September 27, 2023
20.4.255
Background
The grievor works in City A located in Province R. In the course of their work with chemical products, tools, machinery and on work sites, the grievor alleges they have experienced wear and damage to their personal clothing, as well as possible contact with asbestos, thereby putting their family at risk should the asbestos fibers be carried home on their clothing. The grievor also claims that the provision of a uniform would allow for better identification and representation to their clients while on work sites. The Department claims that the grievor has been provided with Employer-supplied protective clothing, such as a smock and overcoat, to prevent damage to their personal clothing, as well as vacuum tools to remove any asbestos fibers that may cling to clothing. Following an email from management indicating that they would not be purchasing any clothing for their employees, the grievance was submitted.
Grievance
The grievor is grieving the lack of work clothing provided by their Department in order to provide protection from the hazards, both physical and chemical, of their job.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent (BA) representative is of the opinion that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Directive. The BA representative explained that over the years, the grievor has damaged several items of personal clothing in the course of their work duties, which included dangerous tasks and/or tasks requiring the use of dangerous products, and lacked the protective clothing for harsh weather conditions, and hazardous products and tools. The grievor has tried to obtain protective clothing from the Department to no avail.
The BA representative explained that the only protective clothing provided by the Department consisted of a non-insulated overcoat and coveralls, which the grievor found inadequate as they did not provide sufficient protection and were not suited to the work of the grievor. It was not until September 2021 that the Department distributed protective clothing to the unit's employees, however, the clothing issued to the grievor’s group was still not suitable for their tasks.
The BA representative explained that the Department had created a clothing matrix based on the risks associated with climatic conditions, corrosive products, and hazardous waste posing a risk of infection, and recommended specific protective clothing by trade. In 2021 said clothing was distributed to employees. The BA representative argued that although the matrix was produced after the grievance was filed, it demonstrates the necessity for providing protective clothing to trade employees, including the grievor’s group. Yet according to the matrix, the grievor’s group was not identified as requiring protective trousers or shirts. The BA representative argued however that they regularly work with chemical or corrosive products requiring protection, and this is further confirmed by the safety data sheets for the products used by the trade.
The BA representative drew the Committee’s attention to the second level grievance reply, wherein the Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) did not deny that the grievor had to use chemical or corrosive products, or that they were exposed to contaminants. The BA representative argued that this demonstrates that the Department has limited itself to what is outlined in the matrix, without considering the evidence demonstrating the need for additional protective clothing. Furthermore, the reply states that in the event that the grievor should contaminate their personal clothing despite the protection offered by the clothing provided by the Department, they are encouraged to immediately address their specific needs with their immediate supervisor. The BA representative argued that therefore it is clear that the Department recognizes that it is possible for the grievor’s personal clothing to be damaged, and that implies that compensation is possible in such cases.
The BA representative noted paragraph 13.2.1(c) of the OHS Directive, which states that it is the Department’s responsibility to provide protective clothing to prevent significant or permanent damage to the employee's skin, hair or personal clothing, as well as paragraph 13.3.1(b), that states that insulated clothing shall be provided for work in hazardous weather conditions when there is risk of damaging or soiling the employee's personal insulated clothing. The representative also noted that the OHS Directive goes on to list several chemical health hazard sources, which the grievor comes into contact with as they carry out their duties. The representative also referred the Committee to the NJC decision 20.4.218, regarding protective clothing, which was upheld.
In conclusion, the BA representative reiterated that an employee should not be required to bear the cost of damage to personal clothing as the Directive specifically provides the necessary protective clothing. Therefore, the BA representative recommended the grievance be upheld, and the corrective measures be awarded.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative is of the opinion that the Department has treated the grievor within the intent of the Uniforms Directive and the OHS. The representative argued that protective clothing was made available to the grievor so that they could protect their personal clothing and perform their duties safely, however, the grievor did not use this protective clothing which led to wear and tear of their personal clothing. For these reasons, the Department believes the grievance should be denied.
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor had requested that the Department provide them with all their work clothing, including a winter coat, an overcoat, five shirts, and five pairs of work trousers, so they would no longer have to wear their personal clothing while carrying out their duties. The ER representative noted, however, that this is not in line with the NJC OHS Directive. Regarding the provision of a winter coat, it does not meet the conditions outlined in section 12.3, Insulated Clothing, as the grievor’s work location does not have dangerous or extreme weather conditions. The Departmental representative also noted that the Department provides work coveralls for employees to wear over their winter coats to protect them from damage and soiling. In the email exchange of November 15, 2019, however, the grievor indicated that they wear the overcoat only in the fall and spring, as it was orange and therefore highly visible, however, they did not wear it in winter because it was not insulated; it was explained to the grievor by their supervisor that the orange overcoat is meant to be worn over their personal insulated winter coat. The grievor further indicated that they did not want to wear their coveralls all day long; their supervisor reminded them that the Department also provides lab coats as an alternative to coveralls for indoor work. The Departmental representative also noted the grievor’s concern about coming into contact with asbestos while carrying out their work and explained that the Department provides appropriate clothing for this purpose, including disposable clothing, which must be used by the grievor.
The Departmental representative explained that the grievor asked that they be provided with a uniform so that they could be easily identified as an employee of the Department when they moved around the various work areas. The Departmental representative noted, however, that personnel authorized to work in the various work areas have a personal identification/security card issued by the Department with their photo and level of access, and therefore uniforms are not a required identifier for access to work areas. The Departmental representative outlined the conditions which need to be met for uniforms to be issued and explained that the grievor’s position did not meet the conditions listed.
Lastly, the grievor requested compensation for personal clothing damaged in the performance of their duties. The Departmental representative explained that in such situations, an employee is to complete the required form for compensation for loss of or damage to personal effects, yet the grievor has filed no such form. Moreover, in the second level grievance response, the DLO invited the grievor to contact their supervisor if they had contaminated their personal clothing despite the protection offered by the clothing provided by the Department. However, the grievor stated that they did not use the protective clothing offered by the Department. Therefore, the Department believes that even if the grievor were to submit a claim, they should not be reimbursed for their personal clothing since they damaged it while not using the protective clothing available.
Despite the recommendation made above, the Departmental representative noted that the Department has since created a clothing matrix in 2020, which outlines the protective clothing for each of the various trade groups, including the grievor’s. While the Department is not required to provide personal work clothing to employees, as it already provides all the necessary safeguards, management can still decide to do so, which is what the work unit has chosen to do over the years. The Departmental representative noted that a decision could be made in the future by management to stop providing personal clothing to each worker and revert to only the protections offered in 2019, and the Department would still be respecting the intent of the NJC Directives.
In conclusion, the Departmental representative reiterated that the Department has treated the grievor within the intent of the NJC directives and requested that the Committee deny the grievance and the corrective measures requested.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Committee which concluded the grievor was treated within the intent of the Occupational Health and Safety Directive and the Uniforms Directive. The Executive Committee accepted the report. As such, the Executive Committee denied the grievance.