Uniforms Directive - Clothing Allowance

The employees filed grievances against the employer's decision to require them to wear civilian clothing (personal clothing) for undercover operations. The grievors requested that the employer make arrangements to provide them with personal clothing pursuant to the Uniforms Directive, clause 12.2, and the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive, clause 3.2, or that the employer immediately pay an allowance or take any other measure deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

As part of their duties, the grievors must wear a uniform, provided and paid for by the employer, which identifies them as Officers. However, for a small portion of the year, the grievors (Grievor 1 - 2% of time in 2002; Grievor 2 - 12% of time in 2002) are required by their employer to take part in undercover operations and while doing so are required to wear plain clothes (personal clothing) so that they are not identified. As part of these undercover operations, the grievors have to crawl on the ground, hide in the bushes or in abandoned boats, buildings etc., their clothes, in addition to having to be large enough to hide bullet-proof vest, mace, handcuffs, flashlights, etc., often get dirty and torn. It is on those occasions when they have to work in plain clothes that the grievors requested to be compensated and/or be provided with plain clothing as they maintain they should not be out of pocket for those expenses.

The Bargaining Agent representative started out by explaining the type of work the grievors do and provided detailed information on the conditions they work under when participating in undercover operations. On numerous occasions, she referred to the job description, highlighting such aspects as physical effort, work conditions, and more particularly, work environment, and risks to health.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the issue of an allowance for civilian clothing (personal clothing) was addressed by the departmental National Clothing Committee. She referred to the Summary of Record of a meeting held on April 21-22, 1999 whereby, on the issue of clothing allowance, the committee recommended that a clothing allowance be established for the Special Investigation Officers in the regions. At another meeting of the Committee, October 4-6, 1999, it was recorded that a "Mr. ... checked with the Treasury Board and was told that there is no problem concerning the clothing allowance for Officers wearing civilian clothing since RCMP members receive a clothing allowance for similar duties. The request must be made in the form of a submission to the TB signed by the Deputy Minister".

The Bargaining Agent representative mentioned that if the Department had agreed to provide the Special Investigation Officers, who work undercover on a full-time basis, with a clothing allowance, why not give the same allowance to this type of Officers, even though the undercover operations constitute a small portion of their duties. She referred to RCMP Officers who receive a clothing allowance for civilian clothes.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the employer had violated section 1.1 of the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive as it failed to ensure that each employee who is exposed to hazards while on undercover operations wear or use equipment as prescribed by this directive.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the Department has violated section 1.3 of the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive as it failed to consult OSH committees in order to determine requirements for personal protective equipment for undercover operations.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the Department also violated section 3.1 of the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive as it did not provide the grievors with appropriate protective clothing and/or failed to pay them an allowance.

It was submitted that the employer also violated the special consideration provisions contained in section 3.2 of the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the directive was clear and that the employer should provide protective clothing free of charge and replace it when no longer serviceable. The department has not done so and it is therefore maintained that provisions of section 3.3 of the Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive have been breached.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the first level reply by the employer stipulated that undercover operations did not meet the conditions set out in section 3.2 of the Directive. She submitted that that decision was erroneous as the employer did not provide the basis for such a conclusion. It was also submitted that the employer did not observe the conditions of Appendix A of the Directive – Employment Hazards, which sets out that if these hazards are present, the employee may require protective equipment. She gave examples of hazards this type of Officers are exposed to: animals, heavy boxes, crates and packages, confined spaces, mechanical transmission equipment, scrap, debris and waste materials, dusts, gases, vapors, natural and industrial extremes of temperatures and pressure, insects, molds, bacteria, etc. She referred to the grievors' job description that clearly sets out the hazards to which the grievors are exposed.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that hazards are present and the employer is aware of them as they appear in the job description. However the employer chose to ignore the existence of these hazards as it refused to provide civilian clothing and/or an allowance to ensure safety and protection of the employee. In addition, the Bargaining Agent Representative indicated that the employer knows that these hazards are an integral part of special investigations/undercover surveillances as it had agreed to pay an allowance to those officers who perform investigations on a full-time basis. She submitted that the employer makes a distinction between the Special Investigation Officers and this type of Officers even though the two groups are subject to the same conditions. The employer has consistently refused to provide civilian clothing, has failed to consult OSH committees as prescribed by the Directive and denied the grievances at each level of the grievance process.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the employer violated the purpose and scope of the Uniforms Directive. The employer's actions are contrary to the requirements of the Protective Equipment and Clothing Directive as prescribed by the Uniforms Directive. The Bargaining Agent Representative also indicated that the Department did not review in a fair and appropriate fashion its clothing policies to ensure that they comply with the Directive; the Department's actions and decisions are contrary to the purpose and scope of the Directive as its practices do not protect the grievors nor are they economical, equitable or consistent with those throughout the Public Service or those for similar occupations outside the Public Service (ex. RCMP, Sûreté du Québec, Correctional Service).

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the actions of the Department, or lack thereof, violated provisions under section 1.3 of the Uniforms Directive as the Department did not ensure that consultations take place, including the participation of OSH committees, on the issue of civilian clothing for this type of Officers during undercover operations.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the Department breached section 2 of the Uniforms Directive as it failed to consult with employee representatives at all levels. In addition, she indicated that, as there are inherent hazards to undercover operations, the clothes worn by the grievors should be protective. The Department had an obligation to obtain the assistance of workplace OSH committees or representatives to determine personal protective equipment and clothing requirements. She submitted that the Department failed to fulfil that obligation.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that although the employer had observed these provisions under section 3.1 of the Uniforms Directive with respect to Special Investigations Officers, who perform similar duties and in similar conditions, it has failed to do so for this type of Officers.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that given the safety and health issues related to the grievors' situation, the employer had the obligation to pay an allowance or to provide the required clothing; these are special circumstances (section 12.2). It was also recognized that the requested personal clothing items are not fundamental to the identification, as these are undercover operations; however, the clothes are necessary to improve general appearance and comfort for the grievors.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that, in the case of the Special Investigation Officers, approval was obtained before paying an allowance. She submitted that, pursuant to section 13 of the Uniforms Directive, the Department could obtain a clothing allowance for the grievors when they have to wear civilian clothing during undercover operations.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the employer has implicitly acknowledged the hazards associated with the grievors' work as it provides for individual protective equipment such as footwear, hats, sunglasses, life jackets, etc. She indicated that the employer is the one who is requiring the grievors to wear civilian clothing.

The Bargaining Agent concluded the presentation by submitting that it was clear that the grievors had not been treated within the intent of the two directives. Therefore, she requested that the grievances be allowed and the requested corrective actions granted.

The Departmental representative indicated that the Uniforms Directive applies to the Department and that the Directive is clear: according to the purpose and scope, the directive is intended to assist departments in ensuring that their practices provide adequate protection and identification for employees. The Departmental representative submitted that under Responsibilities the Directive clearly establishes that uniforms and other items of identification shall be issued free of charge. She indicated that when the duties performed by an employee require this employee to be identified to provide a sign of vested authority, the uniform is necessary to provide an appropriate identification of the employee's function. The Departmental representative indicated that section 7.7 of the Uniforms Directive sets out the employee's obligation to maintain his/her uniform in a clean, pressed and repaired condition.

The Departmental representative submitted that section 12 of the Uniforms Directive specifically deals with personal clothing. The Directive provides that departments may, in special circumstances, pay for personal clothing or make arrangements for employees to purchase reasonable amounts of personal clothing; however, it does not impose an obligation to pay for personal clothing all the time. Furthermore, Section 13.3 states that "No allowances shall be paid for personal clothing."

The Departmental representative submitted that in order to have a reimbursement policy for personal clothing, the department must make submissions to Treasury Board. It was indicated that such a submission is being developed with respect to Officers who work in the Special Investigation Unit on a full-time basis. Technically, the allowance for personal clothing would be equal to the price of a uniform. The representative indicated that, in this case, the grievors are a certain type of Officers on a full-time basis and wear a uniform paid for by the Department. However, occasionally, they are called upon to take part in undercover operations, approximately 60 days per year. In order to preserve the secret nature of these operations, the grievors must wear casual clothing that is appropriate in the circumstances; wearing civilian clothing is not a full-time requirement.

The Departmental representative submitted that because the grievors only have to wear personal clothing occasionally to perform their duties, the Department considered that the intent of the Directive does not impose an obligation on the Department to pay a clothing allowance.

It was also submitted that, generally, public service employees do not receive an allowance for their clothes.

In conclusion, the Departmental representative indicated that the intent of the Uniforms Directive was observed.

The Executive Committee considered the Occupational Safety and Health Committee's report and could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Directives. Therefore it reached an impasse.