 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
NFFE 1450
News
LA Dangerous Bathroom Doors Arbitration held!9/17/2009
After about 13 years of stalling and double talk by management about correcting the safety hazard caused the outward swing of the LA men’s bathroom doors more than halfway into the corridors, we finally held an arbitration hearing on Thursday, September 17, 2009 with Arbitrator Saundria Bordone. The purpose of the arbitration hearing was to take testimony and present evidence concerning whether or not management failed to abate unsafe working conditions in the HUD Los Angeles Field Office accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Management Agreement. Arbitration is the last step of the grievance procedures and arbitrators have the authority to order HUD to correct this safety hazard.
The Union just had to prove that the outward swing of the LA men’s bathroom doors more than halfway into the corridors were likely to cause an accident, injury or illness to employees and that management failed to abate the safety hazard (Article 27, Sections 27.01 and 27.05 of the Labor Management Agreement). Many employees and even a retired employee testified that they have been hit, nearly hit, injured, hit or nearly hit other employees with the bathroom doors. We introduced evidence that in June 2006, the HUD Los Angeles Field Office Safety and Health Committee unanimously voted 5-0 that the men’s bathroom doors are a safety hazard and HUD’s own Administrative Services Handbook 2200.01, Chapter 12: Safety and Health Program Management, Section 5, paragraph 4.A.1.a identifies doors that swing into corridors as safety hazards and recommends that they be re-hung to swing inwards. Management is required to comply with Handbook 2200.01, Chapter 12 in accordance with Article 27, Section 27.01 of the Labor Management Agreement.
At the arbitration hearing, management presented “expert” testimony from the General Service Administration and argued that because Federal accessibility standards and California Building Code allow for doors to swing into corridors that, therefore, the men’s bathroom doors do not constitute a safety hazard despite the testimony of employees’ real-life experiences of having accidents, being injured, or nearly hit with the doors. Management even denied that its own handbook (Handbook 2200.01, Chapter 12) identifies doors that swing into corridors as safety hazards and recommends that they be re-hung them to swing inwards. During opening statements, management’s counsel even said that because HUD is not required to change the swing of the doors under building code that, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” They were arguing bureaucracy and the Union was arguing for the safety interests of employees.
The Union would like to thank all of our courageous and principled employee witnesses who testified about the hazard that the men’s bathroom doors present to us at the HUD Los Angeles Field Office.
The Union’s witnesses were very compelling; they spoke with intelligence, passion and compassion. We are touched by their solidarity and for standing up for their bargaining-unit rights to work in a safe and healthful work environment under our Labor Management Agreement. We hope that the arbitrator heard their voices and will issue an award in our favor by ordering management to abate the safety hazard posed by the men’s bathroom doors by changing the doors to swing inwards. Management and the Union have to submit closing briefs by November 6, 2009. We are hopeful for an expeditious decision from the arbitrator by December 2009/January 2010 after she has read and decided on the merits of the case upon review of management’s and the Union’s closing briefs.
We also thank NFFE Local 1450 Chief Steward, Rick Lombardi, and Los Angeles Steward and OGC Attorney, Anu Nadkarni, for being the Union’s technical advisors for the arbitration hearing; they did a fantastic job with preparation and during the hearing. Last, but not least, we especially want to thank ALL of Our Union Members, whose vote in favor of arbitration on this safety-hazard case and dues, make it possible for us to take cases to arbitration to hold management accountable for complying with the Labor Management Agreement and enforcing our bargaining-unit rights in the Agreement.
|
|
|
| | | | |
|
|
Last modified: 11/20/2009
Copyright 1996-2001, The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers |
|
