July 8, 2005
20.4.217
The grievor's work requires that he spend a good deal of time on the shop floor with tradesmen and others who have been provided prescription safety glasses. The grievor believes he should also be entitled to protective eyewear rather than the currently provided goggles or face shield, worn over prescription glasses, which are problematic for the grievor when he is also called upon to navigate constricted/hazardous spaces as they cause distortion.
The Bargaining Agent representative noted that on or about year 2000, the planning cells and engineering components of the organization began to be embedded in the shop environment, and the focus for planners was changing. Their responsibilities now included spending far more time in the shops, and on board ships and submarines to more accurately estimate job packages.
The JOSH&E Committee minutes which deny the grievor's need for prescription safety glasses, as outlined in the first and second level grievance responses by the department, do not take this change into account. The Bargaining Agent representative in fact produced emails from two members of that committee stating that "...the picture is changed quite drastically..." and that "...the JOSH&E Committee #4 needs to revisit this issue....". A JOSH&E Committee for shop floor employees recommended the Personal Protective Eyewear (PPE) for the grievor.
The Bargaining Agent representative requested that the Committee consider NJC Bulletin #196 – Vision Care – Prescription Safety Glasses, dated August 1, 1998. The decision, which explains that the grievor in that case was not treated within the intent of the directive, concludes by stating 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 the prescription safety lenses. However, the requirement for safety glasses must be clearly apparent on the basis of the work description."
Several points within the grievor's job description were indicated to support the requirement, for example, under Motor and Sensory Skills: "dexterity and co-ordination are required for climbing, crawling, and manoeuvring when in confined and hazardous spaces and on slippery or unstable surfaces while wearing personal protective equipment on board surface ships and submarines in the daily planning and estimating of work packages." The Bargaining Agent representative pointed out that the description suggests that these activities occur daily, and found it is inconceivable that an employee would be expected to wear goggles or a face shield, which cause distortion, at all times when entering confined spaces, or climbing a mast, working in the shops or aboard ships and submarines, and navigating environments where hazard exist for employees which are not always anticipatable.
The Bargaining Agent representative summarized that insisting on safety eyewear at all times in a heavy industrial work environment, including with prescription, is becoming the industry norm, and many employers are providing them to protect employees and to avoid Canada Labour Code fines.
The Departmental representative believed that the Directive compels management to provide suitable eye and face protection depending on the nature of the work.
The grievor's job description indicated the duties to be mostly administrative in nature, and do not require operation of power tools or machinery, only simple measuring tools, tape measures, scales, etc. The job description presented is generic and covers all planner trades within the organization. In the grievor's role, suitable eye protection was deemed to be the use of goggles or a face shield. These items of PPE are considered by management as more than adequate for the work environment as described in the job description under Working Conditions.
The Departmental representative pointed out that in the NJC Vision Care – Prescription Safety Glasses, Bulletin # 196 dated August 1, 1998, the Executive Committee concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive and the grievance was upheld. 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 Bargaining Agent representative in that case argued that "based on the physical demands and frequent use of power tools, often in confined spaces and the frequent eye focus and strain experienced when working to very fine tolerances", the use of goggles or face shield was impractical. The Department did not agree that the current grievor works under such conditions.
The Planners in the organization submitted to their JOSH &E a request for prescription safety glasses. The committee determined that under TB Guidelines C-02-040-009/AG-001, Annex B, Chapter 4 they were not eligible. The grievor then took his request to another JOSH & E committee. That committee supported the grievor's request. However, the representative noted that this committee is comprised of supervisors and trades people in another line of work and does not represent the Planners.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee. The Committee believed that certain questions had remained unanswered during the management presentation, such as presenting the committee with the job hazard/risk analysis which should logically accompany any complaint regarding health and safety. Overall, they agreed that there had been a failure on the part of management to prove that no hazard to this employee exists without the prescription safety glasses.
Consequently, in the absence of evidence and in an effort to err on the side of caution and safety, the Committee agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive and recommended that the grievance be upheld, and the corrective measure applied immediately, i.e. the provision of prescription safety eyewear to the grievor.
The Executive Committee upheld the grievance.