Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: GILSTER-MARY LEE CORPORATION

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of GILSTER-MARY LEE CORPORATION in 10 INDUSTRIAL DR, STEELEVILLE, IL 62288 (NAICS 311823). OSHA activity number 343293999.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Gilster-Mary LEE Corporation — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Gilster-Mary LEE Corporation is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
10 INDUSTRIAL DR
City
STEELEVILLE
State
IL
ZIP
62288
Mailing
1037 STATE STREET, CHESTER, IL 62223
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Complete (A)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
311823
Employees
388
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.37 B02

Serious Gravity 10 10 instances 388 exposed
Issued
Jan 4, 2019
Penalty
Initial $12,934 · Current $9,054 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.37(b)(2): Each exit was not clearly visible and marked by a sign reading "Exit":    On or about July 11th, 2018, the employer did not ensure that exit doors throughout the facility, to include but not limited to the Flour, Coating, and Regrind areas, were marked with a sign reading "Exit."
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $9054
  • — Z (S) $12934

1910.37 B04

Serious Gravity 10 10 instances 388 exposed
Issued
Jan 4, 2019
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.37(b)(4): Signs were not posted along the exit access indicating the direction of travel to the nearest exit and exit discharge when the direction of travel to the exit or exit discharge was not immediately apparent:  On or about July 11th, 2018, the employer did not ensure that areas of the facility that were lacking "Exit" signs had other signage available to indicate the direction of travel to exit doors or routes.  Such areas include, but are not limited to, the Sugar, Flour, and Coating rooms.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.219 C04 I

Other-than-serious 1 instance 8 exposed
Issued
Jan 4, 2019
Penalty
Initial $10,163 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.219(c)(4)(i): Unguarded projecting shaft end(s) did not present a smooth edge and end and projected more than one half the diameter of the shaft:    On or about July 11th, 2018, the employer did not ensure that a rotating shaft on the Regrind machine, approximately 1.75 inches across in diameter and located to the right of the machine control panel, was guarded against employee exposure when it projected approximately 2.5 inches from the machine.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $10163

1910.242 B

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Jan 4, 2019
Penalty
Initial $10,163 · Current $7,114 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 P.S.I.:    On or about July 11th, 2018, the employer did not ensure that a compressed air hose in the Dog Food Compactor Room, used to clean & remove dusts generated from the compacting process, was reduced to a pressure less than 30 P.S.I.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $7114
  • — Z (S) $10163

1910.307 C

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
Jan 4, 2019
Penalty
Initial $12,934 · Current $9,054 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.307(c): Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of equipment in hazardous (classified) locations were not intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location:    On or about July 11th, 2018, the employer did not ensure that an electrical outlet in the Sugar Room, into which a scale was plugged into at a bag filling line, was approved for a Class II environment in which combustible dusts are present on a regular basis.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $9054
  • — Z (S) $12934

View Gilster-Mary LEE Corporation's full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 343293999.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.