Common use of Right to Refuse Clause in Contracts

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s), it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such action, the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as part of the Procedure no later than June 30, 2003. The purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to allow the CAW and Ford of Canada the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplace. This Policy and Procedure in no way precludes the Complainant's right to seek action under the applicable Human Rights legislation. The parties also agree to communicate this information about the Procedure to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 through local union newsletters, bulletin board notices and company publications or any other mutually agreed upon method of communication. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below for the use of the investigators. Every effort should be made to have the Complainant submit a written complaint. This request should be submitted in a supportive, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) and the investigators to deal with a clear and concise description of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised of the existence of the complaint at the beginning of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed later.

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s), it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such action, the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as part of the Procedure no later than June 30, 2003. The purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to allow the CAW and Ford of Canada the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplace. This Policy and Procedure in no way precludes the ComplainantComplain ant's right to seek action under the applicable Human Rights legislation. The parties also agree to communicate this information about the Procedure to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 through local union newsletters, bulletin board notices and company publications or any other mutually agreed upon method of communication. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below for the use of the investigators. Every effort should be made to have the Complainant submit a written complaint. This request should be submitted in a supportive, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) and the investigators to deal with a clear and concise description of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised of the existence of the complaint at the beginning of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context con text for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed later.

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s), it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such action, the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as part of the Procedure no later than June 30, 20032004. The purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to allow the CAW union and Ford of Canada the company the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplace. This Policy and Procedure in no way precludes the Complainant's right to seek action under the applicable Human Rights legislation. The parties also agree to communicate this information about the Procedure to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 2004 through local union newsletters, bulletin board notices and company publications or any other mutually agreed upon method of communication. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below for the use of the investigators. Every effort should be made to have the Complainant submit a written complaint. This request should be submitted in a supportive, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) and the investigators to deal with a clear and concise description of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised of the existence of the complaint at the beginning of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed later.

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s), it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such action, the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as part of the Procedure no later than June 30, 2003. The purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to allow the CAW union and Ford of Canada the company the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplace. This Policy and Procedure in no way precludes the Complainant's right to seek action under the applicable Human Rights legislation. The parties also agree to communicate this information about the Procedure to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 through local union newsletters, bulletin board notices and company publications or any other mutually agreed upon method of communication. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below for the use of the investigators. Every effort should be made to have the Complainant submit a written complaint. This request should be submitted in a supportive, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) and the investigators to deal with a clear and concise description of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised of the existence of the complaint at the beginning of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed later.

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s), it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such action, the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as part of the Procedure no later than June 30, 20032004. The purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to allow the CAW and Ford of Canada the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplace. This Policy and Procedure in no way precludes the Complainant's right to seek action under the applicable Human Rights legislation. The parties also agree to communicate this information about the Procedure to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 2004 through local union newsletters, bulletin board notices and company publications or any other mutually agreed upon method of communication. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below for the use of the investigators. Every effort should be made to have the Complainant submit a written complaint. This request should be submitted in a supportive, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) and the investigators to deal with a clear and concise description of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised of the existence of the complaint at the beginning of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed later.

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s)threatened, it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such actionFurthermore, the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as a part of this procedure following the Procedure Union leadership and Management representative training, to be completed no later than June 30The Union and Canada Inc. will endeavour to resolve all harassment complaints at the local level. However, 2003. The purpose if the complaint cannot be satisfactorily resolved locally or is of this Policy and Procedure is to allow an extremely serious nature, then other steps may be required including the CAW and Ford intervention of the National Union Canada the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplaceInc. Staff. This Policy policy and Procedure procedure in no way precludes the Complainantcomplainant's right to seek action under the applicable Ontario Human Rights legislationCode. However, both the Union and Canada Inc. urge employees to use the internal mechanisms as outlined above before seeking alternative recourse. The parties also agree Union shall hold harmless Canada Inc. against any liability which may arise by reason of the implementation of a mutually acceptable resolution of a complaint. Where there is a mutually acceptable resolution, the Union agrees that grievances which may be filed as a result of discipline assumed against an individual alleged to communicate this information about have engaged in harassment will not be filed or pursued without concurrence of the Procedure National Union Office and written confirmation of such concurrence to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 through local union newsletters, bulletin board notices Director of Labour Relations and company publications or any other mutually agreed upon method Labour Economics. The Union may appoint and the Company shall recognize three (3) committeepersons (one (1) of communication. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below for the use whom shall be chairperson of the investigatorscommittee consisting of two (2) members) who, at all times when on Company property, shall be subject to the rules and regulations to be observed by the employees. Every effort should Each committeeperson at the time of appointment shall have at least twelve (12) months' seniority with the Company at its National Parts Distribution Centre and be made to have on the Complainant submit a written complaint. This request should be submitted in a supportive, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) and the investigators to deal with a clear and concise description of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised payroll of the existence of the complaint Company at the beginning time of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his appointment or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed laterelection.

Right to Refuse. A bargaining unit employee alleging harassment or discrimination in the workplace is encouraged to use the above procedure to resolve a complaint. However, it is agreed, in principle, that in serious cases of harassment or discrimination, or when the safety of an employee is being threatened directly or indirectly by the Respondent(s)threatened, it may be necessary for that employee to leave the job. Before any employee takes such action, job in accordance with the parties agree that details with respect to the procedure regarding the ability of employees to leave their jobs as outlined above will be developed by the Master Employment Equity Committee and will be implemented as part of the Procedure no later than June 30, 2003. The purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to allow the CAW and Ford of Canada the opportunity to address and resolve internal problems related to the objective of achieving a harassment and discrimination free workplaceestablished guidelines. This Policy and Procedure procedure in no way precludes the Complainantcomplainant's right to seek action under the applicable Human Rights legislationLaw. However, both the CAW and General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada urge employees to use the internal mechanisms as outlined above before seeking alternative recourse. Any liability which may arise by reason of the implementation of a mutually acceptable resolution of a complaint shall be shared equally by the CAW and General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada. Where there is a mutually acceptable resolution, the CAW agrees that grievances which may be filed as a result of discipline assumed against an individual alleged to have engaged in harassment will not be filed or pursued without concurrence of the National Union CAW and written confirmation of such concurrence to the Director of Human Resources and Administration. The parties also agree discussed the importance for Union representatives and Management employees to have a complete understanding of the agreed to revisions in the Internal Human Rights Procedure including the "Right to Refuse" provision. As a result of these discussions, the parties agreed to a three day training program to communicate this information. The Employment Equity Committee will have responsibility for jointly determining the content and timing. Furthermore, The parties agreed that it will be necessary to communicate to the workforce the agreed to changes in the Internal Human Rights Procedure. This is supplemental to the Human Rights training program for employees. The parties agreed to communicate this information about the Procedure to the workforce prior to June 30, 2003 through local union newslettersUnion Newsletters, bulletin board notices and company publications or any other mutually a Company letter to all employees. Doc. No. 6 Chairperson, Shop Committee Local 27, C.A.W. Unit 66 Dear Xx. XxXxxxx: During the current negotiations, the Company and the Union indicated their mutual interests in advancing the learning of employees through education and training. The parties agreed upon method that employee training has positive effects on product quality and competitiveness and should provide opportunities for employees to participate in decisions relating to manufacturing processes and practices. The parties indicated that many aspects of communicationemployee education and training require the cooperation and commitment of both the Company and the Union. Recommended Investigation Guidelines are outlined below Accordingly, the parties have agreed to maintain a GDLS-C-CAW Training Review Committee comprised of three representatives from the Union, two to be designated by the Plant Chairperson for CAW, one to be designated by the National CAW and three representatives from the Company, to be appointed by the Director of H.R. &A. General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada. This Committee will meet at least on a quarterly basis. Accordingly the parties have agreed that the WSA Steering Team The Training Review Committee will be responsible for the use following: − Review current training programs. − Discuss and recommend training programs to enhance employee involvement and team skills. − Encourage participation in joint training initiatives In addition the WSA Steering Team Training Committee will be responsible for the development and implementation of programs supported by the Training Fund. The Parties acknowledged that some programs, previously established, will continue during the term of the investigatorsCollective Agreement. Every effort should be made In addition to have these programs, the Complainant submit a written complaintparties identified the following for review by the WSA Steering Team Training Review Committee: • Union Awareness • Industry Overview • Building Respectful Workplaces • Women And Technology • Health And Well Being • Community and Government Awareness • Pre-retirement Planning • Building Respectful Workplaces for Union Leadership • Lean Manufacturing The WSA Steering Team Training Review Committee may conduct other activities that will support employees in the advancement of their learning. This request should be submitted in a supportiveInstructor techniques, rather than an intimidating manner. A written complaint enables the Respondent(s) delivery methods, and the investigators training hours for each program will all be factors in determining the number of trainers that will be required. These determinations are an appropriate subject for the WSA Steering Team Training Review Committee. Trainers will be jointly reviewed and assigned by the CAW chairperson and the Company. While on a training assignment, trainers will continue to deal with be compensated at their regular hourly wage rate, including COLA. Due to the variation in training schedules, program content, duration and application to various segments of the workforce, it is anticipated that all training assignments will be on a clear and concise description part-time basis. There may, however, be circumstances when the utilization of allegations. Therefore, if the Complainant does not file a written complaint, the investigator(s) will draft a written form of complaint which the Complainant will have an opportunity to review and consent to. Before commencing an investigation, the investigators should consider and recommend to company management how to address the interim situation during the investigation. Consideration full-time trainer may be given to whether the Complainant and/or the Respondent(s) be moved to a new assignment or sent home. The Respondent(s) should be advised of the existence of the complaint at the beginning of the investigative procedure. The investigators must determine the extent of the details provided based on each specific case. In some cases, it would be appropriate to put all the allegations to the Respondent(s) immediately and hear his or her response. In other cases, the investigators may wish to interview others first and establish some factual context for the interview with the Respondent(s), in which case the Respondent(s) may be informed of the existence of the complaint and its general nature and told he or she will be provided with details and interviewed laterconsidered.