Protective eyewear

The grievor had not been provided with UV protective eyewear (sunglasses) in accordance with the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive, section 8.4; nor receive directions on how to obtain sunglasses. The grievor requested that the claim (for sunglasses) be paid in full, as submitted, including credit card interest from October 21, 1999 to the date the grievance is settled at a rate of 9.25%.

In September 1999 the grievor sent an e-mail to her superintendents requesting a pair of protective non-prescription sunglasses which went unanswered. Early in October 1999, the grievor purchased a pair of sunglasses with her credit card. On October 21, 1999, the grievor submitted an expense claim form requesting reimbursement in the amount of $189.23 to the incumbent supervisor.

In November, management consulted with the regional Occupational Health and Safety Committee on the matter, in order to determine the requirement for personal protective equipment. The grievor was informed in a memo from management dated May 24, 2000 that no dollar value had been identified in the Directive. However, based on past experience management had agreed to reimburse the grievor a maximum of $35.00. On June 30, 2000, the grievor filed the subject grievance.

The Bargaining Agent representative explained to the Committee that the grievor was unaware of the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive or the Occupational Safety, Health and Loss Control Manual. S was using her own personal sunglasses to perform her duties. The representative maintained that management had an obligation to provide her with protective sunglasses.

The representative turned the Committee's attention to subsection 8.1 a) of the PPE & CD, which states: "…management shall provide eye protection that meets the requirements of CAN/CSA Z94.3-92, Industrial Eye and Face Protectors…".

The representative added that subsection 8.4 a) also states: "…management shall provide sunglasses that meet ANSE Z87.1-89 where eye protection against ultraviolet radiation associated with sunlight is required in accordance with subsection 1.1. and 1.3."

The Bargaining Agent representative added that annex ‘A' to the PPE & CD provides a representative listing of occupational safety and health hazards when an employee may require the protection provided by personal protective equipment. He submitted that in carrying out her daily duties, the grievor is exposed to many of the occupational safety and health hazards listed in that appendix, including: caustics, liquids, gases, dusts, fumes, mists, vapours, bacteria, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. She is also exposed to ultraviolet radiation associated with sunlight when outside.

It was stated that management knew the grievor required protective sunglasses but never provided her with a pair. Instead, management directed research be done in order to establish a dollar limit for reimbursements of such expenses, consulted with the OSH Committee and discussed the matter at union-management consultation committees (UMCC). He added that almost two years after the grievor purchased the protective sunglasses, management has not yet finished its research.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that it is reasonable for employees to purchase the necessary equipment to ensure their own health and safety, when management for whatever reason is incapable of providing personal protective equipment. The representative submitted that the PPE & CD does not foresee a dollar limit for such expenses, nor is there a regional policy on maximum reimbursements. Consequently, there is nothing to bind or prevent management from providing the grievor with full reimbursement.

In closing, the representative stated that the fact the grievor purchased her own sunglasses does not excuse management from meeting its obligations under the Directive – as it must still provide the required equipment. By reimbursing the grievor for expenses incurred for the purchase of personal protective equipment, management is in fact doing so.

He submitted the grievor had made reasonable efforts to purchase quality sunglasses at a reasonable price. She consulted various other employees and inquired about shape, UV characteristics, clarity and prices. The requested corrective action should therefore be granted.

The Departmental representative stated the grievor claimed that she had requested sunglasses and was advised and authorized by management to purchase them herself and that she would be reimbursed. He added the grievor claims to not have been given assistance on the specifications of the sunglasses to purchase or on the price she should pay.

The representative stated that when the employee's claim was received, management was not able to determine that a manager had authorized the purchase and the grievor was not able to identify which manager had given the authority. The grievor did not supply a receipt and information to show that the sunglasses purchased met the applicable standard in the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive.

Management did raise the matter with the local Occupational Safety and Health Committee, which requested advice from the national health and safety officer. The response received was that no dollar value had been identified in the Directive or in the policy but that, if management wished to offer reimbursement, past experience suggested that no more than approximately $35 be spent per employee, per year.

An informal study was conducted within the Department on the amounts being spent by management on sunglasses for employees. The amounts spent for sunglasses, which meet the prescribed requirements varied from $2.70 to $110 per pair depending on occupation and location. Moreover, it is the Department's opinion that the grievor was misguided in her choice of sunglasses at the outlet where she purchased them – as they probably provide for more than simple UV protection.

In closing the Departmental representative stated that in managements view the grievor was treated within the intent of the PPE & CD. The Department had accepted that there is a need for her to wear sunglasses approximately 20% of the time and offered to reimburse the grievor for $35.00. Consequently, the grievance should be denied.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Occupational Safety and Health Committee report which concluded that in this instance, the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Directive given that, she should have been provided with eye protection. The Committee therefore agreed the grievor must be reimbursed the sum of $189.23. The grievance was therefore upheld to that extent. With regard to the issue of credit card interest, the Committee agreed that this was outside its purview. The Employer Side indicated that it would follow up with the department on the issue of interest.

The Executive Committee also agreed that the Department should revisit its Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing program with the full participation of the appropriate Occupational Safety and Health Committee, in order to ensure its proper implementation and application in the workplace.

The grievance was upheld to the extent noted.