August 1, 1998
20.4.193
The employee grieved the fact that management has refused to supply him with prescription safety glasses.
The Bargaining Agent explained to the committee that the Department's General Safety Standards, Annex D, Chapter 14, paragraph 7 are in violation of the NJC agreement because it requires the employee's supervisor to identify the need and to submit a recommendation to the appropriate Occupational Safety and Health Workplace Committee. It was stated that in this instance, the supervisor refused to support the employee's request and for that reason the committee did not have the opportunity to consider the request. The Department has added a step to the regulations which prevents employees from making their request directly to the committee which is in conflict with the NJC directive.
The Bargaining Agent representative also made reference to parts of the grievor's job description. The physical demands section demonstrated the need for safety glasses on a daily basis, noting the frequent use of power tools often in confined spaces and the frequent eye focus and strain experienced when working to very fine tolerances. The job description also speaks of close tolerances and the operation of various shop machinery which requires the mandatory use of safety eye wear.
The committee was asked to consider the 1st level grievance reply. He stated that while it conflicted with the frequency stated in the work description, it did acknowledge the requirement for safety eye wear. In addition, the grievor worked in a very active and complex industrial environment, that he did do precision work using hand tools and machinery in addition to performing this work under adverse conditions such as awkward positions or confined spaces sometimes using temporary lighting. He summarized by saying that all these situations are both unsafe and impractical for the grievor to be wearing his personal prescription eye wear.
The Departmental representative stated that the grievor's immediate supervisor has confirmed that the grievor does not normally work with machinery such as lathes, band saws or drill presses. He added that the few times that he does use these tools, he is provided goggles or a face shield, which protect against flying particles. This portion of the work is not one of precision, therefore the slight distortion which could be caused by the face shield or goggles should have no impact on the safety of the individual or the quality of the work performed.
It was stated that a portion of the grievor's work is one of precision, which he performs by using measuring tool, such as venires, and micrometers. The employer agrees that there exists considerable mental concentration and eye strain for which prescription eye glasses may be required by the grievor to perform the precision duties, however, they do not have to be safety prescription eye glasses as no safety feature is required for these duties. As for items requiring manufacturing or refinishing to fine tolerances, this is done in the Machine shop by qualified Machinists and is not a task which is performed by the grievor.
The Departmental representative also added that since the grievor is not required to wear protective equipment when performing fine adjustments, and that the face shields or goggles are more than adequate when using rotating tools, the Department fails to understand the employee's rationale for the demand of prescription safety lenses.
Management's refusal to comply to the grievor's request for prescription safety glasses was based on the fact that the nature of the work performed by the grievor does not preclude him from using a face shield or goggles over his own prescription glasses, and therefore does not require that he wear prescription safety glasses. Management does not believe that distortion is a factor, since the face shield and goggles are not used for precision work, nor do they have to be removed and replaced continuously throughout the day.
Finally, the representative explained that the procedure in order to allocate prescription safety glasses requires that individuals who are considered to need them, be identified by the supervisor who will in turn submit a recommendation to the appropriate JOSH Committee. He stated that in this case the supervisor, who was a JOSH Committee member, did not believe the grievor required prescription safety glasses and therefore did not identify him as such, and did not submit a recommendation to the JOSH Committee.
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. The Committee agreed that the policy was not intended to be interpreted so tightly on the matter of distortion as to preclude an employee from being provided with prescription safety lenses. However, the requirement for safety glasses must be clearly apparent on the basis of the work description.
The grievance was upheld.