The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-0070.Pelletier.83-07-28 Decision ( t, . :.! /~ .~: l '- ! .~\ \ ./ I , \ I ~. .. -.,' . . . ONTARIO CROWN EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE 1111 SETTLEMENT BOARD 180 CXINOAS STREff WEST, TOIroN70, ONrARIO. MSG lZ8 ~SU/TE 2.00 70/82 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before .~ THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OLBEU CR. pelletier) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer Before: J. F. W. weatheri11 H. L. RObinson A. G. Stapleton Chairman Member Member For the Grievor: E. J. Shilton Lennon Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors For the Employer: R. J. Drmaj Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & Solicitors Hearing: May 6, 1983 7fLEPHONf' 416/598- 0688 - 2 - In this grievance, dated January ~l, 19B2, the grievor alleges, in effect, that he was improperly threatened with suspension for violation of the employer's dress code, in that he wore blue jeans to work. This matter came before a panel of this Board (somewhat differently constituted) on June 22, 1982. In / , ( . a decision issued on July 2l, 1982, it was held that, notwithsta~ding the employer's decision to withdraw any . warning, there remained a grievance to be adjudicated \ .i although the relief claimed need no longer include a . withdrawal of the warning. The issue o~ whether or not a disciplinary warning had in fact been issued was not dealt with, nor were the merits of the case dealt with. ./.; " t.... .. At the hearing on the merits held before the present panel of the Board, the question of whether or not a disciplinary warning had in fact been issued was not raised. The hearing, it may be said, proceeded on the tacit assumption that disciplinary action had been taken, and the issue is simply whether or not there was just ,cause for any disciplinary action. In more concrete terms, the issue is whether or not it was proper for the grievor to report for work dressed in blue jeans. There is no dispute as to the facts. The employer's /'" ( i ., .j operating manual includes the following provisions under "deportmentll; - 3 - \ :;.' 01. All employees shall be neat, clean and presenta~le at all times. 02. Criteria for male employees: Hair - off the collar and controlled Sideburns - to lobe of ear Beards - reasonable and controlled Moustache - reasonable and controlled 03. Dress: f,. Shirts and ties - at all times Shoes - clean and presentable Trousers - cleaned and pressed Females employed in stores will w~ar issued smocks. All employees at Duty Free stores will wear issued uniforms. ....: , ~j .. ....~~":'- ~... .' \. The propniety of those regulations and in particular of section .03, the "dress code", is not in dispute. The regulations havo been in effect for ~f' ! k.: a number of years, and would appear to be appropriate for employees of the L.e.B.O. ( . ( The grievor is a Clerk 4, ~mployed at an L.C.B.O. store in Windsor. His duties include the ~ollowing: unloading trucks; running cash; performing office work1 walking the floor to prevent shoplifting 1 washing, scrubbing and waxing floors; cleaning windows and general housekeeping. About one-half of his time is spent on stock handling and maintenance. (~.~) ~L'" \-~'r .l. ..... "':......~ c .:~;;J /' r-~\ \. ) ( ... I , r".:~ " .~ - 4 - On January 11, 1982, the grievor came to work wearing blue jeans. His dress was correct in other respects, and his shirt and tie were, it would seem, those issued by the employer as required by article 17 of the collective agreement. It was conside~ed by the employer that the grievor was in breach of the dress code and he was (or so we assume; we make no finding I in ,this respect), warned in that regard. As we have noted, any such warning appears to have been withdrawn later. The issue is whether or not there was just cause for the imposition of discipline, and in particular, whether or not the wearing of blue Jeans constituted a violation of the dress code. The code, set out above, requires male employees to wea.r "trousers - clean and pressed" to work. Reasonable compliance with this quite proper rule is to be determined having regard to the general requirement that employees be "neat, clean and presentable at all times", and to ~he \llorJdng environment in which the rule is to be applied. In the instant case, the grievor worked in a retail self~ serve liquor store, performing retailing, stockroom and maintentance jobs. On the evidence, he was "neat, clean and presentablell on the occasion in question - except that he was wearing blue jeans. There is also evidence, ,~ . f. ('. (, ............a..:;- .....:.~';'i ". ,-, ( ( ,/~",\ '. / -:- 5 - it may be said, that a fairly wide variety of attire is accepted by the employer as meeting the requirements of the dress code. This includes, with respect to female employees, blue denim smocks (including blue smocks issued by the employer) and ItLevill skirts, and with respect to male employees, sweat pants, jogging suits and IIrugby pantsll. Blue jeans are, in a general sense, "trousers", although the latter term may at times be used in a more restrictive sense which might exclude jeans (to say nothing of sweat pants or rugby pants). In stating that jeans may be considered trousers, we draw on everyday usage, and not on the dictionary definition to whiqh we were referred. The definition of trousers as garments It..._ covering the body .from the waist to the ankles and divided so as to make a separate covering for each l€!,.gll (Funk & Wagnall'sY, is surely inadequate as it would inelude therein garments (such as pantyhose and tights), which are not trousers, while excluding therefrom others (as arguably, Bermuda shorts), which are. This only goes to show that dictionaries should be used with great care. In our view, an employee may be in compliance with the dress code, and in particular may be said to be wearing "trousers - clean and pressedu when he is 'r ~ ~ ,.. c o' ~~f " I f - -,' l .... /---=-, i / - 6 - wearing blue jeans. This is not to say that one is always in compliance with the code when wearing jeans. In an interesting article to which we were referred, it is said of filue jeans that: It instead of being at their best when clean and new, they are most prized when faded, frayed, patched, and perhaps spotted with grass stains, oil, and paint.1I (J. Brooks, "A,Friendly Product"; The New Yorker, November 12, 1979, p. 58). The blue jeans worn by the grievor on the day in question had not achieved that sort of quality. They were (and they were shown at the hearing) apparently new, and certainly clean and even pressed. In our view, the grievor satisf~ed the dress requirements on the day in question. In the circumstances of the instant case, then, there was no ground for the imposition of any discipline on ~he grievor. It should perhaps be added that this is not to say that wearing blue jeans is always appropriate: that depends, of course, on their condition on any particular -day. But then, the same thing may be said about gray flannels. allowed. For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is Since any discipline which may have been imposed .r.::;;. .'~ :: ~ ~~~ /~\ I , \ / -fit ... !~ ., , I - 7 - has been withdrawn, no specific relief is granted, beyond our declaration that the grievor was in . ~ompliance with the dress code on the day in question, and was not subject to discipline. DATED AT TORONTO, this 28th day of JUly, 1983. ~fl1~- Chairman "I concur" A. Stapleton Member "I concur" It.L. Robinson Member 4: 1500 7: 3000 7: 3624