by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
workers and the driving public in jeopardy. The<br />
grievant should have contacted her supervisor.<br />
She could have moved her location to under an<br />
overpass or moved closer to the work site. The<br />
responsibilities of a flagger played a critical role<br />
in the arbitrator’s determination of the grievant’s<br />
negligence. 304<br />
The Union’s medical defense was rejected. The<br />
employer required the grievant to be clean<br />
shaven to properly wear a respirator. The<br />
grievant’s skin condition of pseudo folliculitis<br />
barbae can, as shown <strong>by</strong> medical testimony be<br />
managed <strong>by</strong> shaving with barber clippers instead<br />
of a razor. This manner of shaving would have<br />
been acceptable to the State. The fact that the<br />
grievant passed a respirator fit test does not have<br />
a great deal of bearing on this case. The test is<br />
conducted in the most ideal conditions.<br />
The manufacture of the respirator and OSHA<br />
advise against bearded employees using a<br />
respirator. The requirement <strong>by</strong> the State that the<br />
grievant be clean shaven is a reasonable one.<br />
319<br />
The grievant was removed for insubordination<br />
for failing to shave his beard to wear a respirator.<br />
The OSHA recommendation that the grievant be<br />
reinstated is entitled to lilt weight. The grievance<br />
procedure is the exclusive method for resolving<br />
this dispute. OSHA did not conduct the sort of<br />
evidentiary hearing required <strong>by</strong> the elementary<br />
considerations of due process. The conclusion of<br />
he Director of the Industrial Relations is not<br />
controlling and does not serve to bind the<br />
arbitrator:. 319<br />
There was a requisite just cause for the<br />
grievant’s removal. The grievant would not<br />
shave his beard. The rule that employees that<br />
wear respirators in asbestos filled areas must be<br />
clean shaven in reasonable. The employer<br />
progressively disciplined the grievant for<br />
insubordination, finally resulting in discharge.<br />
319<br />
11.05 – Communicable Diseases<br />
Health physicists were assigned on a rotating<br />
basis to respond to incidents, including those at<br />
landfills. The Grievant sought pre-exposure<br />
vaccinations and protective gear for onsite<br />
inspections. OSHA guidelines state that vaccine<br />
is to be offered to employees who have<br />
occupational exposure to the hepatitis B virus.<br />
Occupational exposure has the same definition as<br />
in the OSHA guidelines. The expert witness, a<br />
PERRP program administrator, reviewed the<br />
Bureau’s written policy and the duties of health<br />
physicists and testified that these employees<br />
were not reasonably expected to have contact<br />
with blood or other potentially infectious<br />
materials and were not required to have preexposure<br />
vaccinations. The incident of falling in<br />
the muck at the landfill, as related <strong>by</strong> the<br />
grievant, was an accident for which the right to<br />
post-exposure evaluation and treatment was<br />
created. The Arbitrator concluded that Health<br />
Physicists did not have “occupational exposure”<br />
and therefore were not entitled to hepatitis B<br />
vaccine pre-exposure. The grievance was<br />
denied. 962<br />
11.09 – Asbestos (1989-1991 contract)<br />
The Union’s medical defense was rejected. The<br />
employer required the grievant to be clean<br />
shaven to properly wear a respirator. The<br />
grievant’s skin condition of pseudo folliculitis<br />
barbae can, as shown <strong>by</strong> medical testimony be<br />
managed <strong>by</strong> shaving with barber clippers instead<br />
of a razor. This manner of shaving would have<br />
been acceptable to the State. The fact that the<br />
grievant passed a respirator fit test does not have<br />
a great deal of bearing on this case. The test is<br />
conducted in the most ideal conditions. The<br />
manufacture of the respirator and OSHA advise<br />
against bearded employees using a respirator.<br />
The requirement <strong>by</strong> the State that the grievant be<br />
clean shaven is a reasonable one. 319<br />
The grievant was removed for insubordination<br />
for failing to shave his beard to wear a respirator.<br />
The OSHA recommendation that the grievant be<br />
reinstated is entitled to little weight. The<br />
grievance procedure is the exclusive method for<br />
resolving this dispute. OSHA did not conduct the<br />
sort of evidentiary hearing required <strong>by</strong> the<br />
elementary considerations of due process. The<br />
conclusion of he Director of the Industrial<br />
Relations is not controlling and does not serve to<br />
bind the arbitrator. 319<br />
There was a requisite just cause for the<br />
grievant’s removal. The grievant would not<br />
shave his beard. The rule that employees that<br />
wear respirators in asbestos filled areas must be<br />
clean-shaven in reasonable. The employer<br />
progressively disciplined the grievant for<br />
insubordination, finally resulting in discharge.<br />
319