November 2, 2012
20.4.234
Background
The employee purchased a pair of boots for workplace use and grieved the Department's refusal to reimburse the amount spent in excess of the annual footwear allowance as provided per the Department's Guidelines 351-1.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative explained that the grievor is required to wear appropriate protective boots in the workplace. The grievor relies both on the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Directive's provision on Protective Footwear and the Uniforms Directive in seeking reimbursement for the footwear purchase.
The OHS Directive requires the Employer to provide protective footwear free of charge and that in the event that a "department wishes to have employees purchase protective footwear and be reimbursed, the department shall establish, in consultation with either the workplace committee, health and safety representatives or the policy committee (…) a price range appropriate to the type of protective footwear required." No such consultation took place and a figure has not been established. Consequently, the Employer must reimburse the grievor the full amount claimed.
With respect to the Uniforms Directive, the Bargaining Agent representative indicated that although the grievor is in receipt of an annual footwear allowance of $100, negotiated by the parties in 2004, this does not pertain to protective footwear nor is it sufficient to meet the needs of employees.
Employees who, in addition to their regular duties, work on or near construction sites are reimbursed the full cost of protective footwear. It was indicated that the requirement for protective footwear is the same for all employees.
The Bargaining Agent representative therefore submitted that the grievor is entitled to be reimbursed the full cost of the protective boots, as per the OHS and Uniforms Directives.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative made a distinction between uniform footwear and protective footwear. A $100 footwear allowance is automatically provided to employees annually to cover the cost of footwear, per Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) "Guideline 351-1 CSC Uniforms, Dress Code, and Scale of Issue". In the event that employees are required to work on or near construction sites, they are reimbursed the cost of protective footwear if a need is demonstrated. It was noted that the grievor does not perform any duties that would have required the purchase of boots over and above those required as part of the grievor's uniform. With this in mind, there was no need for protective footwear and the $100 footwear allowance was appropriate.
Neither the grievor nor the Bargaining Agent has approached the Employer to discuss the appropriateness of the footwear allowance.
Furthermore, it was noted that the eventual coming into force of Part 12 of the OHS Directive, Personal and Protective Equipment and Clothing and the development of CSC "Guideline 254-1 Employee Clothing and Entitlements" were discussed during a meeting of the CSC National Joint Occupational Health and Safety Policy Committee held on April 4, 2006. During this meeting, a representative of the Bargaining Agent indicated that the Guideline would not pertain to the footwear allowance as it is governed by a separate policy.
The Departmental representative also expressed concern regarding the possible implications of allowing the grievance, believing that doing so would essentially nullify an agreement made at the national level between the Department and the Bargaining Agent.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Occupational Health and Safety Directive. It was noted that neither side provided evidence to the Committee to indicate that the Department had properly applied or met the requirements of sections 12.11.1 and 12.11.2 of the Directive. Furthermore, it is the Employer's responsibility to set a dollar value in consultation with the appropriate bodies as outlined in section 12.11.2. As such, the grievance was upheld.
The Executive Committee also noted that during its deliberations, the Committee indicated that no representations had been made by the Bargaining Agent on behalf of the employee at the second level of the NJC grievance process. As a result, the Committee members felt that there was a lost opportunity for the parties to attempt to resolve this grievance prior to a formal hearing at NJC level.