|
|
|
Safety Captains and the National Agreement By Bob Del Prete, Former Southern Region Safety & Health Rep Occasionally, controversy arises as to what safety captains can and can’t do within the National Agreement. Fortunately, this matter was the subject of a national arbitration case in 1986 and the decision rendered clearly defines a safety captain’s boundaries. Since it was a national arbitration, it is precedent setting, and a discussion of some of its key points may be of help. At the Cincinnati BMC (where the subject grievance originated, case # C4T-4F-C 7516)), safety captains had been in existence since at least 1977. They were used to assist in the promotion of safety awareness and the maintenance of a safe work environment for employees, and they reported safety hazards to supervision. They gave safety talks and distributed and discussed safety bulletins. Then, management unilaterally decided to start having meetings solely with safety captains, and the safety captains began formulating agendas for their meetings based upon their observations and employee contact. They began to settle safety issues with management as they arose. Union requests to have the items listed, including the settled matters, as agenda topics for their local s/h committee meetings were denied. The union filed a class action grievance claiming that such meetings were being held with safety captains NOT certified by the union to discuss, investigate and resolve contractual matters, i.e. safety and health concerns. They asked that the meetings cease since safety captains have no authority to represent and/or resolve employee complaints. They also asked that all safety related items received by them be forwarded to the local s/h committee. The grievance was subsequently denied by management who claimed that they had the right to hold such meetings with safety captains because Article 3 gave them the right to maintain the efficiency and operations of the facility. They also said that these meetings were needed to maintain a safe work environment, and that Article 14, Section 1 gave management the responsibility to provide safe working conditions. They also said that the safety captain meetings were concerned with safety and health matters and not contractual issues. The arbitrator sustained the grievance for the union and said that management violated the national agreement because they authorized meetings between safety captains and management for the discussion and settlement of safety and health matters as evidenced by the minutes that were maintained. Further, he said that Article 3 specified (and still does) that managerial actions must be consistent with the provisions of the National Agreement and meetings between safety captains and management were contrary to contractual provisions. He also emphasized that safety and health matters ARE contractual issues, and that ONLY the union and its certified representatives have the exclusive right to settle such issues. Also, Article 14 said in the 80’s, and still so states, that the joint s/h committee has the exclusive jurisdiction to discuss and settle matters of safety and health when called upon to do so … no mention is made for meetings between safety captains and management to perform this function in the National Agreement. Therefore, if you see that meetings are being held between management and safety captains, see a steward and discuss this with him. He will probably ask for a copy of the minutes to determine if these meetings are in fact being used to resolve differences on safety and health issues, and/or he may interview a number of those involved. If the evidence is there, he should do whatever is necessary to stop this serious contractual violation. |
|
Send mail to apwu1201@bellsouth.net with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
