Employer’s new policies cause problems

Two new policies introduced by Veyance Technologies Canada were met with resistance by the United Steelworkers Local 7175 recently. The manufacturer employs about 146 USW members at its Coburg, Ont., facility.

The first grievance relates to the employer’s smoking policy. First announced in 2014, the policy was implemented in two phases.

In 2014, employees were allowed to smoke in a designated area on company property during their breaks.

Effective January of this year, no smoking would be allowed anywhere on the employer’s property. Additionally, employees were prohibited from leaving the property during breaks. This essentially banned employees from smoking at any point during their shift.

When the second phase of the policy was put into place in January 2015, the union filed a grievance, arguing the policy was too restrictive.

Employees could easily smoke off company property during their breaks and return to work before their break ended, the union said. The policy amounted to a total smoking ban during the workday, which was an unreasonable restriction of employees’ freedom of choice.

The union argued the policy was an unreasonable exercise of the employer’s management rights.

However, the employer argued it was entitled to require employees remain on its premises during the break because employees are paid during breaks.

The employer brought evidence of the costs associated with increased absenteeism and increased insurance benefit costs related to smoking and said it would accommodate employees with substantiated addictions by placing them in a program designed to help them stop smoking.

Arbitrator weighs in

Arbitrator Norm Jesin agreed the costs of smoking to health and business are well-documented, but said an employer cannot prohibit an employee from smoking off its property.

"The employer’s property in this case is not so extensive that an employee would be unable to take a few minutes during a lunch break to smoke off of the employer’s property and still return well before the recommencement of his /her shift," Jesin said.

So while the employer was well within its rights to ban smoking from its property, the further prohibition from smoking off property during breaks was found to be an unreasonable exercise of management rights and in violation of the collective agreement.

Jesin remitted the matter back to the parties and remained seized to resolve any dispute arising from the implementation of his award.

Medical form

The second grievance related to a new medical form the employer required employees to present to their doctors for completion following sick leave.

Previously, employees absent for more than three days due to illness were required to produce a medical note from a physician. Implemented in January 2015, the employer’s new policy required employees to ask their physicians to fill out a two-page medical form for all absences lasting more than three days.

The form included information such as the date of the injury, whether the injury was occupational, whether the injury was recurring and the expected return-to-work date.

The union argued the form was intrusive and cumbersome.

The employer, however, argued the form acted as a tool to find out whether an employee may be able to return to work earlier if their duties were subject to temporary limitations as directed by their physician. In this way, the employer said, employees could be encouraged to return to work sooner, reducing related costs.

The employer insisted no consequences would befall an employee whose physician refused to fill out all or part of the form.

Jesin found the form sought no information to which the employer was not entitled. Given that there were no repercussions for employees where a physician refuses to fill out all or part of the form, Jesin found the employer to be well within its rights to require employees to submit the form for completion.