Comments on: When Safety & Religion Collide

By: T. Henderson

T. Henderson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:25:30 +0000

There is information on OSHA's website about this. We had this situation as well and the individual was happy to sign a waiver indicating he understands the hazards. However, he would wear a small head covering under the turban in case he felt he needed to wear a hard hat (it was his choice). But according to OSHA's site, a company will not be cited as long as they inform the employee of the hazards and it is for religious purposes.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1789

By: Marc Ross

Marc Ross — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:30:41 +0000

Judging by the title of the article, and the comments, the stakeholders are not of the Sikh religion or practiced in dealing with human rights issues.

Before making a decision, the health and safety professional should consult with the people who can offer an educated perspective.

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:41:59 +0000

Clear job descriptions in the hiring policy would prevent the situation. "Must be capable of meeting all safety requirements of the job, including working with required safety equipment, including using a respirator if required."

If something like that is in the job description PRIOR to hiring, then this employee can be terminated (or not hired in the first place) for inability to meet job criteria: he cannot perform to the standards required for the job.

By: bkbrowbo@aol.com

bkbrowbo@aol.com — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:22:40 +0000

How can one justify to the rest of the people that abide by our laws and requirements in the work force that a person can forego a hardhat or gets to be placed in another job because of their religious beliefs? If this is an acceptable arguement, then a person who started going bald at an early age (for example) and refuses to wear a hard hat should also be able to receive the same treatment. The later is pursuing his right of happiness and prosperity because he will be mentally satisfied that by not wearing a hard hat helps him keep his hair from falling out faster than it would by wearing it. (I actually had a person concerned over this at one place I worked). This is just one example of the pandora's box many can see in this scenario.

Personally, I do not think a person can be allowed that type of special treatment strictly because they refuse to remove the turbine. I also think it should be grounds for not hiring them to work in an environment that requires head protection, just as I would think it should be grounds to not hire a person to do electrical work who refuses to remove rings and possibly body piercings to prevent themselves from being electricuted around open panels, etc. By doing either of these you will undermine the safety culture and protective measures that too many companies and safety and health professionals have battled to put in place for TOO many years.

I am for religious freedoms and understand the importance of the personal rights of that person, but when it comes to protecting them, they must make the choice to follow the requirements or expect to lose there job, not be reassigned. Especially when others who would prefer to not follow the requirements have to face that choice without religious grounds.

Tough question for sure.

Respectfully submitted.

By: russell@workforceassurance.com

russell@workforceassurance.com — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:51:56 +0000

A few years ago, I ran into a similar situation while conducting a safety consultation for a client company who was a subcontractor at a construction site. Another subcontractor had provided a framing crew who were all Rastafarians. Because of their dreadlocks, they were unable to wear the required hardhats. The GC on the site worked with them and allowed them to remove the hardhat's suspension system. The employees then worked with their hair stuffed into the hardhats. I doubt they had very good protection, but I was not sure how I would have handled it if the employees were my responsibility.

By: andy.sikes

andy.sikes — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:09:10 +0000

Very great difficulty arises as now it is possible that employer is being pushed in to an area of decision making where he/she has no experience. What is to stop any employee from claiming that wearing of hard hat is contrary to religious beliefs.

Perhaps what employers need to realise is that in the example of the turban, there is in fact a more realistic solution. That is to get them to wear thee type used by sportsmen or even that used by jet fighter pilots and which fit under the helmet.

By: lpratt

lpratt — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:34:31 +0000

So would you have that person sign documenation that they are putting their religious beliefs over safety to cover any accident that could occur so he could not claim that on W/C or the company be fined by OSHA if they were audited?