The union objected to the company's safety incentive plan. The union claimed that it resulted in unreported accidents and created hostility between workers. The arbitrator was unable to find evidence for these claims and dismissed the grievance.
When the employer unilaterally reintroduced a contested safety incentive program, the union pursued a policy grievance claiming that the incentive program was inappropriate and that the employer’s actions were unreasonable.
The employer operated a large beef kill and processing plant employing about 800 workers. The work was hazardous. Workers were routinely exposed to sharp implements, high-speed equipment and heavy loads.
Over the union’s objections, the employer introduced a safety incentive program. The program divided the workforce into 28 teams and provided two levels of rewards for teams that did not log any reportable injuries: coffee and donuts for one accident-free month; a catered steak lunch for three accident-free months. A reportable injury was an injury that required outside medical attention.
The number of reported injuries dropped.
In June 2010, the program was altered as part of a grievance settlement. The modified program created three larger groups from the previous 28 and included incentives for other identified values such as increased efficiencies, food safety and accident prevention. The modified program also dispensed with the monthly awards and instead provided awards for the groups that met or exceeded expectations on a three-month basis.
The employer deemed the modified program to be less successful as more reportable accidents were catalogued under the modified program.
Effective Jan. 1, 2012, the employer reinstated the original program.
The union grieved.
The union supported the efforts of the employer to improve workplace health and safety. However, the union said that the incentive program as designed by the employer contained a number of inherent flaws.
Letting their team down
First, the union said that under the program, there was a danger that employees would be under pressure not to report accidents for fear of letting their team down and being subject to disapproval.
Second, the union said that employees who did report accidents could be subject to harassment and resentment from other team members who blamed them individually for causing the loss of a team award.
Third, the union said that the program was unfair because some workers who had worked accident-free could be denied awards because of the actions of someone else.
The employer said that it was not aware of reportable accidents that were not reported. The employer was also not aware of any incidents where an employee was taunted or harassed for reporting an accident and causing the loss of an award. However, the employer said it would deal with such an incident if it became aware of one.
The employer challenged the union’s assertion that anyone would forego reporting a reportable accident for the reward of a free lunch, particularly when failure to report a reportable accident was a disciplinable offence.
Moreover, failure to report such an incident could compromise a worker’s future claim for workers’ compensation.
The Arbitrator said the program was reasonable.
There was no actual evidence that any workers had failed to report a reportable injury because of the program.
Low value of awards
Without any actual evidence of accident claim suppression, the Arbitrator said the question was whether or not, objectively, the program could likely cause the distortions that the union was concerned about.
The Arbitrator said it was unlikely.
“Given the relatively low value of the awards distributed under the program, I do not believe that it is likely that the failure to attain such relatively minimal incentives for him or herself, or for his or her section, would influence an employee’s decision not to report. This is not a case wherein there can be any suggestion that the value of program awards is anywhere near sufficient to make it worthwhile for an employee to avoid reporting an injury…” the Arbitrator said.
There were also significant disincentives to prevent workers from failing to report reportable accidents, the Arbitrator said.
Failure to report a reportable injury was cause for discipline and could compromise a worker’s claim for workers’ compensation, the Arbitrator said.
The grievance was dismissed.
