Tattoos and Police Dress Regulations - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
Tattoos and Police Dress Regulations - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
Tattoos and Police Dress Regulations - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
206 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1<br />
governance, well-being <strong>and</strong> efficiency <strong>of</strong> its police service is <strong>of</strong>ten explicitly<br />
assigned to the Chief <strong>of</strong> <strong>Police</strong> by statute. 33<br />
Therefore police agencies that have implemented a tattoo policy may<br />
claim that it is management’s right to do so <strong>and</strong> that it is not subject to<br />
arbitration. However, this absolute right is tempered in Manitoba by<br />
section 80(2) <strong>of</strong> the Labour Relations Act 34 <strong>and</strong> the principles laid out in<br />
KPV Co Ltd v Lumber <strong>and</strong> Sawmill Workers’ Union, which state that any rule<br />
unilaterally introduced by a company, not subsequently agreed to by a<br />
union must satisfy the following requisites:<br />
1. It must not be inconsistent with the collective agreement.<br />
2. It must not be unreasonable.<br />
3. It must be clear <strong>and</strong> unequivocal.<br />
4. It must be brought to the attention <strong>of</strong> the employee affected<br />
before the company can act on it.<br />
5. The employee concerned must have been notified that a breach <strong>of</strong><br />
such rule could result in discharge if the rule is used as a<br />
foundation for discharge.<br />
6. Such rule should have been consistently enforced by the company<br />
from the time it was introduced. 35<br />
Like the OPP tattoo policy grievance mentioned earlier, many agencies<br />
take the position that tattoos do not support the corporate image <strong>of</strong><br />
neutrality <strong>and</strong> bias free policing, claiming that the restriction is justified in<br />
the interests <strong>of</strong> fostering harmonious race relations both within the<br />
department <strong>and</strong> within the community. The policy is clear <strong>and</strong><br />
unequivocal, it was brought to the attention <strong>of</strong> all employees through the<br />
33<br />
For example see The City <strong>of</strong> Winnipeg Charter, SM 2002, c 39, s 166(4) <strong>and</strong> the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Winnipeg, by-law, No 783/74, Winnipeg <strong>Police</strong> Service By-law. <strong>Police</strong> Service By-law<br />
#783/74, s 2, which states that the Winnipeg <strong>Police</strong> Service “shall obey all lawful<br />
directions <strong>and</strong> be subject to the orders <strong>of</strong> the Chief <strong>of</strong> <strong>Police</strong>.”<br />
34<br />
The Labour Relations Act, SM 1987 c L10, CCSM c L10, s 80(2). This section states<br />
that every Collective Agreement shall be deemed to contain the following provision:<br />
“In administering this agreement, the employer shall act reasonably, fairly, in good<br />
faith, <strong>and</strong> in a manner consistent with the agreement as a whole”. This is not a typical<br />
provision in labour statutes <strong>and</strong>, in the absence <strong>of</strong> such a provision elsewhere; it is a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> interpretation whether there is an implied reasonableness qualification.<br />
35<br />
Lumber <strong>and</strong> Sawmill Workers’ Union, Local 2537 v KPV Co Ltd (1965), 16 LAC 73<br />
(available on WL Can) (Ont Arb Brd) [KPV].