PRESENTATION SAN DIEGO DRESS CODE
On November 2, 2007 I filed a Union/Management grievance in accordance Article 24, Section 10 of the AFGE/SSA National Agreement.
As I stated in the grievance, I became aware on October 19, 2007 that an employee of the San Diego District Office who is also an AFGE Union Rep and an AFGE Local 2879 union official was called into the office of ADM Gabe Garcia and questioned about her clothing. She was asked about her wearing of "sweats" and indicated that she was wearing an Addidas Suit. At the same time this discussion occurred there was reference to the existence of a San Diego dress code by making a reference to a so-called "casual Friday" and the wearing of jeans within the San Diego DO or district apparently only on Fridays.
On that same day I wrote the DM P J Robles requesting clarification on this matter. I wrote again from Baltimore on October 25, 2007 with the hope that the matter could be resolved informally.
On October 30, 2007 I spoke to DM Robles about this mater and was told that the employee had a "chat" with ADM Garcia about the concern that the employee did not nor ally dress in this matter.
I also asked for additional clarification and did not receive it.
During our conversation I tried to make clear a point and that was that this employee was not assigned to interview that day that she was on both adjudication and union time. In addition, the employee that she was running late that day.
A number or information requests were made and the material received seemed to indicate what is AFGE’s position and that is that there is no dress code.
AFGE wishes to make clear that during the National contract negotiations, management proposed a dress code and then dropped their proposal in such a way that the matter could not be brought up in the future.
The only agency provision dealing with clothing can be found in the Annual Personnel Reminders under 1.6 Conduct On and Off the Job.
The section on dressing appropriately states that 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.
It is AFGE’s contention to that wearing clothing made by Addidas and other companies is acceptable for employees that do similar work in the community and are suitable to the work environment.
AFGE understands that people who work in banks and other facilities do wear similar clothing and such clothing is suitable to the work environment.
Furthermore, it must be noted again that the employee was not meeting with members of the public on the day in question.
In addition the provision goes on to say that SSA will not prescribe what you wear unless
Your mode of dress presents a safety hazard to you or others.
Your mode of dress disrupts employees or the public from doing official business.
You are required to wear a uniform or safety equipment.
Employees in the San Diego District are not required to wear a uniform or safety equipment.
It is AFGE understands that the wearing of the apparel that the employee was questioned about did not pose a safety hazard to her or others. AFGE is not aware of any injuries or accidents that have occurred in the San Diego District office as a result of wearing such clothing.
This Rep is the Regional and National AFGE health and safety rep and as such has received over the years data regarding injury and illness reports compiled by the agency. He is not aware of any injuries or illnesses associated with the wearing of Addidas outfits or sweats.
This information is received each year by the National Field Office AFGE/SSA health and safety committee of which this employee has been the AFGE since its inception and he receives in accordance with Article 9, Section 1 copies of all reports of incidents that result from office disruptions. Normally such disruptions deal with threats to employees, offices, guards and the public. This rep is not familiar with any incidents for San Diego coming out as a result of disruptive employee clothing.
RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
A number of information requests were made and I received 2 email messages from DM Robles.
We were told that the annual reminders cited above were the main thing used by the agency in terms of clothing.
We had asked for San Diego policies and procedures or instructions for dealing with employees who are grieving for the loss of children and/or spouses. The response indicated that there were no policies other than the existence of EAP.
In this case the employee suffered such losses and our feeling as a union is the fact that she was running late the day she was called in by her ADM, the fact that she had been undergoing counseling as well for her loss should explain her clothing and indicate that she should not have been called in by the ADM and questioned about her clothing selections.
We had asked about any traveling that San Diego District management had done to observe clothing worn by other individuals engaged in similar work. We were told that the agency could not figure out what we were asking. We were asking simply in terms of the annual reminders if a visit to similar work locations by San Diego or other management was the reason for the querying of the employee regarding her clothing selections. It appears to us that this was not the case here.
We had asked for OSHA Log 300s or equivalent to determine if any employees wearing Addidas clothing or so-called sweats were injured as a result of their apparel. We were told that there was no such record of any such injury. Our intent was the annual reminders and the issue of safety and clothing. Clearly, the lack of a log entry for such clothing indicates that wearing such apparel at least in the San Diego District is not unsafe and AFGE believes as a result of working on reviewing logs for years that no employees wearing Addidas outfits or alleged sweats suffered on the job injuries as a result of their apparel selections.
We had asked for 3ll4 incident alerts in order to ascertain if there were any incidents in the San Diego District office recorded as a result of an employee wearing disruptive clothing. There were none. It remains AFGE’s contention that wearing Addidas or so-called sweats does not cause workplace disruptions.
We had asked for emails, staff meeting notes etc recording on the banning of clothing within the San Diego District of Addidas clothing or so-called sweats. We were told in the words of Ms. Rodriguez that the agency "has not banned any particular type of clothing per se." In her words the agency follows the Annual Personnel Reminders l.6 entitled Conduct on the Job.
We asked for training courses, course completion, training curriculum that management completed concerning clothing determinations or decisions regarding the appropriateness of clothing.
AFGE’s concern here is over the fact that Agency employees make decisions or determinations about the appropriateness of documents such as birth certificates, bible recordings of age etc. AFGE wondered if management had attended courses or classes showing them how to determine if an employee was wearing appropriate clothing.
For instance US Magazine has a section called The Fashion Police in which people who are trained in fashion evaluation will evaluate the apparel of a famous individual. The evidence provided indicated that the ADM who called in the employee apparently had no such training and was not a certified member of the fashion police or as some are called a fashionista. As such it appears to AFGE that the conference which occurred was not proper.
Additionally questions were asked about surveys the agency may have done concerning the appropriateness of clothing in the San Diego District to be in line with the Annual Personnel Reminders.
Again we were told that they were none and as such it appears that the conference with the employee was improper.
THE INSTANT CASE; ONE EMPLOYEE
We first became aware of the dress code situation when one employee was called into the ADM’s office. Our understanding is that the matter regarding so-called sweats applied to others.
But the case of this one person is unique in that she lost two major members of her family. She was undergoing counseling. She had used a lot of leave and was on leave sharing.
In her case the issue of dress in our view should have been called into question as it should not for any employee but due to her unique situation, there was no real reason for her to be called in.
She had many issues with which to deal. The fact that she was running late should be considered in this matter.
Things can happen.
Today as I type this, my manager who had washed her hair has her hair up in some kind of material.
The important thing in her case or in this employee’s case is showing up. At a time when may employees are retiring and staffing is down, having employees on duty is paramount. Employees take claims, answer phones and does P.E. work. How they are dressed is not important.
THE SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY
The Annual Personnel Reminders note that clothing should reflect similar work in the community.
It is clear to us from viewing information from the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce that there is for this community no strong dress code. The Chamber notes that there has been a growth in high tech companies within the area. The fact that no member of management went to similar organizations such as banks, welfare departments or social service seems to indicate that there is no effort to ban any type of apparel within the office and conversations with individuals within the office reflect the fact that in some areas people do wear such outfits as those by Addidas.
Furthermore, information on the climate within the service area seems to indicate that the climate is such that could result in the wearing of such clothing.
As a young Seaman Recruit in the U.S. Navy at the San Diego Naval Training Center, a facility that now has been closed, I can recall the climate in terms of morning fog, etc as well as the fact that while in boot camp at this facility we wore what we called dungarees which were blue types of shirts and trousers.
SSA EMPLOYEES AND CLOTHING
Region 9’ Commissioner Pete Spencer has what he calls regular programs or Spotlights which report on various facilities within the agency. One of the spotlights was on the San Diego TSC and it has some information on the community. In addition, the pictures of the employees in the TSC who do not meet with the public the same as the employee in the instant case seem to indicate that some employees may wear such clothing as alleged sweats.
Of great concern to us is the spotlight for July 2007 for Module l2. In that one for the Module Support Personnel Staff an employee named Cathy Imamura who is a Notice Preparation Reviewer is shown wearing what appears to be a top so-called "sweat" that has the words "Mickey" on it. While AFGE is not able to determine with the absence of any character figure on it if the "Mickey" refers to a Mouse, a late mystery writer named Spillane, a late Yankee center fielder named Mantle, a short actor from the 30’s and later named Rooney or another "Mickey" the fact remains that an SSA employee is pictured throughout the agency with what appears to be a top of a so-called Sweat, not an Addidas item at all and yet, it appears that her wearing this clothing on a date and it appears she does not do public contact work indicates that she is fine in terms of the agency’s annual personnel reminders.
AFGE’s position in terms of article 3. section 2 of the contract which states that in all matters of personnel management, regardless of race, color creed, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, religion, etc, employees must be treated equally is clear. The employee in the San Diego field office should be treated no differently than the employee in Mod l2 and hence the grievance should be resolved in the favor of the employee.
Other pictures from the Western Program Service Center give a similar impression as do pictures of clothing from the recent diversity program in Richmond which was pictured or featured on the SF Net site. In fact, one of the participants seems to be wearing what appear to be shorts and then some kind of tights or other apparel.
ADDIDAS
The employee in her conversation with management made it clear that she was not wearing so-called sweats which usually are things like a sweat shirt and sweat pants which are items that people often use when they run or participate in other forms of exercise. Rather she noted she was wearing Addidas and some information on the clothing line is provided which indicates that these products for women are not cheap and are not something that one can find in a surplus store or at Walgreens.
RELIEF SOUGHT:
It is clear to AFGE that there is no dress code in SSA period. AFGE’s position is that what an
Employee does in assisting the agency in fulfilling its responsibilities to the American people and
The people of San Diego are an employee’s foremost challenge.
What an employee has on her or his back as not as important as how an employee functions whether or not that person is meeting with the public or not.
It is apparent to AFGE that the meeting with the employee was an over reaction. We request that the District Manager and the ADM issue the employee an apology and agree that the San Diego DO has no dress code policy.