January 1, 1991
20.4.145
The grievor sought reimbursement for the cost of safety boots.
The grievor carries out road tests of tanks. The work is normally performed during the winter months. The testing is carried out with the access hatch open. The requirement for cold weather clothing has been recognized and the department provides a skidoo-type suit, a coat and flying boots to be worn over regular safety boots.
In contention was whether the boots provided were safe. The grievor's representative contended that the size of the flying boots and their construction made it difficult to climb into the tank and drive while wearing the boots because of the confined space in which the pedals were located. It was also pointed out that there is a tool box adjacent to the accelerator pedal and the driver's foot may slip and jam under the tool box.
The Administrative Committee noted that the Occupational Safety and Health Committee had advised:
(1) that the grievor sought footwear that was smaller, insulated, skid proof and or resistant;
(2) that members of the Armed Forces wear a boot which does not have safety features and they drive the tanks with the hatch closed with a heater providing warmth;
(3) that the Committee agreed that the protective footwear now provided is inadequate as it is unsuited to the task being performed. In fact, another hazard is created as there is an indication that there is a need for modification to the apparatus, in that the footholds could be too small and the placement of the tool box ahead of the accelerator can result in the driver's foot being caught underneath.
The Administrative Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee in that while the department narrowly followed the criteria for purpose designed footwear, the employee was treated within the intent of the Policy. The Administrative Committee further agreed with the report of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee in that, as this is a special unique project, the Joint Safety and Health Committee should examine the requirements for
protective footwear and choose a boot which is specifically suited to the needs of the task, should it be found that a purpose designed boot is needed then the department should provide such footwear.
To the extent that the above meets the corrective action sought the grievance was upheld.