................................
Brain or skull............................................
Other........................................ ..................
Trunk.................................................................
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc............................
Back......................................... ..................
A bdom en...................................................
Hip(s) or pelvis.........................................
Shoulder.................................. ..................
O th er...................................... ....... ...........
Upper extremities.......................................... .
Arm(s).........................................................
Hand(s) (including w rist).....................
Finger(s) and/or th u m b (s).......... .........
Lower extremities..........................................
Leg(s)........................................................
Foot or feet (including ankle)...............
Toe(s)....................................... ..................
General................................... ..........................
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

67
26
18
23
261
52
106
25
18
32
28
195
38
57
100
222
84
91
47
5
2

8.9
3.4
2.4
3.1
34.8
6.9
14.2
3.3
2.4
4.3
3.7
26.0
5.1
7.6
13.3
29.6
11.2
12.1
6.3
.7

178
77
48
53
317
61
133
49
21
37
16
800
144
320
336
347
162
155
30
8
5

10.8
4.7
2.9
3.2
19.2
3.7
8.0
3.0
1.3
2.2
1.0
48.5
8.7
19.4
20.4
21.0
9.8
9.4
1.8
.5

69
20
21
28
448
66
251
40
19
52
20
366
59
120
187
451
159
197
95
21
9

5.1
1.5
1.5
2.1
33.1
4.9
18.5
3.0
1.4
3.8
1.5
27.0
4.4
8.9
13.7
33.3
11.7
14.6
7.0
1.5

i Percentage of cases for which part of body injured is known.

T able 9.—Disabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Nature of Injury
and Department
Brewhouse
Nature of injury

Bottling department

Delivery

Number of disabling Number of disabling Number of disabling
injuries
injuries
injuries
Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number P ercen t1

T otal................... .......................... ....................
W ithout infection.....................................
W ith infection...........................................

752
720
32

100.0
95.7
4.3

1,655
1,534
121

100.0
92.7
7.3

1,364
1,303
61

100.0
95.5
4.5

Amputations................................................... Bruises, contusions, concussions..................
W ithout infection................................... W ith infection......................................
Burns, scalds.....................................................
W ithout infection.....................................
W ith infection..........................................
Cuts, lacerations, punctures.........................
W ithout infection.....................................
W ith infection...........................................
Dislocations.......................................................
Foreign bodies in eyes....................................
W ithout infection.....................................
W ith infection...........................................
Fractures............................................................
Hernia.................................................................

4
211
202
9
49
42
7
94
79
15

.5
28.2
27.0
1.2
6.6
5.7
.9
12.6
10.6
2.0
.8
1.2
1.1
.1
14.7
1.7

.7
31.8
30.7
1.1
.3
.3

206
162
44
8
9
8
1
180
19
4
483

15.1
11.9
3.2

250
2
4

.9
22.0
21.1
.9
3.6
3.2
.4
45.8
40.0
5.8
.2
1.3
1.1
.2
5.7
1.3
.8
18.0
.4

9
432
417
15
4
4

Strains, sprains.................................................
Other...................................................................
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

15
363
348
15
60
54
6
750
655
95
4
22
18
4
94
21
13
297
7
9

In d u s tria l disAASAs

_ ___

6

9
8
1
110
13

33.4
.3

Percentage of cases for which nature of injury is known.




6

4

.6

.7
.6

.1
13.2
1.4
.3
35.5
.4

61
T a b l e 10.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Agency and P art

and by Extent of D isability
Number of disabling injuries

Average
number
of days
lost per
tempo­
rary
Perma­ Tempo­
rary
total
nent par­
total
disability
tial dis­
ability disability

Kesulting in-

Total
Agency and part
Number Percent1

Total...................................................................
Labeling machines
Bottles ^ machines
Other parts

_

Bottles in machines
__________
Other parts
Other machines
___________
Bed or tramp
Hears, pnllevs, et.e
Point-of-operation ____________
Bottles in "machines
Other parts

4,276

100.0

491
110
86
24
132
106
26
249
12
25
18
75
119

Death

Elevators............................................................

26

.6

Conveyors and ehnt.es
Belts pulleys, gears, et.ft
Load
_________________________
Bottles on conveyors
__ _ _ _
__________ __
Other parts

392
47
89
19
237

Vehicles.................................... - .......................
Motor.......... ................ ...............................
Frame
, r
Load................................................... Other parts
_ ____
Hand trucks
Other vehicles
_
________ _
Frame
___________ _
L o a d _________________________
Other parts

472
326
112
117
97
50
96
37
25
34

11.4
7.9
2.7
2.8
2.4
1.2
2.3
.9
.6
.8

4,108

17

457
101
80
21
123
99
24
233
11
20
15
72
115

14
10
9
15
12
12
14
16
32
15
15
8
19

1

24

31

25
8
3

367
39
86
19
223

15
21
13
12
14

6
2
3
1

1

9.5
1.1
2.2
.5
5.7

162
34
9
6
3
9
7
2
16
1
5
3
3
4

6

11.9
2.7
2.1
.6
3.2
2.6
.6
6.0
.3
.6
.4
1.8
2.9

443
304
108
108
88
49
90
35
22
33

18
19
18
15
25
14
18
22
12
17

14
2
1
1
1

27
21
4
8
9

Hand tools

_

99

2.4

5

94

13

Chemicals

__________________________

73

1.8

2

71

11

Working surfaces............................................
Floors
_ ________________
Platforms
Koadweys
Other working surfaces------ -------------

540
293
81
68
98

13.1
7.1
3.0
1.6
2.4

1

5
3
1
1

534
290
80
67
97

18
17
21
19
21

2,034
50
688
292
481
68
118
52
285

49.3
1.2
16.7
7.1
11.6
1.6
2.9
1.3
6.9

2

63
1
28
17
5
3
3
l
5

1,969
49
660
275
475
65
115
51
279

17
19
19
12
16
24
17
27
14

149

25

_____________________

Miscellaneous agencies— ---------- ---------Bales hags
________________
Barrels kegs
__ _ _
Bottles
_________________________
Cartons, boxes...........................................
Ladders
.
_ __ ____________
Stairways
_ ____________ •
____________
Tanks vats
Other.'.........................................................
Unclassified—insufficient data

149

i Percentage of cases for which agency is known.




1

1

1

62
T a b l e 11.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Accident T ype and

Extent of D isability
Number of disabling injuries

Average
number
of days
lost per
temporary
Permanent Temporary total dis­
ability
partial dis­ total dis­
ability
ability
Resulting in—

Total
Accident type
N um ­
ber

Per­
cent 1

Death

T otal................................................ ..................

4,276

100.0

6

162

4,108

17

Sjrflrtncr AgAlnftt.
_
_
Struck b y ...........................................................
Caught in, on, or between.......... ..................
F a lls On seme level
To lower level....................... ....................
Slips (not falls)................................................
OontAet. with temperature extremes
Explosions____________________________
Overexertion__________________________
Other accident ty p e s _______ __________
Unclassified—insufficient data.....................

488
890
430

11.6
21.0
10.2

2
1

10
45
58

478
843
371

13
16
17

609
252
232
148
446
769
58
54

12.1
6.0
5.5
3.5
10.6
18.1
1.4

11
6

498
245
231
146
417
768
57
54

19
26
16
14
11
18
18
28

1
1

2
29

1

1

i Percentage of cases for which accident type is known.

T able 12.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Accident T ype and
Department

Accident type

Brewhouse: num­
ber of disabling
injuries

Bottling depart­
ment: number of
disabling injuries

Delivery: number
of disabling in­
juries

Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number Percent *
T otal...................................................................

752

100.0

1,655

100.0

1,364

100.0

Striking against................................................
Struck b y ...........................................................
Caught in, on, or between.............................
F a lls On same level................................. ..........
To lower level............................................
Slips (not falls).................................................
Contact w ith temperature extremes...........
Explosions.........................................................
Overexertion....................................................
Other accident types.......................................
Unclassified—insufficient data....................

64
169
69

8.6
22.7
9.3

254
212
183

15.6
13.0
11.2

112
384
143

8.3
28.4
10.5

125
49
43
42
1
174
8
8

16.8
6.6
5.8
5.6
.1
23.4
1.1

161
57
64
63
416
192
25
28

9.9
3.5
3.9
3.9
25.7
11.8
1.5

148
101
94
8
24
327
15
8

10.9
7.4
6.9
.6
1.8
24.1
1.1

i Percentage of cases for which accident type is known.




T able 13.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Agency and P art and by Unsafe Working Condition
Unsafe working condition
Hazardous arrangement or procedure

Defects of agencies
Agency and part

T otal_______________________ ____
M achines............................... — ...........
Labeling machines
_
Bottles in machines .
Other parts
Pasteurizers
Bottles in machines _
Other parts______________
Other machines
Bari o f frame
Oears, p u lle y , etc. _
Point-of-oparation
Bottles in machines
Other parts
____
Elevators

.

_

__________

Total
number
of dis­ Improp­
erly
abling
injuries guarded
agencies

Total

Sharp- Slippery
edged

Total

Unsafe
planning
or lay­
out of
traffic or
process
opera­
tions

Lack of
proper
lifting
equip­
ment

Lack of
clear
walk­
ways or
working
surfaces

92

Other

Other
ou n
unsafe Nsafe working condi­
condi­
tion
tions

Unclass­
ified—
insuffi­
cient
data

4,276

460

1,200

216

373

611

1,303

191

73

525

422

24

23

1,266

491
110
86
24
132
106
26
249
12
25
18
75
119

244
80
71
9
78
71
7
86

140
22
15
7
37
30
7
81
5
2

62
11
9
2
20
16
4
31
1

17
3

32
1

1

3

7

21
1

1

1

73
7

1

1
3

14
3

61
8
6
2
17
14
3
36
1
2

1
1

40
34

22
8

11

7
13
5
8
53
4
8
2
3
36

1

2

2

1

2

25
2
11
4
8
75
46
15
2
29
5
24
10
2
12

12
15
32
27

26

11

3

Oonvayors and chntes
B elts, pulleys, gears, etc__ _ _
Load
Bottles on conveyors _______ _
Other parts__ _ ____________
_

392
47
89
19
237

86
25
18
11
32

28
2
11
5
10

Vehicles _ ______________________
M otor___ ___________________
Frame___________________
Load__
___________
Other p a i l s _____________
Hand trucks
_ ___________
Other vehicles
Frame___ _____________
Load__
____ __ ___
Other parts______ _______ _

472
326
112
117
97
50
96
37
25
34

20
15
12

121
77
33
5
39
6
38
19
3
16




Other

Unsafely
stored
or piled
tools,
mate­
rials,
etc.

3
2
3
3

3

1
2
9
4
2
2
5
1
4

37
27
18
1
8
1
9
8
1

18
15

1
4
1

3

1
6

3
17
2
3

1

3

6

12

177
10
36
2
129

4

24

4

8

169
114
12
90
12
24
31
4
18
9

45
40

9
3
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
2

4
27
2
3
22

1
1

2
7

16

40
5
5

7
65
45
1
44

3

10
10

3

7
3

1

9

142
10
20
2
110

2

99
10
24
1
64

47
26
10
5
11
10
11
3
4
4

2
4
2
2
2

158
118
53
22
43
16
24
11
4
9

T a b l e 13.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries9 1944, Classified by Agency and P art and by Unsafe Working Condition—Continued
Unsafe working condition
Defects of agencies
Agency and part

Total
number
of dis­ Improp­
erly
abling
injuries guarded
agencies

Total

Sharp- Slippery
edged

Hazardous arrangement or procedure

Other

Total

Unsafely
stored
or piled
tools,
mate­
rials,
etc.

Hand tools _

99

15

15

14

1

Chemicals

73

2

4

4

16

540
293
81
68
98

42
5
22
1
14

315
185
30
53
47

6
5
1

232
151
16
37
28

77
29
13
16
19

111
70
17
2
22

4
2

Miscellaneous agencies.......................
Bales, bags
Barrels, kegs
__
Botf-les . _
Cartons, boxes _
Ladders
_ _
Stairways _ _
Tanks, vats
Other................................................

2,034
50
688
292
481
68
118
52
285

43

127

82

23
4
1
15

550
1
33
265
97
5
65
29
55

16
43
52
3
3
10

2
2
7
1
41
22
7

341
1
15
220
38
4
21
4
38

763
39
518
2
110
6
18
11
59

Unclassified—insufficient data_____

149

12

24

11

2

11

19

1

Lack of
proper
lifting
equip­
ment

Lack of
clear
walk­
ways or
working
surfaces

1

_ __
Working surfaces .......
Floors
Platforms____________________
Roadways___________________
Other working surfaces

Unsafe
planning
or lay­
out of
traffic or
process
opera­
tions




Unclass­
ified—
insuffi­
cient
data

10

1

5

1

134
7
78

32
9

38
1

1

3

66

15

3

5

10,

1

40

1
1

71
32
12
12
15

69
58
4
1
6

32
10
7
1
14

441
28
398

12

11

9

1

17

1

2
1
4

2
1
3

2
12

3
3
4
2

144
4
33
2
51
2
12
8
32

2
2
6

2

658
10
135
23
270
34
29
9
148

1

9

1

1

92

2

10

Other

Other
oun
unsafe N safe working condi­
condi­
tion
tions

8

O

65
T a b l e 14.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Unsafe Working

Condition and Department
Brewhouse: num­
ber of disabling
injuries

Unsafe working condition

B o t t l i n g depart­
ment: number of
disabling injuries

Delivery:' number
of disabling in­
juries

Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number Percent1
T otal...................................................................

752

100.0

1,655

100.0

1,364

Improperly guarded agencies......................

47

8.8

314

25.9

57

5.9

Defects of agencies...........................................
Slippery......................................................
Sharp-edged...............................................
Other...........................................................

180
116
14
50

33.5
21.6
2.6
9.3

557
81
143
333

45.9
6.7
11.7
27.5

344
117
48
179

35.8
12.2
5.0
18.6

Hazardous arrangement or procedure.........
Unsafely stored or piled tools, mate­
rials, etc...............................................
Unsafe planning or lay-out of traffic
or process operations............................
Lack of proper lifting equipment or
lack of sufficient help in lifting oper­
ations.......................................................
Lack of clear walkways or working
surfaces....................................................
O ther..........................................................

304

56.6

333

27.5

555

57.9

33

6.1

27

2.2

116

12.1

14

2.6

39

3.2

17

1.8

172

32.0

16

1.3

310

32.3

18
67

3.4
12.5

44
207

3.6
17.2

15
97

1.6
10.1

Other unsafe working conditions.................

6

1.1

9

.7

4

.4

Nn unsafe working renditions

2

9

3

213

433

401

Unclassified—insufficient data__________

100.0

1 Percentage of cases in which an unsafe working condition was known to exist.

T able 15.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Unsafe A ct and
Extent of D isability
Number of disabling injuries
Total
Unsafe act
Number Percent i

Total..............................................
Operating without authority; failure to
secure or warn...............................
Operating or working at unsafe speed.....
Usingunsafe equipment, hands instead of
equipment, or equipment unsafely___
Using hands or feet instead of hand
tools.......................................
Gripping objects insecurely; taking
wrong hold of objects..................
Other........................................
Unsafe loading, placing, etc..................
Arranging or placing objects or m
ate­
rials unsafely............................
Other......... ...............................
Failure to use proper safety equipment,
or proper clothing............................
Goggles......................................
Other..... ..................................
Taking unsafe position or posture..........
Inattention to footing.... ...............
Liftingincorrectly, orliftingtoo heavy
loads.......................................
Running or jumping......................
Other........................................
Other unsafe acts...............................
No unsafe act...................................
Unclassified-insufficient data..............

Average
number
of days
lost per
tempo­
rary
Perma­ Tempo­
rary
nent par­
total dis­
tial dis­ total dis­ ability
ability
ability

Resulting in

Death

162

4,108

17

6
6

57
51

25
22

68

853

15

2

29

12

57
9
2

700
124
84

14
18
18

2.7
.3

1
1

77
7

20
6

56
33
23
1,625
962

2.0
1.2
.8
57.2
33.8

5
5
27
20

51
28
23
1,593
940

5
14
18
18

296
36
331
31
157
1,279

10.4
1.3
11.7
1.1

1
6
5
6
37

296
35
322
26
151
1,242

18
16
16
22
12
17

4,276

100.0

63
57

2.2
2.0

922

32.5

31

1.1

758
133
86

26.7
4.7
3.0

78
8

6

1

1

5
2

3

Percentage of cases in which an unsafe act was known to have been committed.




9

6 6

T able 16.—D isabling Injuries in 82 Breweries, 1944, Classified by Unsafe A ct and
Department
Brewhouse

Bottling department

Delivery

Number of disabling Number of disabling Number of disabling
injuries
injuries
injuries

Unsafe act

Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number P ercen t1

Total..............................................
Operating without authority; failure to
secure or warn................................
Operating or working at unsafe speed.....
Using unsafeequipment, hands instead of
equipment, or equipment unsafely......
Using hands or feet instead of hand
tools.......................................
Gripping objects insecurely; taking
wrong hold of objects..................
Other— ....................................
Unsafe loading, placing, etc..................
Arranging or placing objects or m
a­
terials unsafely..........................
Other........................................
Failure to useproper safetyequipment, or
proper clothing...............................
Goggles......................................
Other........................................
Taking unsafe position or posture..........
Inattention to footing....................
Liftingincorrectly, orlifting too heavy
loads......................................
Running or jumping........ ............
Other........................... ............
Other unsafe acts......... .....................
No unsafe act...................................
Unclassified—
insufficient data..............

752

100.0

13
6
168

1,655

100.0

1,364

100.0

2.5
1.1

16
17

1.6
1.7

25
29

2.6
3.0

331

34.7

32.1'

322

31.9

4

.8

25

2.5

146
18
19

27.9
3.4
3.6

251
46
24

24.8
4.6
2.4

292
39
37

30.6
4.1
3.9

18
1

3.4
.2

20
4

2.0
.4

34
3

3.6
.3

11
6
5
303
205

2.1
1.1
1.0
58.0
39.2

34
18
16
579
307

3.4
1.8
1.6
57.2
30.2

3
1
2
528
316

.3
.1
.2
55.3
33.1

36

6.9

62
3

11.9
.6

115
13
144
18
150
495

11.4
1.3
14.3
1.8

119
19
74
2
2
407

12.5
2.0
7.7
.2

229

» Percentage of cases in which an unsafe act was known to have been committed.

T able 17.—A ll Industrial Injuries Experienced by Workers Employed fo r the F ull Year
1944 in One Large Brewery, Classified by Department
Number of injuries
Department

Total............................................
Brewhouse..................................
Bottling department________
Delivery.....................................
Service and maintenance........
Other...........................................
U n c la s s if i e d—insufficient
data
._




N um ber
of em­
ployees

Total

Nondis­
abling

D is­
abling

Average
number
of non­
disabling
injuries
per dis­
abling
injury

Average
number
of injuries
per
employee

Average
number
of treat­
ments
per non­
disabling
injury

16,336

16,227

109

149

7.4

1.9

ST

910
17
180
416

1,582
9,405
162
1,010
2,178

1,565
9,350
160
998
2,155

17
55
2
12
23

92
170
80
83
94

4.4
10.3
9.5
5.6
5.2

1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9

329

1,999

1,999

6.1

2.0

2,210

67
T able IS.—A ll Industrial Injuries Experienced by Workers Employed fo r the Full Year
1944 in One Large Brewery, Classified by Department and P art of Body Injured i
Number of injuries

Department and part of body injured

Average
number
of non­
Total
disabling
Nondisinjuries
abling Disabling per dis­
abling
Number Percent1
injury

Average
number
of treat­
ments
per nondisabling
injury

16,336

100.0

16,227

109

149

1.9

Head...................................................................
E ye(s)..........................................................
Brain or skull.............................................
Other...........................................................
Trunk.................................................................
Chest Gongs), ribs, etc............................
Back.............................................................
Abdomen....................................................
Hip(s) or pelvis.........................................
Shoulder................................. - ..................
O th er_______ ____________________
Upper extremities............................................
Arm(s).........................................................
Hand(s) (including wrist)......................
Finger(s) and/or thum b(s).....................
Lower extrem ities...........................................
Leg(s)............................. - .........................
Foot or feet (including ankle)...............
Toe(s)..........................................................
General
__________________________
___
TTnA)ft!«ifiAH—insiiffiHAnt. data

1,776
1,097
200
479
333
36
163
16
25
77
26
13,402
950
2,456
9,996
762
496
210
56
8
55

10.9
6.8
1.2
2.9
2.0
.2
.8
.1
.2
.5
.2
82.4
5.8
15.1
61.5
4.7
3.1
1.3
.3
(*)

1,769
1,095
197
477
301
32
135
11
23
74
26
13,362
945
2,438
9,979
732
484
197
51
8
55

7
2
3
2
32
4
18
5
2
3

253
548
66
239
9
8
8
2
12
25

40
5
18
17
30
12
13
5

334
189
135
587
24
40
15
10

1.5
1.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
2.1
1.2
2.3
2.0
1.2
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.5
2.7
2.0
2.4
5.5
1.2

Ail departments: Total..................................

Bottling department: Total..........................

9,405

100.0

9,350

55

170

1.9

Head...................................................................
E ye(s).................................................... —
Brain or skull.............................................
Other...........................................................
Trunk.................................................................
Chest Gungs), ribs, etc_____________
Back............................................................
Abdomen....................................................
Hip(s) or pelvis.........................................
Shoulder..............................- ......................
Other _______ ___________________
Upper extremities...........................................
Arm (s)........................................................
Hand(s) (including w rist)......................
Finger(s) and/or thum b(s).....................
Lower extremities...........................................
Leg(s)..........................................................
Foot or feet (including ankle)...............
T oe(s)..........................................................
General _____________________________
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

879
468
113
298
166
15
83
10
11
33
14
7,929
601
1,362
5,966
399
272
100
27
6
26

9.4
5.0
1.2
3.2
1.8
.2
.9
.1
.1
.4
.1
84.4
6.4
14.5
63.5
4.3
2.9
1.1
.3
.1

876
467
112
297
151
15
75
6
9
32
14
7,903
598
1,349
5,956
388
266
97
25
6
26

3
1
1
1
15

292
467
112
297
10

8
4
2
1

9
2
5
32

26
3
13
10
11
6
3
2

304
199
104
596
35
44
32
13

1.5
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.0
1.2
2.6
1.6
1.2
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.0
1.9
6.7
1.3

All departments except bottling: T o ta l...

6,931

Head...................................................................
E ye(s)..........................................................
Brain or skull............................................
Other..........................................................Trunk.................................................................
Chest (lungs), ribs, etc............................
B ack............................................................
Abdomen....................................................
Hip(s) or pftlvis
__ .
Shoulder......................................................
Other________ ___________ ______ __
Upper extremities............................................
A rm (s)........................................................
Hand(s) (including wrist)......................
Finger(s) and/or thumb(s).....................
Lower extremities............................................
Leg(s)..........................................................
Foot or feet (including ankle)................
T oe(s)..........................................................
General................. ......................... ....................
Unclassified—insufficient data__________

897
629
87
181
167
21
70
6
14
44
12
5,473
349
1,094
4,030
363
224
110
29
2
29

100.0
13.0
9.1
1.3
2.6
2.4
.3
1.0
.1
.2
.6
.2
79.3
5.1
15.9
58.3
5.3
3.3
1.6
.4
(’)

i Percentage of cases for which part of body injured is known.
*Less than 0.05.




6,877
893
628
85
180
150
17
60
5
14
42
12
5,459
347
1,089
4,023
344
218
100
26
2
29

54
4
1
2
1
17
4
10
1

127
223
628
43
180
9
4
6
5

2

21

14
2
5
7
19
6
10
3

390
174
218
575
18
36
10
9

1.9
1.5
1.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.4
2.3
1.2
2.1
2.3
1.2
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.8
3.1
2.0
2.8
2.0
1.1

68
T able 19.— ll Industrial Injuries Experienced by Workers Employed fo r the Full Year
-A
1944 in One Large Brewery, Classified by Department and N ature of Injury
Number of injuries

Department and nature of injury

Total
Number

Percent1

A ll departments: Total.
W ithout infection...
W ith infection.........

16,336
16,252
84

100.0

Amputations............................... .
Bruises, contusions, concussions.
W ithout infection.....................
W ith infection.........................
Burns, sca ld s..................................
Cuts, lacerations, punctures____
W ithout infection...................
W ith infection...........................
Foreign bodies in eyes....................
Without infection.....................
W ith infection...........................
Fractures...........................................
Industrial diseases...........................
Strains, sprains................................
Other............. ...................................
Unclassified—insufficient d a t a ...

4
2,325
2,323
2
388
11,739
11,662
77
909
904
5
8
92
495
5
371

(2)
14.6
14.6
(2
)
2.4
73.5
73.0
.5
5.7
5.7
(2
)
.1
.6
3.1
(2
)

Bottling department: Total.
W ithout infection...........
With infection.................

9,405
9,367
38

100.0
99.6
.4

Amputations................................
Bruises, contusions, concussions
B um s, scalds...............................
Cuts, lacerations, punctures_
_
W ithout infection...............
W ith infection.......................
Foreign bodies in eyes................
W ithout infection.................
W ith infection.......................
Fractures........................................
Industrial diseases.......................
Strains, sprains.............................
O ther.................................. ..........
Unclassified—insufficient data.

2
1,168
178
7,184
7,148
36
376
374
2

(2)

A ll departments except bottling Total .
W ithout infection.............
W ith infection...................
Amputations.................................
Bruises, contusions, concussions
W ithout infection................
W ith infection.......................
B um s, scalds................................
Cuts, lacerations, punctures....
W ithout infection.................
W ith infection.......................
Foreign bodies in eyes................
W ithout infection.................
W ith infection.......................
Fractures........................................
Industrial diseases.......................
Strains, sprains.............................
Other..............................................
Unclassified—insufficient data.

99.5
.5

16,227
16,146
81

109
106
3
4
42
42

54
54

2.0

3
26
23
3

2,283
2,281
2
385
11,713
11,639
74
909
904
5
3
92
466
5
371

149
152
27

128
451
506
25

3.2

3.0
3.1

5

16

55
52
3

72
88
398
476
11

1,152
176
7,166
7,133
33
376
374
2
48
244
3
185

16

15

6,931
6,885
46

100.0
99.3
.7

6,877
6,831
46

54
54

127
127

2
1,157
1,155
2
210
4,555
4,514
41
533
530
3
7
44
235
2
186

(2
)
17.2
17.2
(2
)
3.1
67.5
66.9
.6
7.9
7.9
(2
)
.1
.7
3.5
(2
)

1

48
260
3
185

1,131
1,129
2
209
4,547
4,506
41
533
530
3
3
44
222
2
186

L9

1.9
4.0

1.8
1
.1
1
.1
2.0
4.2

170
179
12

2
16
2
18
15
3

9,350
9,315
35

1

29

12.7
1.9
78.0
77.6
.4
4.1
4.1
(2)
(2
)
.5
2.8
(2
)

1 Percentage of cases for which nature of injury is known.
2 Less than 0.05.




Average
number Average
of non­ number
disabling of treats
merits
Nondis­
injuries per nonabling Disabling per dis­
lisabling
abling
injury
injury

2.1

2.0

2.5
1.9
1.9
3.5

1.1
1.1

2.0

1

2
26
26

...........

1
8
8

209
568
563

4

1

13

17

44
43

’

2.6
2.2
1.9
1.9

2.1
2.1
1.5
3.8
1.9
1.8
4.7
1.1
1.1

2.0
3.0
3.6
2.1
1.0
1.6

69
T able 20.—A ll Industrial Injuries Experienced by Workers Employed fo r the Full
Year 1944 in One Large Brewery, Classified by Department and Number of Injuries
P er Employee

Department and specified number of
injuries

Number of employees who
had specified number of
injuries

Number

Total number of injuries
experienced

Cumu­
lative
number

Cumu­
lative
percent

imber

Cumu­
lative
number

Cumu­
lative
percent

Brewhouse: Total...........
26 injuries and over.
21 to 25 injuries.........
16 to 20 injuries........
11 to 15 injuries........
6 to 10 injuries..........
5 injuries....................
4 in juries_____ ____
3 injuries__________
2 injuries....................
1 injury.......................
N o injuries................

358
10
6
8
14
46
19
26
26
27
60
116

10
16
24
38
84
103
129
155
182
242
358

100.0
2.8
4.5
6.7
10.6
23.5
28.8
36.0
43.3
50.8
67.6
100.0

1,582
407
137
140
171
336
95
104
78
54
60
0

407
544
684
855
1,191
1,286
1,390
1,468
1,522
1,582
1,582

100.0
25.7
34.4
43.2
54.0
75.3
81.3
87.9
92.8
96.2
100.0
100.0

Bottling department: Total.
56 injuries and over........
51 to 55 injuries................
46 to 50 injuries................
41 to 45 injuries................
36 to 40 injuries................
31 to 35 injuries................
26 to 30 injuries................
21 to 25 injuries................
16 to 20 injuries................
11 to 15 injuries................
6 to 10 injuries..................
5 injuries............................
4 injuries............................
3 injuries............................
2 injuries........... ................
1 injury............. ...............
N o injuries........................

910
13
5
9
13
18
20
31
41
61
99
142
32
39
37
35
53
262

13
18
27
40
58
78
109
150
211
310
452
484
523
560
595
648
910

100.0
1.4
2.0
3.0
4.4
6.4
8.6
12.0
16.5
23.2
34.1
49.7
53.2
57.5
61.5
65.4
71.2
100.0

9,405
984
265
421
565
680
663
881
940
1,084
1,257
1,115
160
156
111
70
53
0

984
1,249
1,670
2,235
2,915
3,578
4,459
5,399
6,483
7,740
8,855
9,015
9,171
9,282
9,352
9,405
9,405

100.0
10.5
13.3
17.8
23.8
31.0
38.0
47.4
57.4
68.9
82.3
94.295.9
97.5
98.7
99.4
100.0
100.0

Other departments: T otal.
26 injuries and o v e r ....
21 to 25 injuries..............
16 to 20 injuries..............
11 to 15 injuries..............
6 to 10 injuries-----------5 injuries..........................
4 injuries..........................
3 injuries..........................
2 injuries..........................
1 in ju ry ..........................
N o injuries......................

942
39
19
34
72
114
42
56
67
79
116
304

39
58
92
164
278
320
376
443
522
638
942

100.0
4.1
6.2
9.8
17.4
29.5
34.0
39.9
47.0
55.4
67.7
100.0

5,349
1,611
424
607
915
883
210
224
201
158
116
0

1,611
2,035
2,642
3,557
4,440
4,650
4,874
5,075
5,233
5,349
5,349

100.0
30.1
38.0
49.4
66.5
83.0
86.9
91.1
94.9
97.8
100.0
100.0

T able 21.—A ll Industrial Injuries Experienced by Workers Em ployed fo r the Full
Year 1944 in the Bottling Department of One Large Brewery, Classified by Department
and Number of Injuries P er Employee

Experience to Jan. 1,1944

Total.......................................................................................
Less than 3 months....... ....................................................
3 and less than 6 months....................................................
6 and less than 9 months....................................................
9 and less than 12 months..................................................
1 and less than 2 years........................................................
2 years and over....................... ...........................................
Unclassified—insufficient data_______ ______ ______

Number of em­
ployees

Average
number
of injuries
per
Number Percent1 Number Percen t1 employee
910

sT

150
134
183
256
103
3

Percentage of cases in which experience of injured is known.




100.0

fu
i"

16.5
14.8
20.2
28.2
11.4

Number of injuries

9,405
836*
1,530
1,341
2,291
2,572
749
86

100.0

oT

16.4
14.4
24.6
27.6
8.0

10.3
10.3
10.2
10.0
12.5
10.0
7.3
28.7

Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics Reports on Industrial Haz­
ards and Working Conditions*
Injuries and accident causes in the longshore industry , 1942. Bulletin No. 764.
Price 10 cents.
A detailed analysis of the hazards involved in loading and unloading ships.
Includes sample safety codes and accident prevention suggestions.
Injuries and accident causes in the foundry industry , 1942. Bulletin No. 805.
Price 15 cents.
An analysis of foundry accidents and their causes, including accident prevention
suggestions. Presents comparisons based upon plant size, geographic location,
first-aid facilities, type of product, and departmental operations.
Injuries and accident causes in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry , 1943.
Bulletin No. 855. Price 15 cents.
A detailed analysis of the hazards and of the prevailing causes of accidents in
the meat industry, including comparisons based upon departmental, regional, and
plant-size factors. Also includes descriptions of typical accidents, accompanied
by suggestions for the prevention of similar occurrences.
Accident-record manual for industrial plants. Bulletin No. 772. Price 10 cents.
This manual contains an outline of simple and useful methods of accident re­
cording and of the use of such data for accident prevention. It also explains how
to compute and use injury-frequency and severity rates and how to determine the
important causes of accidents.
Work injuries in the United States during 1944• Bulletin No. 849. Price 10 cents.
A collection of basic industrial injury data for each of the major industries in
the United States. Presents national average injury-frequency and severity rates
for each industry. Individual establishments may evaluate their own injury
records by comparison with these data.
Impaired workers in industry. Bulletin No. 857. Price 5 cents.
Graphic comparisons of the performance of impaired workers and of their
unimpaired fellow workers in terms of output, efficiency, injury record, absentee­
ism, and stability on the job.
Studies of the effects of long working hours (Part 1). Bulletin No. 791. Price
10 cents.
Contains a summary of six case studies designed to measure the effect of changes
in working schedules (e. g., changes in the length of the workday or workweek)
upon efficiency of production, accidents, and absenteeism.
Studies of the effects of long working hours (Part 2). Bulletin No. 791-A. Price
10 cents.
This is a continuation of Bulletin No. 791, containing summaries of six addi­
tional case studies.
♦For sale by Superintendent of Documents at prices indicated. How to order publications: Address your
order to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D . O., with re­
mittance in check or money order. Currency is sent at sender’s risk. Postage stamps not acceptable.




(70)

v. t . eevKKRHCNT pRiHTiae eppieit i m «