Committees and Representatives

The employee grieved the fact that the employer conducted a hazardous occurrence investigation without the involvement of the OSH Committee as provided under their terms of reference and Section 17.5 of the NJC Directive 2-20 on OSH Committees and Representatives.

The grievor requested that the hazardous occurrence be investigated as per NJC Directive 2-20 and that managers be advised in writing of the OSH Committee's right to participate in such an investigation.

During a coffee-break at the cafeteria, an employee spilled coffee and burned her hand. Both OSH Committee representatives (Management and Union) were asked to investigate this incident by the co-chairs of this Committee.

Management's representative called the employee over the phone to discuss the events surrounding this incident but did not advise the Union representative of his action and did not seek his participation.

A few days after the incident, as he had not yet met with either the injured employee nor Management's representative to review the case the Union representative inquired about the status of this incident with the OSH Committee management co-chair. It was at that time that he was made aware that the matter had already been taken care of.

The Bargaining Agent representative argued that the facts surrounding this incident are not in dispute. The Employer admits that an investigation took place without the involvement of the Committee.

Nevertheless, the Employer still did not want the Committee to do an investigation when it came to their (the Committee) attention that the management side chair had done the investigation. She also stated that the redress requested was that the Committee investigate the occurrence and that was denied. Admitting having made an error does not correct it. The Employer had a chance to take immediate action and have the Committee investigate the occurrence.

The Department representative stated that management agrees that an employee representative from the OSH Committee should have participated in the hazardous occurrence investigation that was conducted by an employer representative. He also stated that management has since reminded its representative of such an obligation.

The representative contended that because of the nature of the events that were investigated by the employer representative, management is of the opinion that it is not necessary to re-open an investigation in this case as it would not yield any new information. It showed that the injured employee did not need nor seek medical treatment and had not lost any "work time". In light of the foregoing, the representative asked that the grievance be partially allowed as it was at the first and second levels of the grievance process.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Occupational Safety and Health Committee report which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive at the time of the incident and therefore recommended that the grievance be allowed. The Committee is satisfied however, that management has subsequently taken steps to apply appropriate corrective action. Therefore, while the Committee recommended that the grievance be allowed, no further action is required in relation to the incident in question other than to remind all managers of the importance of having a member of the Safety and Health Committee present during all investigations.

The grievance was upheld.