BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
MANITOWOC COUNTY HEALTH CARE
CENTER EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1288, AFSCME,
(Smoking Grievance 97-40)
Mr. Gerald Ugland, Staff Representative, Wisconsin Council 40,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, on behalf
of Manitowoc County Health Care Center Employees, Local 1288, AFSCME, AFL-CIO.
Mr. Steven J. Rollins, Corporation Counsel, on behalf of
Manitowoc County Health Care Center Employees, Local 1288, AFSCME,
hereinafter the Union, requested that the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
a staff arbitrator to hear and decide the instant dispute between the Union and Manitowoc
hereinafter the County in accordance with the grievance and arbitration procedures contained
parties' labor agreement. The County subsequently concurred in the request and the
David E. Shaw, of the Commission's staff, was designated to arbitrate in the dispute. A
held before the undersigned on August 6, 1998, in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. A stenographic
was made of the hearing and the parties submitted post-hearing briefs in the matter by
1998. Based upon the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the undersigned makes
the following Award.
The parties stipulated that there are no procedural issues and to the following statement
the substantive issues:
Did the Employer violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement by changing
restrictions on smoking by employes? If so, what is the remedy?
Subsequent to the hearing in this matter, the parties also stipulated that the Arbitrator
similarly rule on the adequacy of the alternative arrangement for smoking instituted by the
on January 15, 1998 (room on 2 West), in addition to the original prohibition on smoking of
15, 1997 that precipitated this grievance.
The following provisions are cited:
Neither party to this Agreement by such act at the time hereto or subsequent hereto,
agrees to, or does waive any rights possessed by it or them under any State or Federal
laws, regulations, or statutes. Should any of the provisions of this Agreement be
found to be in violation of any law of the above listed governing bodies, all other
provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of
. . .
ARTICLE 3 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
. . .
Unless otherwise herein provided, the Employer shall have the explicit right to
determine the specific hours of employment and the length of the work week and to
make such changes in the details of employment of the various employees as it, from
time to time, deems necessary for the effective operation of the Institution. The
Union agrees, at all times, as far as it has within its powers, to preserve and maintain
the best care and all humanitarian considerations of the patients of said Institution
and otherwise further the public interest of Manitowoc County. The Employer may
adopt reasonable work rules except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
The Employer agrees that all amenities and practices in effect for a minimum of
twelve (12) months or more, but not specifically referred to in this Agreement, shall
continue for the duration of this Agreement. . .
. . .
ARTICLE 7 GRIEVANCE
A. Definition of a Grievance: Should any differences arise between the
Employer and the Union as to the meaning and application of this
Agreement, or as to any question relating to wages, hours, and working
conditions, they shall be settled under the provisions of this Article.
. . .
C. Steps in Procedure
. . .
Step 4 Arbitration:
. . .
c. Arbitration Hearing: The Arbitrator shall with the consent of
parties, use his or her best efforts to mediate the grievance before the
Arbitration Hearing. The parties shall attempt to agree in advance on
stipulated facts and issues to be used as well as procedures to be
followed at the hearing. The Arbitrator selected or appointed shall
meet with the parties at the earliest mutually agreeable date to review
the evidence and hear testimony. The Arbitrator shall make a
decision on the grievance which shall be final and binding on both
parties. The decision shall be submitted in writing as soon as
possible after the completion of the hearing.
. . .
f. Decision of the Arbitrator: The Arbitrator shall not modify, add
or delete from the terms of the Agreement.
The County maintains and operates the Manitowoc County
Health Care Center, a resident
health care facility. The Union is the recognized exclusive collective bargaining
certain employes of the Center.
For approximately five years prior to October of 1997, employes had been permitted to
smoke outside the Center's building and in an employe break area known as the "garage".
garage was a garage that had been converted into a breakroom with snack machines and soda
machines where employes could eat and drink, and smoke if they so desired. The garage
exhaust fan and an air cleaner to take the smoke out of the air and the windows could be
There is also a fenced area adjacent to the garage where employes could sit in the warmer
and could also smoke. Residents are not permitted in the garage.
In 1994, the County passed an ordinance that read, in relevant part, as follows:
6.35 Indoor Clean Air. In order to promote public and employee health and
abate the nuisance of tobacco smoke and consumption within public buildings, the
following regulations are adopted to restrict smoking of tobacco within the various
facilities owned and operated by Manitowoc County.
(1) Definitions. As used in this section:
(a) "County building" means all enclosed structures owned by
Manitowoc County except the University of Wisconsin
Center Manitowoc County.
. . .
(d) "Smoke" means to burn tobacco in any
manner, or to burn
tobacco substitutes, and includes carrying, using or inhaling smoke
of, tobacco products or substitutes, whether contained in pipes,
cigars, cigarettes, water pipes or other instrumentality.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any county building.
(3) No person may remove, deface, hide or mutilate a "No smoking" or
"Smoking allowed" sign.
(4) Chewing tobacco or spitting tobacco juice is absolutely prohibited in
all county buildings.
(5) Any person violating this ordinance may be required to forfeit not
less than $10 nor more than $50. Each instance of smoking shall
constitute a separate offense. No one may be prosecuted unless they
have first been warned of the consequences of violating this
ordinance by a law enforcement officer. This ordinance may be
enforced by issuance of a citation, in which case the deposit amount
shall be $10 together with costs, assessments and fees as set by the
The ordinance had not been enforced at the
Center with respect to residents or employes,
because, the County alleges, it would have been a hardship on residents who have been
smokers. The County further alleges that it received complaints about the no-smoking
not being enforced at the Center and that the amendment to the 1994 ordinance, Sec. 6.35,
result of those complaints. The following amendment to Chapter 6 of the County Code was
on October 14, 1997, to take effect on December 15, 1997:
WHEREAS, Manitowoc County Code ss. 6.35(2) provides that it shall be
unlawful for any person to smoke in any county building; and
WHEREAS, Manitowoc County Code ss. 6.35(2) has not been and is not
being enforced at the Manitowoc Health Care Center with respect to residents or
WHEREAS, immediate enforcement of Manitowoc County Code ss. 6.35(2)
with respect to residents of the Manitowoc Health Care Center could impose a
hardship on those residents who smoke;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Manitowoc,
Wisconsin does ordain as follows:
That section 6.35(5) of the Manitowoc County Code be and hereby is
renumbered to section 6.35(6);
That section 6.35(4) of the Manitowoc County Code be and hereby is
renumbered to section 6.35(5);
That section 6.35(3) of the Manitowoc County Code be and hereby is
renumbered to section 6.35(4);
That section 6.35(3) of the Manitowoc County Code be and hereby created
(3) Exception. It shall not be lawful for any person who voluntarily or
involuntarily resides on a temporary or long term basis at the Manitowoc Health
Care Center to smoke in a designated indoor smoking area at the Manitowoc Health
Care Center provided that:
(a) the designated smoking area is posted as a smoking area in
accordance with the requirements of Wis. Stats. ss. 101.123(4)(b).
(b) the designated smoking area is enclosed and exhausted directly to the
outside and away from air intake ducts;
(c) the designated smoking area is maintained under sufficient negative
pressure with respect to all surrounding space to contain all tobacco
smoke within the designated area, and
(d) no Manitowoc County Care Center or other Manitowoc County
employee, except in an emergency, shall be required to enter the
designated smoking area while smoking is occurring or while
tobacco smoke is present.
On October 15, 1997, signs were posted, including on the door to the "garage",
employes from smoking anywhere indoors in the Center. The indoor smoking ban for
A room on 2 West was remodeled and converted into a smoking room for residents
the only place indoors in the Center where residents are permitted to smoke. There are
approximately 26 residents who smoke and some are in wheelchairs. On January 15, 1998,
effort to resolve this dispute, Center management began also permitting employes to smoke
West on breaks; however, no food or drink is permitted in 2 West. Union Steward Linda
testified that in the approximately 10 times she has used 2 West (when it was cold), there has
an average of 10 residents and eight employes utilizing the room when she was there.
testified that while 2 West is nicer than the garage, there are only eight chairs in the room,
there are two doors to go through to the room and that the doors open the opposite way. In
opinion, 2 West is smoke-filled and too crowded and a safety problem as far as being able to
residents out of the room in a hurry if that becomes necessary. The present Administrator at
Center, Michael Thomas, and the Center's Environmental Services Director, Gary Kalas,
that complaints were received about too
much smoke in 2 West and that as a result, the exhaust system that had been installed
in the room
was modified from a 650 CFM removal rate to 1100-1750 CFM.
While employes may still smoke in certain outdoor areas at the Center, these areas
the past changed with changes in administrators at the Center. Those changes have not been
The parties attempted to resolve their dispute, but were unsuccessful, and proceeded
arbitrate the grievance before the undersigned.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Union asserts that employes were permitted to eat and drink in the garage, a room
had soda and snack machines, was heated and had an exhaust fan and a "smoke eater" to
smoke. The garage opens onto a fenced area which was frequently used by employes for
the summer. Employes could smoke, eat and drink in the garage and mix with non-smoker
employes, and no residents were allowed to use the garage. Subsequent to October 15,
County made another room available for employes who smoke; however, that room is
as there would be approximately 26 residents and 10 to 15 employes using the room for
during employe breaks, with some residents in wheelchairs. Because the two doors to the
open in conflict with one another, it poses a problem for residents in wheelchairs to leave the
quickly. Further, employes are not permitted to eat or drink in 2 West. The Union also
there is another break room where smoking has not been permitted in the past and which
be available to non-smoking employes.
The Union asserts that the County does not deny the facts set forth above. In
its smoking policy, the County changed its regulation regarding smoking by first prohibiting
permitting it in an area in which employes are not allowed to eat or drink and which does not
them to be away from residents for their break in a heated room. The Union also notes that
grieving all aspects of the past practice with regard to the beneficial aspects of the "garage",
including it being a heated and ventilated room in which employes could eat or drink and
they wished, and associate with smokers and non-smokers away from residents. The 2 West
smoking room is still an attempt to change the past practice in that employes are not
be away from residents or to eat or drink. The County has not demonstrated any reasons
garage is not an acceptable location for employes to smoke on break, and has not recognized
smoking in a room with features like the garage is a benefit which employes have enjoyed,
which is an enforceable past practice. In that latter regard, the Union cites the decision of
Greco in Clark County and Arbitrator Buffett in Eau Claire County (Center of Care).
In its reply brief, the Union first notes that Wisconsin Statutes permit the designation
"smoking areas in the places where smoking is regulated under sub. (2)(a) unless a fire
ordinance or resolution prohibits smoking." Sec. 101.123(4)(a), Stats. Until October 15,
garage was the designated smoking area where employes were permitted to smoke during
breaks. The County unilaterally changed that circumstance by first forbidding smoking by
at the Center and then by only permitting it in the room where residents also smoke. The
asserts that unilateral change is a violation of Article 3 Management Rights
Reserved, of the
The Union notes that the County has also requested that the Arbitrator decide whether
designation of the smoking room on 2 West as of January 15, 1998 is adequate under the
as well as deciding the issue of the complete smoking prohibition at the Center for employes.
Union notes that it concurs in the County's request in that regard. The Union asserts that the
of the garage for employe smoking on breaks is a past practice or amenity under the above
provision, and that the employes are entitled to all aspects of that practice. The Union
the County be directed to permit the use of smoking in the building in a heated, adequately
ventilated room where employes will be allowed to eat, sit, have soda and snack machines
and be away from residents, preferably the "garage". The Union also requests that the
directed to immediately notify all employes in the bargaining unit, in writing, in that regard.
The County first cites the Wisconsin Clean
Indoor Air Act that prohibits anyone from
smoking in any enclosed, indoor area of a county building. The Act also expressly prohibits
from smoking in an inpatient health care facility. Under the Act, it would be illegal for
smoke at the Center. Although the statute grants limited authority for the person in charge
building to create an exception by designating a smoking area, that authority is removed by
operation of state law where a county ordinance prohibits smoking. The County adopted a
indoor air ordinance in 1985 which was amended in 1993 and renumbered in 1994. The
of the ordinance was to "promote public and employe health and abate the nuisance of
smoke and consumption within public buildings." The amended code provided that "it shall
unlawful for any person to smoke in any county building."
The County asserts that as a result of complaints to the Sheriff's Department in 1997,
learned that employes and residents were smoking at the Center in violation of State law and
code. The County Board discussed the situation and ultimately amended the ordinance to
exception for residents at the Center. That amendment was adopted on October 14, 1997,
to become effective December 15, 1997. After the amendment was passed, the Center began
constructing a "smoking room" that would comply with the standards set forth in the code.
standards included creating an enclosed area,
maintained under sufficient negative pressure with respect to surrounding space, to
contain all the
tobacco smoke, with air exhausted directly to the outside and away from air intake ducts.
smoking room was completed, it was the only area in the building where residents were
to smoke. The then-Acting Administrator at the Center subsequently issued a memorandum
on January 15, 1998, advising them that staff could smoke in the recently-remodeled
on 2 West. As a result of complaints that the air in that room was too smoky, changes were
to increase the volume of air exhausted from the room. Complaints were not received after
changes were made. Employes have been permitted to smoke in that room pending
The County asserts that it did not violate the parties' Agreement by prohibiting
from smoking in the Center. The Agreement does not contain a provision expressly
employes to smoke at the Center. State law prohibits smoking at the Center because it is an
inpatient health care facility and because it is a County building, although an exception to
prohibition is permitted by creating a designated smoking area. That exception, however, is
required to be made and in fact State statutes withdraw that authority if a county ordinance
smoking. In this case, the County has enacted such an ordinance prohibiting smoking by
any County building.
There are also several problems with the Union's claim that it has a "right" to a place
smoke as a "past practice". First, smoking is not a right, it is a privilege, and exists at the
of the employer, not as a condition of employment. There are no federal or state
statutory rights to smoke. Second, the fact that employes illegally smoked at the Center
create a lawful past practice. To hold otherwise would improperly intrude into the
powers of the legislature and would permit criminals to rewrite the laws by their misconduct.
the claim ignores the Union's contractual obligation to comply with state laws and county
ordinances, which regulate smoking at the Center. Further, Article 3 of the Agreement
in part, "The Union agrees, at all times, as far as it has within its powers, to . . .further the
interest of Manitowoc County." The findings of both the County's Board of Health and the
Board demonstrate that it is in the public interest of the County to eliminate smoking in
buildings to the greatest degree possible. Fourth, the County has the explicit right under
to "make such changes in the details of employment of the various employes as it, from time
time, deems necessary for the effective operation of the Institution." Further, the County
"adopt reasonable work rules except as otherwise provided in this Agreement." There is no
provision in the Agreement that directly addresses smoking. Conversely, the work rule the
adopted is reasonable, as it is the only rule possible consistent with the requirements of law.
The County also asserts that it did not violate the Agreement by changing the location
employes had been permitted to smoke at the Center. The Union contends that the change in
location is itself a violation of the Agreement and complains that the smoking room
is "inadequate". However, the Union's first witness testified that while she thought the
in the smoking room was inadequate, she also testified that she was not aware of any
complaints to management in that regard, and also acknowledged that the smoking room was
nicer than the "garage" where employes had been smoking. More significant, the testimony
Union's only other witness, an ex-smoker, while testifying that it was hard to breathe in the
room, also compared the air quality with the smoking room in the garage and testified that it
"very comparable. . ." Additionally, management responded to complaints about air quality
smoking room, and made changes that significantly increased the ventilation and thereafter
no further complaints.
Further, the County has the right to adopt reasonable work rules, and a new or
rule can materially change a past practice or working condition. If that were not the case, an
employer's ability to establish work rules would, for all practical purposes, be eliminated.
implicitly acknowledged by Decker when she testified that management had made changes in
designated smoking areas outside the building on many occasions, and that the Union had
grieved those changes. Recognizing that an employer has the right to modify work rules, the
of whether a change falls within management's right is whether the resulting rule is
related to a legitimate management objective. In this case, the work rule requiring employes
smoke in the building to use the smoking room satisfies the following management
It segregates smokers from non-smokers, minimizes employee exposure to tobacco
smoke, reduces the employee's risk of contracting lung cancer and heart disease, and
provides for a generally healthier work environment.
It saves the expense of establishing and maintaining two separate smoking rooms,
one for the residents and one for employees.
It saves the expense of maintaining an employee smoking room at the Health Care
Center an expense which the County does not incur at any other location because
smoking is completely prohibited in all other county buildings.
It complies with the requirements of state law which prohibit smoking in county
buildings and inpatient health care facilities.
The Administrator testified that the only
reason employes would be permitted to smoke at
the Center was because residents were permitted to smoke. By restricting employes who
to smoke to the smoking room, they have been permitted to smoke in exactly the same areas
residents. As the employes' smoking privilege is derivative of the residents' privilege, it is
reasonable and fair that the employe smoking area be the same as for the residents.
In its reply brief, the County asserts that the
Union's reliance upon the amenities and practice
clause takes that clause out of context and ignores the management rights clause, as well as
to advance the public interest, and ignores the requirements of State law. The Union also
properly compare the facts in the arbitration awards it cites with those in the present case.
Management has the right to adopt reasonable work rules even if doing so alters a past
While the amenities and practices clause places some limits on management, it does not
absolute prohibition against the adoption of the work rules. This was recognized in the Eau
County award cited by the Union and in which that Arbitrator ruled:
In judging the County's action, the arbitrator
expressly rejects the Union's assertion
that a work rule cannot be found reasonable if it materially changes a past practice
or working condition. If such a standard were to be accepted, it would nearly
eliminate an employer's right to establish work rules, and such a significant restraint
should not be inferred from so simple a phrase in the management rights clause.
That Arbitrator also ruled that "the proper standard
for judging reasonableness is whether the rule
is reasonably related to a legitimate management objective." The County asserts that it has
established that its work rule prohibiting employes from smoking is reasonable in that regard.
Union does not dispute that the work rule serves a legitimate objective, but merely argues
that it is
an "enforceable past practice" and should therefore be permitted to continue. Further, even
County were required to provide a smoking room for employes, it retains the right to
which room is to be used. The Union alleges that the room on 2 West is inadequate for
reasons, and argues it should be allowed to use the garage that had been converted to a break
cavalierly suggesting that the non-smoking employes can go elsewhere. The Union's reliance
the Eau Claire County award is misplaced as the arbitrator in that case, while ordering the
to re-establish a smokers' break room, concluded:
The County's argument that the determination of which room shall be designated as
the smokers' break room is a management prerogative is well taken, and the order
set forth below does not limit the County to using Room B006 (the former smokers'
room) as the smokers' break room ordered herein.
The Union has not shown that another break room
would provide non-smokers with the same
amenities they presently have in the garage, e.g., there is no evidence that the other break
contains the same soda machine, snack machine, or offers access to the outdoor break area.
appears then, that the Union is proposing that non-smokers bear the burden of any
The County also asserts that both the statute and the County ordinance are proper and
legislative enactments and both contain enforcement mechanisms
granting certain powers to law enforcement officers or affected persons, or both. Even
if the County
were prevented from adopting a work rule consistent with those laws, and could not
employe for violating such a work rule, the Agreement cannot shield employes from
actions taken by law enforcement officers or other persons, pursuant to State law or County
Finally, the Union's citation of the Clark County arbitration award is not persuasive. The
has made no showing that either the contractual language or the facts in the Clark County
bear any resemblance to those in this case. That award does not identify the contract
which it is purportedly based, nor does the award indicate whether the contract reserved
the State law or obligated the Union to support practices to advance the employer's public
Essentially, the award is silent on all the factors that are at issue in this case, and provides
background essential to understanding and applying the award to any other case. Further,
County award indicates that the disputed prohibition on smoking was at both the Courthouse
Health Care Center, but the award was limited to the Courthouse, and the Union has failed
provide information with respect to the outcome at Clark County's Health Care Center. The
requests that the grievance be denied.
It is first necessary to note what issues are or are not before the Arbitrator. The
jurisdiction is limited to determining the parties' rights and obligations under their Collective
Bargaining Agreement. Absent agreement of the parties, the Arbitrator's jurisdiction does
extend to deciding whether the County may legally permit the employes at the Center to
inside under state statutes, nor does it extend to determining whether the no-smoking rule is a
mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining under Wisconsin law.
With regard to the parties' rights under their Agreement, both parties rely upon
Management Rights Reserved. The County cites language in Article 3 that gives it the right
make such changes in the details of employment of the various employes as it, from time to
deems necessary for the effective operation of the Institution. . .", and to "adopt reasonable
rules except as otherwise provided in this Agreement." It also cites language in that Article
states that the Union agrees to "further the public interest of Manitowoc County."
The Union relies upon the following language in Article 3:
The Employer agrees that all amenities and practices in effect for a minimum of
twelve (12) months or more, but not specifically referred to in this Agreement, shall
continue for the duration of this Agreement. . .
In interpreting a contract, it must be read as a whole and all provisions must be given
The language upon which the County relies gives it the right to make changes in the "details
employment of employes" for operational purposes and to adopt reasonable work rules in
maintain a safe and orderly workplace. In both cases, however, those rights are qualified.
is prefaced by the words "Unless otherwise herein provided. . .", and the latter is followed
words "except as otherwise provided in this Agreement." Thus, those rights may not be
in such a manner as to violate another provision of the Agreement.
That wording of Article 3 relied upon by the Union is what is commonly referred to as
"maintenance of benefits" clause and requires the County to maintain for the life of the
all "amenities and practices" not specifically referred to in the Agreement and which have
existence for at least twelve months. The County correctly asserts that language should not
so broadly as to eliminate its right to make reasonable work rules. However, the right to
reasonable work rules also may not be interpreted so broadly as to render that language
It is also noted that the Eau Claire County case did not involve a "maintenance of benefits"
provision, such as is present in the parties' Agreement, rather, the Arbitrator in that case was
determining only whether a newly-imposed "no smoking" rule was a "reasonable" work rule
dismissing the argument that a rule could not be "reasonable" if it altered a practice.
With regard to the application of the maintenance of benefits clause to the situation in
question, the detrimental effects of smoking on one's health notwithstanding, a room where
employes have been permitted to smoke indoors during their break times is of sufficiently
substantial benefit to those employes so as to constitute an "amenity" or "practice" within the
meaning of that clause. The County's argument that an activity illegal under county
cannot establish a practice under this clause is not well taken. Again, absent an agreement of
parties to expand this Arbitrator's jurisdiction to making such a determination, the question
legality of employes smoking at the Center is not an issue to be addressed in this forum.
are the employes were permitted to smoke in the "garage" on their break time and it was
the knowledge and consent of the Center's management. The general language in Article 3
which the Union agrees to further the public interest of the County is too vague as to its
serve as a basis for overcoming the more specific wording of the language requiring the
maintain existing amenities and practices for the duration of the parties' Agreement. Thus,
its good intentions, by unilaterally discontinuing that amenity in October of 1997, the County
violated the maintenance of benefits clause in Article 3 of the Agreement.
The parties have also stipulated to having this Arbitrator decide whether the
instituted by management in January of 1998 permitting employes to smoke only in the
room on 2 West violates the terms of their existing Agreement. (The parties
have agreed to continue to operate under the terms of their 1996-1997 Agreement until
agreement is reached.)
The record indicates that the primary differences between the pre-October 15, 1997
arrangement and the present arrangement are that under the former arrangement employes
convenience of the snack and soda machines in the room, could eat and drink in the garage
away from the residents, whereas now they are in the same room with residents and may not
drink in that room. While there was testimony that the room on 2 West was more
another Union witness testified that it was about the same as the garage in that regard and
established that the ventilation and exhaust capacities of the room on 2 West had
significantly increased. The practice of being able to smoke on break in a room away from
residents and the convenience of being able to eat and drink on break as well, are of
significant benefit to the affected employes so as to constitute "amenities" within the meaning
Article 3. As the new arrangement did not continue those amenities, that arrangement also
the maintenance of benefits clause of Article 3.
With regard to remedy, the County is obligated to provide an adequately ventilated
the Center where employes may smoke, as well as eat and drink, away from the residents on
break time, for the duration of the parties' Agreement. It is not necessary that the County
snack and soda machines in the same room, as long as such machines are reasonably
employes on their break time. The Arbitrator also does not deem it necessary to require the
to notify its employes in writing in this regard and will leave it to the County as to the
which it will inform the employes of the location of the room.
Based upon the foregoing, the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the
makes and issues the following
1. The grievance is sustained as to the October 15, 1997 prohibition against
smoking indoors at the Health Care Center.
2. The grievance is sustained as to the alternative arrangement for employe
instituted on January 15, 1998 at the Health Care Center.
Therefore, the County is directed to provide for the duration of the parties'
soon as is reasonably possible, an adequately ventilated room of sufficient size in the Health
Center in which employes may smoke, as well as eat and drink, away from the residents
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 25th day of January, 1999.
David E. Shaw /s/
David E. Shaw, Arbitrator