October 9, 2007

North Las Vegas Dress Code—Dress Restrictions

Mr. Pete Spencer

SSA Regional Commissioner

Box 4200

Richmond Ca. 94804

Dear Ms. Spencer,

I have been designated by AFGE Council 147 President Katrina Lopez and Local 2879 President Sandra Matthis to handle the issue of dress code/dress restrictions placed on employees in the North Las Vegas, Nevada SSA office. Below you will find the grievance I am filing on this issue.

I will send you via fax and mail a signed copy of that grievance.

Section 10 Grievance North Las Vegas

The following constitutes a Union/Management grievance filed on behalf of the employees of the North Las Vegas Social Security office. It is filed in accordance with the provisions listed in Article 24, Section 10 of the AFGE/SSA national agreement.

An oral presentation is requested and will be made orally and in written form once the information that I will request in accordance with section 7ll4b4 of the statute is received by me from either yourself or your designee. That request will be made once I know who will be handling this grievance.

Following is a description of this grievance.

On September 20, 2007 a staff meeting was held in the North Las Vegas Social Security office.

Meeting notes in written form were sent to all employees of this office whose code is D49 by management official Connie Riggs. The notes state as follows –Dress Code (that phrase is used by Ms. Riggs).

It notes that there was an open discussion and that Annette, Becky and Connie went to 3 banks, Nevada Power, Nevada Welfare and the North Las Vegas Courts apparently to look at the way employees dressed.

Employees were told that the dress codes for these facilities (none of which is lucky enough to be represented by AFGE) were professional and business casual and that in Riggs’ words "All were more than ours".

Employees were told that the dress code for SSA is simple and again in Riggs words "You are expected to observe standards of dress and appearance that are –acceptable in similar work in the community and suitable to the work environment. Riggs stated that they in her words "are not making changes to our dress code but we are asking you to think about your personal appearance."

Employees were told to think about the image they present as representing SSA, and if their appearance reflects an image that gains a customer’s confidence; if employees feel professional in their clothing."

Riggs states that management asks you not to wear flip flops for safety reasons. Clothing that shows chest or midriff and in Riggs words" These are also a safety concern and are not professional." As well as logo T shirts/sweat shirts and those employees are not to advocate products, merchants to our customers as well as sorts or sweat suits."

Serving as AFGE Council l47’s designee on this matter, I sent a number of emails seeking clarification to District Manger Karen M. Jenson. On September 28, 2007 Ms. Jenson wrote me that she determine that flip flops are a safety concern because they leave the toes and feet unprotected in an environment of rolling chairs, file cabinets, staples and paper clips that could have fallen on the floor and that it is her duty as a manager to make such an assessment and determination.

She further stated that clothing that shows chest or midriff can be disruptive to employees and or the public and impede the agency’s ability to conduct official business. She also stated that employees in the office have complained about the manner in which some employees have dressed.

On that same date September 28,2007 I wrote Ms. Jenson again seeking clarification on her memo asking about safety reports of employee flip flop wearers having their toes or feet injured in the North Las Vegas office as well as copies of reports showing how a bare chest or midriff was disruptive (I asked for 3ll4 incident reports). I repeated my request several times a note on 10/l/2007 last Monday that the Council does not have the authority to reopen the contract on the issue of dress codes as well as 10/4/2007 asking for a response. Since I did not receive a response, AFGE was left with no other avenue than to file a section 10 grievance and this is that grievance.

Articles to be considered in this grievance include but are not limited to the following that will be noted below.

Article 1, Section l refers to laws and government wide rules and regulations. Section 2 deals with existing conditions of employment. Section 3 refers to other agreements.

In her notes of the 9/20/2007 meeting, Management Official Riggs uses the phrase "We are not making changes to our dress code." In her email exchange with me, Manager Jenson did refer to the Annual Personnel Reminders. The issue of "our code" and its relationship with such reminders and government wide rules will be discussed in the grievance argument.

Article 3, and Article 3, Section 2A in particular states that all employees shall be treated fairly and equitably in all aspects of personnel management and without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, or disabling condition; and with proper regard and protection of their privacy and constitutional rights.

Employees in North Las Vegas are being treated differently than employees in other parts of Region 9 with respect to a condition of their employment, clothing requirements. Other Region 9 employees do not face adherence to such clothing restrictions.

Article 9, Health and Safety is another article. In the meeting notes safety is noted several times with respect to the prohibition of flip flops and the initial prohibition of clothing with bare chests and bare midriffs. Article 9, Section l deals with general requirements about safety. Section 2 refers to committees and I am one of these committees. Section 3 deals with installation structure for health and safety, a structure which includes the North Las Vegas office. Section 4 deals with the process for abatement of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions including 4C which provides for the development of an abatement plan. Section 5 goes into training. Section 6 Local Health Service needs identification. Section 7 inspection. Section 8 temperature control. Section 9 reporting unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Section 11 indoor air quality. Section 12 onsite securities and in my correspondence with Ms. Jenson I requested incident alerts for instance dealing with reports of disruptive clothing. Section l5 covers stress.

This contract section covers health and safety procedures and provisions. The notes of the September 20, 2007 staff meeting as well as the emails I received from Manager Jenson cover health and safety topics referenced in these contractual provisions. In her 9/28/2007 email message to me Ms. Jenson notes "As the manager of the North Las Vegas office, I have determined that flip flops are a safety concern….." The other provisions of Article 9 also apply with respect to this comment, this determination and the process with which it was reached.

All of Article l6 deals with training and career development which could be impacted by the clothing employees wear in North Las Vegas.

Article l8 refers to EEO in Toto and again employees in North Las Vegas are being treated differently than those in other offices. Article 2l, Performance and within that whole article Appraisals, as well as Article 22 within grade increases and 23 Disciplinary and adverse actions too are impacted by standards of clothing in North Las Vegas which do not apply to others in Region 9. Article 24 and section refers to the grievance article noted above.

Again an oral presentation is requested. A written presentation will be made. We look forward to your response.

In unity and solidarity,

Howard Egerman

Council l47 Designee