Tobacco Documents Online

Vol. 7, No. 42 ./ i"-'-;. BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY WORKPLACE SMOKING: CORPORATE PRACTICES & D EVELOPIVIENTS AOUTETO October 23, 1989 File Special Supplement behind issue dated October 23, 1989

Copyright © 1989 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Additional copies of this Special Supplement "Workplace Smoking: Corporate Policies & Developments," are $25 each and may be obtained from BNA PLUS, 1231 25th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037; (800) 452- 7773; (202) 452-4323 in Washington, D.C., with quantity discounts available. Portions of this Special Supple- ment will appear in a BNA Special Report scheduled for publication in 1990, Where There's Smoke: Problems and Policies Concerning Smoking in the Workplace, 3rd Edition.

y TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction .................................................. 11 Surveys ...................................................... III Legal Developments ............................................ IV Legislative/Regulatory ......................................... V State Laws ................................................... State Laws Charts ........................................... VI Union Viewpoint .............................................. VII Case Studies .................................................. Bonne Be11Inc . ............................................. City Federal Savings and Loan Association ...................... Cybertak Computer Products Inc . .............................. Enron Corp . ................................................ Ford Motor Co . ............................................. Fortunoff Fine Jewelry and Silverware Inc ........................ General American Life Insurance Co ............................ Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound/GTE .................. IBM Corp . ................................................. Litho Industries Inc . ......................................... Los Angeles Times ........................................... Metropolitan Life Insurance Co . ............................... National Education Association ................................ Northwestern National Life Insurance Company .................. Pioneer Hi-Bred International .................................. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co ..................................... Speedcall Corp . ............................................. VIII Appendices ................................................... AFL-CIO Statement on Smoking Policies ........................ EPA Fact Sheet: Indoor Air Facts, Environmental Tobacco Smoke ... New Jersey Group Against Smoking Inc. (GASP) Model Policy ..... Model Smoking Policy for Business and Industry, Center for Corporate Public Involvement ....................................... Page 5 7 9 14 15 16 19 21 21 21 21 36 ~ 37 O

(Vol. 7) 5 INTRODUCTION Workplace Smoking SMOKING POLICIES CONTINUE TO GROW IN NUMBER, VARIETY, SOPHISTICATION Companies across the nation continue to respond to the issue of workplace smoking in various ways, rang- ing from relying on courtesy between workers to resolve the dilemma to the refusal by some employers to hire anyone who has smoked within the past year. An increasing number of employers are instituting smoking policies, surveys note, against the backdrop of mounting evidence from the U.S. Surgeon General's office and other federal agencies that "sidestream" or passive smoking, which refers to the involuntary inha- lation of a smoker's tobacco exhalation, is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The 1986 U.S. Surgeon General's report on environ- mental tobacco smoke (ETS) specifically linked pas- sive smoking with an increased risk of cancer. And this past June, the Environmental Protection Agency injected itself into the workplace smoking issue with the issuance of a Fact Sheet (See Appendices section of this supplement). Because ETS is a known cause of lung cancer and respiratory symptoms, EPA reasoned, employers should restrict workplace smoking to separate, venti- lated areas, or eliminate smoking entirely, 7 ER W 1031 (Aug. 14, 1989). In response to these reports, employers are faced with balancing the health and morale concerns of non- smokers with the personal preference and privacy concerns raised by employees who smoke. Balancing Smokers' Rights According to the Tobacco Institute, workers who smoke have certain smoking rights in the workplace. Only one state court has ordered that smoking be banned in a workplace, and the legal theory behind that ruling has not been successfully argued since, the Institute points out. In Smokers' Rights In the Workplace: An Em- ployee Guide, which is distributed by the Tobacco Institute, smokers are advised that they should "firm- ly, but politely" assert their rights to their personal lifestyle and preferences. Smokers' rights, according to the Institute, include: • Being consulted before a policy is adopted; • To be reasonably accommodated by the policy; • To have the smoker's preference considered on an equal basis with non-smokers; • To take any dispute to a union, where applicable; • To be free of harassment, verbal or otherwise; and • To be told the legal basis for the policy. While the debate over the relative dangers of smok- ing and of inhaling second-hand smoke is sure to continue, employers agree that the subject of work- place smoking creates at least one other harmful byproduct: dissension in the ranks. One goal of corpo- rate smoking policies is to defuse this dissension. Employers aiming to eliminate the number of smokers in the workplace use many incentives, such as desk sets, clocks, lump-sum cash awards and even weekly cash bonuses to lure workers away from to- bacco. Other employers rely on smoking cessation programs, and many offer to subsidize the cost of the programs with various participatory schemes. Corporate Case Studies While many of the firms detailed in the Case Stud- ies section of this supplement have used incentives with great success, one noted smoking consultant has called them "morale busters." Rita Addison, executive director of Clean Air Associates in Boston, points out that employees who have never smoked can be resent- ful of monetary and other gifts employers use to induce smokers to quit the habit. The profiled policies in this report range from an unwritten rule of respect and courtesy for co-workers at R.J. Reynolds Co., which is the nation's second largest cigarette producer, to an outright ban on the hiring of smokers at Fortunoff Fine Jewelry and Silverware Inc., New York. Employees at the Bonne Bell cosmetics firm in Cleveland, Ohio, can gamble on their cessation success by agreeing to accept $250 from the employer to quit smoking, but also must pledge to pay Bonne Bell $500 if they ever resume the habit. Metropolitan Life Insur- ance Co. employees in New York can pick up $100 for quitting smoking, while Speedcall Corp. employees earn an extra $7 per week if they stay off the weed. Happiness with the Speedcall program is high, since it compensates all non-smokers, regardless of whether they are reformed smokers or had never smoked. Other firms emphasize smoking cessation programs for their employees. General Telephone Northwest in Everett, Wash., decided to contract with Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound for a telephone counseling program, which the plan's supporters say has a much higher success rate than group programs. Surveys A number of surveys conducted over the past dec- ade show that in increasing numbers employers are instituting restrictive smoking policies. A survey re- leased earlier this year by the Administrative Man- agement Society found that 60 percent of responding firms had implemented smoking restrictions, up from just 16 percent in 1980. That same survey found that 73 percent of respond- ing companies reported complaints about workplace smoking from non-smoking employees. The debate over absenteeism and smoking heated up in 1989, with a new survey funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce refuting the previous findings 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-~3076/89/$0+.50

6 (Vol. 7) that smokers are more likely to be absent than non- smokers. While several federal studies have shown the absenteeism rates of non-smokers to be lower than that of smokers, the Chamber study found no such correlation. Surveys also have found that the prevalence of smoking in the United States continues to decline: smokers made up 29 percent of the population in 1987. The greatest predictor of smoking status, however, shifted in 1987 from gender to educational achieve- ment. A Centers for Disease Control survey shows that just 16.3 percent of college graduates smoke, while 35.7 percent of the U.S. population without high school diplomas were smoking in 1987 (See Surveys section.) Legal Developments Despite heated debates and conflicting surveys on the hazards of sidestream smoke in the workplace, the courts have been reluctant to intervene in the debate. Advocates on both sides have asked various courts to find in law either a right to smoke or a right to work in a smoke-free environment, but the courts have declined the invitation. The first major case on workplace smoking was decided in 1976 and involved the common law duty of an employer to provide a safe workplace. A New Jersey court found a common law right to a safe work environment and ordered the employer to restrict smoking to non-work areas. While the case was viewed as a landmark, it has not spawned successful litigation based upon the same theory. In the unionized setting, some courts have held that employers may have a duty to bargain over smoking restrictions or a change in smoking policies. Many such disputes are settled by arbitrators, who rely upon specific contract wording and the history of the poli- cies at the specific worksite in reaching their decisions. Generally, arbitrators uphold employers' rights to impose and enforce "reasonable" smoking restrictions to safeguard life and property (see Legal Develop- ments section of this supplement). L egislative/Regulatory The first federal legislation regulating smoking in private sector workplaces was poised for House and Senate floor action at press time for this Special Supplement. The legislation (HR 3015) would ban smoking on all airline flights within the continental United States lasting six hours or less-more than 90 percent of all domestic air traffic. Airline pilots and fiight attendant unions fought for the ban in their airborne workplaces on the grounds that environmental tobacco smoke constitutes a health hazard to their members. The measure, is expected to pass Congress and be signed into law, Hill aides said. Smoking in federal buildings operated by the Gener- al Services Administration has been restricted since 1987, though the actual implementation of these re- strictions have been slowed by ventilation problems, union desires for participation, building design and cost considerations. And a lawsuit that sought to compel the Occupation- al Safety and Health Administration to ban or restrict BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY workplace smoking was dismissed last month, after the anti-smoking group that filed the suit failed to convince the agency to issue a standard (See Legisla- tive/Regulatory section in this supplement). State Laws A majority of the states regulate smoking in public places in one form or another, but just a handful have passed laws that specifically regulate workplace smoking. Some 42 states and the District of Columbia have laws controlling smoking, which were passed not as fire safety measures, but as non-smokers' rights legis- lation. The various laws cover private and public employers, or specified groups of employers, such as retailers, restauranteurs, educational institutions or cultural facilities. In other states, governors have signed executive orders or policy statements that address the issue of smoking in state-controlled buildings and offices, while many municipalities have also passed restric- tive smoking legislation (See State Laws section.) Union Concerns Labor unions continue to hold the view that the best smoking policies are ones that are negotiated. So long as employees are consulted, and accommo- dations made for those who smoke, unions generally are prepared to go along with quite restrictive poli- cies, according to union officials interviewed by BNA. The smoking issue is not as contentious as it was a few years ago, union leaders say, noting that people today are more accepting of policies that restrict smoking. Unions, however, will continue to fight the unilater- al imposition of a smoking ban, BNA was told. The Washington Federation of State Employees, an AFSCME affiliate, successfully challenged a ban im- posed by the state. Early this year the state's Person- nel Board ruled that the state had committed an unfair labor practice by implementing the ban without bargaining with the union (See Union Viewpoint). The AFL-CIO still stands behind its 1986 smoking statement (See Appendices in this supplement), which stresses concern for all workplace toxins, not just tobacco smoke, and urges voluntary policies worked out between labor and management in individ- ual workplaces that protect the rights of all. Acknowledgements This special supplement was produced by the staffs of BNA's Employee Relations Weekly and Labor Rela- tions Week, Susan J. Sala, managing editor. The following BNA staff editors and correspondents contributed to the report: Michelle Amber, AnnTher- ese Carlozzo, Mary Chapman, Michael C. Davis, Susan R. Hobbs, Elizabeth Hofmeister, Elaine Kessler, Terry Hammond-Smith, Gregory C. McCaffery, Sharon R.M. Mason, Gail C. Moorstein, Nan Netherton, and Mark Wolski. McCaffery also served as copy editor. The graphics were produced by the BNA Surveys Unit, J. Michael Reidy, managing editor, George Esco- bar, graphics project coordinator, and Robert Savidge, graphics designer. C] 10-23-89 Copyright 0 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016J89/$0+.50

(Vo1. 7) 7 SURVEYS Polling Data SMOKING RESTRICTIONS RESPOND TO EMPLOYEE ANXIETIES, SURVEYS SHOW Surveys conducted throughout the 1980s are finding that the number of workplaces implementing smoking restrictions is growing. "Since the beginning of the decade, the number of companies with smoking policies has increased four- fold," from 16 percent in 1980 to 60 percent in 1988, the Administrative Management Society Foundation reported in its ninth annual Smoking Policies Survey, 7 ER W 370 (March 20, 1989). Many of the policies have grown in response to employees' anxiety about the air they breathe. The 1986 Surgeon General's report concluded that "[i]nvoluntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non-smokers." Such informa- tion gives many workers reason for concern about office air quality and the effects of sidestream smoke on their health, surveys find. In each of the past three years, 73 percent of all companies surveyed by AMS reported that they have received objections or complaints from non-smokers about the smoking habits of co-workers.' Similarly, a 1987 survey conducted by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. and the American Society for Personnel Administration, which was featured in the BNA special report, Where There's Smoke, found that more than half (54 percent) of the 623 surveyed organizations had a smoking policy. Of those, 71 per- cent had adopted policies out of concern for employ- ees' health and comfort, and 54 percent had created the policies because of complaints from employees. For whatever the reasons, prohibitions on smoking in all or parts of the workplace appear to be spread- ing. Sixty percent of the 1989 AMS survey respondents have an official smoking policy, up 15 percent from the previous year. One quarter of the 283 companies AMS surveyed restrict smoking in every area of the company, up from 14 percent in the 1988 survey. AMS interprets these figures as a trend that indicates that "once restrictions are established, they tend to grow into a complete ban." Common Area Bans Most Prevalent Two-fifths of the AMS survey respondents, from a cross section of AMS member companies, indicated that the areas in their companies most likely to be banned for smoking are public reception areas, hall- ways, and meeting rooms. Other than pressure from employees, employers give a variety of other reasons for instituting smoking policies. Fifty-nine percent of the personnel execu- tives who responded to the 1989 AMS survey believe that smoking reduces productivity, and 69 percent believe that smoking increases the cost of medical insurance premiums. Others think that workplace smoking affects maintenance costs (44 percent) and the costs of absenteeism (37 percent). Effects On Absenteeism In fact, several surveys have attempted to deter- mine if there is a difference in the absenteeism rate of smokers and non-smokers with differing conclusions. Excess sick leave was taken by smokers regardless of their sex, marital status, or age group, according to one study of Missouri state workers, conducted in the 20-month period from January 1983 to August 1984. Mark Van Tuinen, director of the Missouri Bureau of Health Services Statistics, and Garland Land, depu- ty director of Health Resources for the state collected data on 406 employees representing 97 percent of the State of Missouri's Department of Health. Sick leave records for the employees were used to collect the statistics. The study concluded that the 97 department employees who smoked used 1.5 more sick-leave days per year on average per employee than non-smoking employees during the 20-month period studied. Tuinen and Land note that the results of the re- search are consistent with data from a 1976 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), collected by the Na- tional Center for Health Statistics (HHS), which indi- cated absenteeism from work is higher among smok- ers than non-smokers. The 1976 survey revealed that males who smoked 25 or more cigarettes per day were absent 5.7 days per year, compared with 4.3 days for males who never smoked, a difference of 33 percent. Females who smoked heavily were absent 9.3 days, whereas non-smoking women averaged 5.1 days, a difference of 82 percent. Conflicting results were reported by the National Chamber Foundation, the research arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose research found that smoking is not a factor causing absenteeism among workers, 7 ERW 649 (May 22, 1989). The study was based on 1983 through 1985 data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. The study examined three life-style characteristics- smoking, drinking, and physical activity-and found that only physical activity has a statistically signifi- cant impact on work attendance. The Chamber con- cluded that less absenteeism could be expected from physically fit workers. Effects On Insurance Premiums Most employer-provided insurance policies receive no price break for non-smokers, because the plans are group, not individual, policies. Although nearly all life insurers offer non-smoker discounts, few health insur- ers follow suit, the U.S. Public Health Service says, despite a 1987 National Association of Insurance Com- missioners (NAIC) resolution supporting premium dif- ferentials in group as well as in individual health policies. 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Ralations Weekly 0739-3018/89/50+.50

8 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY The 1989 Surgeon General's Report, Reducing the Consequences of Smokirig, cites a 1987 NAIC study as the most complete survey of premium differentials for individual health and disability policies. The sur- vey found that some one in seven commercial health carriers and Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans offered non- smoking discounts ranging from 3 to 15 percent on individual policies. Only a few carriers have introduced discounts of 2 to 3 percent on group policies, however, where certain percentages of the groups are non-smokers. The NAIC survey findings were based on responses from three- quarters of all Blue Cross; Blue Shield plan carriers in the United States and 458 carriers in Illinois offering individual health and disability insurance. Smoking Demographics The prevalence of smoking among adults in the United States decreased from 40 percent in 1965 to 29 percent in 1987, according to the 1989 Surgeon Gener- al's smoking report, and "nearly half of all living adults who ever smoked have quit," the report states. Smoking prevalence in this country has declined at a steady rate since 1974. If this trend continues, in the year 2000, 22 percent of the adult population will be smokers, according to data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics through the National Health Interview Surveys. Nevertheless, the overall decline in smoking preva- lence has been unequal across society, NHIS reports. Although smoking statistics differ by gender and race, national trends in smoking prevalence by educational category from 1974 through 1985 show that education has replaced gender as the major sociodemographic predictor of smoking status. Smoking prevalence has declined across all educa- tional groups, but the decline has occurred five times faster among the higher educated compared with the less educated. "Educational level has become the ma- jor demographic predictor of whether an individual will smoke cigarettes. There is considerably more cessation activity occurring among higher-educated than among less-educated groups, and the gap is wid- ening over time," reports the national Office on Smok- ing and Health at the Centers for Disease Control. Data from 1987 show that 35.7 percent of the U.S. population without high scl?ool diplomas smoke. High school graduates appear to be less likely to smoke (33.1 percent), and an even smaller percentage (26 percent) of individuals with some college background smoke. Only 16.3 percent of college graduates in the country are smokers, the 1987 data show. Other demographic breakdowns of smokers reveal less dramatic differences. More men (31.7 percent) than women (26.8 percent) smoke, and more blacks (34.0 percent) than whites (98.8 percent) smoke. Company smoking policies are bound to be unevenly received by employees. In an effort to gain the great- est acceptance possible, employers looking for a smooth transition to a new policy have enlisted help from special in-house and outside sources, such as consultants, steering committees, and wellness pro- grams. Their efforts often include smoking cessation programs, incentives, and education drives. Smoking Policy Transition The 1987 BNA/ASPA survey showed that more than half of the responding companies have taken measures to encourage employees to stop smoking. Companies with smoking policies appear much more likely to promote quit-smoking efforts (64 percent) than organi- zations without policies (38 percent). Also, 42 percent of the 623 surveyed companies had distributed quit-smoking literature and 29 percent sponsored employee wellness programs. A fifth of the personnel executives surveyed said that their compa- nies sponsored smoking cessation programs during and/or outside of work time. Workers who participate in quit-smoking programs offered outside the com- pany are reimbursed by 14 percent of the firms. Cash awards to workers who stop smoking were rare in 1987, with only 5 percent offering the incentive. The different means of encouragement are met with varying success rates, the survey found. While only 11 percent of respondents who used educational litera- ture said it had been successful, 43 percent of the firms' wellness programs were perceived as success- ful in changing employee smoking habits. About one in three of the organizations that have held in-house programs indicated that these programs achieved their goals. Employee Involvement Overall company smoking cessation promotion ef- forts with a high level of organizational support have been found to be instrumental in the success rate of workplace smoking abstinence programs. In an effort to enhance the effectiveness of smoking cessation programs at 14 companies in Saint Louis, the American Lung Association of Eastern Missouri in conjunction with a team led by Edwin B. Fisher Jr., director of health behavior research at Washington University, designed individual programs tailored to each firm's organizational structures and social net- works. The team acted as "consultants who trained employees to offer grass-roots programs with broad- based activities," Fisher told BNA. The programs were meant to be a part of the work environment 40 hours a week, instead of just weekly meetings. Program results indicated that an active steering committee combined with clear management support may well result in greater participation and activity among smokers, Fisher reports. Company success rates differed as each was a unique setting and activ- ity levels differed, but 12 months after the programs' completion, most of the company sites had abstinence rates of close to 30 percent. Fisher describes that rate as a "benchmark for state-of-the-art programs in smoking cessation literature." The most dramatic results were found among smok- ers who did not join the smoking cessation program but quit smoking on their own during the campaign. Rates of abstinence among this group ranged from 5 to 15 percent. In contrast, estimates of the rate of spontaneous abstinence among smokers in the general public run about 2 to 3 percent. 0 10-23-89 C,-oyright 0 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, ino., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016/89/50+.50

(Vol. 7) 9 LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS Cases & Arbitrations COURTS RECOGNIZE RIGHT TO LITIGATE, BUT NOT RIGHT TO SMOKE-FREE WORKPLACE Whether or not smoking in the workplace consti- tutes a hazard continues to be a controversial legal issue, and in all likelihood will remain so for the forseeable future. Although safety, health, and civil rights issues are raised by advocates on both sides of the controversy, the courts have been reluctant to intervene. Cases appear sporadically, but courts have been reluctant to read into the law either a right to smoke or a right to work in a smoke-free environment. States and municipalities have successfully enacted legislation and regulations that restrict workplace smoking. Challenges to state and local laws to limit smoking are rare. The first major case on workplace smoking ap- peared in New Jersey in 1976. Since that time, suits involving smoking have tested a number of claims, including: • Constitutional rights; • Common law duty; • Handicap discrimination; • Entitlements to unemployment insurance, work- men's compensation, disability insurance; and • Violations of the statutory or contractual rights of unionized employees. Constitutional Rights The first major case to rely on a constitutional argument for a smoke-free workplace was Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District, 418 FSupp 716 (DC ELa 1976), aff'd 577 F2d 897 (CA5 1978); cert den, 439 US 1073 (1979). The plaintiffs charged that smoke in enclosed public space, the Louisiana Superdome, violated First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendment rights. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Louisiana rejected the argument, saying that the Constitution does not provide judicial reme- dies for every social and economic ill. According to the court, there is no fundamental, protected right to breathe air free from tobacco smoke. Later the same year, Gasper was cited in a North Carolina Supreme Court case that denied a request for an injunction that would have required a county to ban smoking in all its public buildings. According to the state high court, the legislature did not intend to include everybody with "any pulmonary problem" within the class defined as handicapped. (GASP v. Mecklenburg County, 42 NCApp 225, 256 SE2d 477 (1979). Other cases involving constitutional issues that have made it to the courts include: • Kensett v. State of Oklahoma, 716 F2d 1350 (CAlO 1983) in which it was alleged that the employer assaulted a worker by permitting smoking, and that failure to provide a smoke-free workplace violated Constitution; • Rossie v. State of Wisconsin/Dept. of Revenue (1 IER Cases 1048) in which a state court held that a Wisconsin statute prohibiting smoking in all but cer- tain state controlled buildings has a reasonable basis and does not deny equal protection under the Constitution; • Grusendorf v. Oklahoma City (2 IER Cases 51), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held in 1987 that a rule prohibiting firefighter trainees from smoking on or off the job was reason- able. The court questioned the fact that the rule only applied to trainees, which seemed strange because smoking could affect all firefighters, but observed that a contract provision prohibited imposing a no- smoking rule on the bargaining unit; • Boreali v. Axelrod (2 IER Cases 671) in which the New York state Court of Appeals in 1987 upheld a lower court decision striking down regulations limit- ing workplace smoking promulgated by the state Pub- lic Health Council. The lower court held that PHC exceeded its statutory authority by making the regula- tions and said the proper forum for workplace restric- tions was the legislature. In July 1989, a measure passed by the New York state legislature restricting workplace and public smoking was signed by Gov. Cuomo, 7 ERW 869 (July 10, 1989). The law, which goes into effect Jan 1, 1990 for public areas and April 1, 1990 for workplaces, is similar to the regulations struck down in 1987. Common Law Duty The first major case on workplace smoking was decided in 1976 and involved the common law duty of an employer to provide a safe working place (Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 145 NJ Super. 516, 368, A.2d 408 (1976)). A non-smoking secretary, claiming she had a severe reaction to cigarette smoke, sued her employer for denying her a workplace free from injurious and toxic substances. A New Jersey court found a common law right to a safe work environment and ordered the employer to restrict smoking to non-work areas. While the case was viewed as a landmark, it did not spawn much litigation based upon the same theory. In fact, seven years later in Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, No. C-3617-81E (NJ SuperCt 1983), another New Jersey court denied an employee's request to force broader smoking restrictions, stress- ing the need to balance smokers' and non-smokers' rights. Although the employee was hypersensitive to tobacco smoke, the court said Shimp had gone to far, was "too sweeping," and went "well beyond what is necessary to ensure a safe working place." Some states have recognized that an employee has a right to a trial when alleging that an employer has an 10-23-89 8NA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3016/891$0+.50

10 (vol.7) obligation to provide a safe working environment. In Missouri, for example, an employee contending that headaches, chest pain, nausea, memory loss, and other symptoms attributed to environmental tobacco smoke brought suit for injunctive relief based upon the em- ployer's duty to provide a reasonably safe working environment (Smith v. Western Electric Co., 643 SW2d 10 (Mo App Ct 1982). In the first major workplace smoking case in 1976, a New Jersey court found a common law right to a safe work environment and ordered an employer to restrict smoking to non-work areas. In Shimp, management had offered the worker a lower-paying, smoke-free job and to provide a respira- tor. Although the employee had failed to gain relief at trial initially, the state appeals court ruled that the plaintiff had not been afforded the chance to prove that tobacco smoke was harmful to employees or that the employer continually breached its duty to provide a safe workplace. On remand, the trial court found that the plaintiff did not prove irreparable harm and the company was not obligated to provide separate accommodations (Smith v. AT&T Technologies Inc., St. Louis Cty Ct, No. 446121, 4/23/85). The case was one in which Shimp was cited in support of the common law right to a smoke-free workplace. Industrial Insurance Case Another well-known case on the state level is Mc- Carthy v. Washington, 3 IER Cases 710 (1988). A state employee claimed that she contracted a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from working in a smoke-filled office environment. After complaining to her superiors about workplace smoke, the employee quit and sought industrial insur- ance benefits. Benefits were denied on the grounds that the alleged injury was not work related, and the employee sued the employer for negligence. A state appeals court determined on first impression that the employer "negligently failed to provide the worker with a safe and healthful place of employment." On appeal, the state supreme court found on June 30, 1988, that the the Washington Industrial Insurance Act does not bar a common-law tort claim asserting breach of duty to provide a safe workplace. However, the court did not decide whether or not an employer has a duty to protect non-smokers from smoke in the environment. At the federal level, the U.S. Circuit Court of Ap- peals for the District of Columbia has held that em- ployers have no obligation to accommodate individual workers who don't smoke, are particularly sensitive to cigarette smoke, and want a smoke-free environment (Gordon v. Raven Systems & Research Inc., 462 A2d 10 (CA DC 1983)). The court stressed that it had no BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY evidence that environmental tobacco smoke was harmful to all workers and said "the common law does not impose upon the employer the duty or burden to conform his workplace to the particular needs or sensitivities of an individual employee." Handicap, Racial Bias Claims A recent workplace smoking case involving a handi- cap discrimination claim is a suit seeking $4 million from the Tennessee Valley Authority for failing to accommodate an employee with pulmonary emphyse- ma. The suit cited the 1986 National Academy of Sciences study and the 1986 Surgeon General's report that highlighted the dangers of passive smoking. Anna M. Carroll charged that the TVA and its managers not only failed to provide a safe working environment, but they discriminated against her as a handicapped individual after she complained about smoke in the workplace. Following a request by the defendants for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a number of the plaintiff's claims, but held that claims of failure to maintain a smoke-free workplace could proceed (Carroll, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, USDC DC, No. 87-1957 (JHG), 3/7/88). In April 1988 the court denied a motion by the plaintiff to amend the complaint, ruling that the case must proceed solely on the original claims of failure to provide a safe workplace and unlawful discrimina- tion. Carroll had sought to include a charge that TVA had discharged her in retaliation for filing suit. In November 1988, the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, 7 ERW 8 (Jan. 2, 1989). Also in November 1988, TVA announced an agency-wide ban on smoking in all offices, replacing a policy that permitted discretion. In a leading case involving handicap accommodation [Vickers], the employ- ee's request for a workplace complete- ly free from smoke was rejected. The court said the rights of smokers and non-smokers must be balanced. A leading case involving handicap accommodation is Vickers v. Veterans Administration, FEP Cases 1197 (DC W.Wash 1982). An employee sued the Veter- ans Administration under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The employee proved he was handicapped by small amounts of tobacco smoke. The court ruled that the VA offered to reasonably accommodate the handi- cap, but that the plaintiff failed to take action that would reduce his exposure to smoke. The employee's request for a workplace completely free from smoke was rejected. The court said the rights of smokers and non-smokers must be balanced. Some legal theorists have proposed that a racial bias claim could be made against an employer that restricted employment to non-smokers. Some demo- 10-23-89 Copyright © 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016189/$0+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT graphic studies have shown that a greater number of black males than white males smoke. The doctrine underlying such a claim would be that enunciated in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (3 FEP Cases 175). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 1989 in Wards Cove v. Atonio, 7 ERW 739 (June 12, 1989), would place a greater burden on plaintiffs to show statistically that a company's no-smoking policy was specifically geared toward barring a minority from employment. Entitlements To Compensation In Parodi v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 690 F.2d 731 (CA9 1982), a federal worker was found to be disabled by hypersensitivity to tobacco smoke and thus entitled to disability payments. However, the court said that because the disability was environmen- tal, not physical, disability benefits would not be re- quired if the plaintiff were provided a smoke-free work area. In 1984 the plaintiff received an out-of- court settlement of full disability retirement pay of $500 per month and a $50,000 lump-sum payment. In Colorado, a state court denied unemployment compensation benefits to an employee who quit work over the presence of tobacco smoke in the workplace (Rotenberg v. Industrial Commission, 590 P.2d 521 (Colo. App. 1979)). The court found that the employee failed to demonstrate a sensitivity to smoke. Under Colorado law, employees who quit because of "unsa- tisfactory or hazardous working conditions" may re- ceive full unemployment benefits. The outcome was favorable, however, for a Califor- nia employee who did demonstrate a sensitivity to smoke (Alexander v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 104 Cal.App.3d 97,163, Cal Rptr. 411 (1980)). An X-ray technician provided medical evi- dence supporting her contention that she was allergic to smoke and could only engage in full-time work in a smoke-free environment. In support of her position, the employee also showed that other offices in the company were operated smoke-free and that she was willing to transfer. The state court granted unemploy- ment benefits. The Unionized Workplace The ability of unionized employers to determine how workplace smoking should be controlled may be limited despite contractual obligations to ensure a reasonably safe workplace. Employers may have a duty to bargain over smok- ing restrictions or changes in smoking policies, courts have held. For example, a county work rule banning smoking by public employees at work stations was struck down by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsyl- vania in 1983. The court affirmed a Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ruling that a no-smoking policy could not be imposed without first bargaining (Com- monwealth of Pa. v. Pa. Labor Relations Board, No 2167 C.D., Pa. CommonwlthCt 1980, 1983). Other cases involving the duty to bargain include Butcher Boy Refrigerator Door Co. v. NLRB, 290 F.2d 22 (CA 7 1961); Gallenkamp Stores v. NLRB, 402 F.2d 525, 529, n.4 (CA 9 1968); and Johns-Man- ville Sales v. IAM, 621 F.2d 756 (CA 5 1980). (Voi.7) 11 Arbitrators' Approaches Arbitrators examining workplace smoking disputes rely upon specific contract wording and the history of restrictions or freedoms at the specific worksite. Gen- erally, arbitrators uphold employers' rights to impose and enforce "reasonable" smoking restrictions to safe- guard life and property. For example, in grievances involving smoking near hazardous materials where a policy is clearly estab- lished and the area is clearly marked, arbitrators will usually support employer-imposed discipline if it is reasonable and fairly applied. Reasonable restrictions may also be upheld when production considerations, management's right to con- trol the workplace, and insurance costs come into play. Arbitrators tend to reverse disciplinary decisions where management has permitted smoking violations to go unpunished in the past or has failed to provide sufficient proof that the alleged misconduct occurred, according to published decisions. A number of recent arbitrations illustrate the range of approaches that arbitrators have devised to tackle workplace smoking issues. Arbitrators have looked at a company or agency's business and decided that an altered smoking policy was consistent with a stated mission. For example, an arbitrator found that a hospital did not violate its collective bargaining agreement when it unilaterally instituted a totally smoke-free workplace policy (Methodist Hospital and Service Employees Inter- national Union Local 113; 91 LA 968). Before instituting the policy, the hospital polled employees about their smoking preferences and 75 percent of the respondents expressed interest in a smokeless workplace. Although the union argued that the rule was unilateral, imposed outside of the man- agement rights clause, prohibited by the maintenance of benefits clause, regulated by state law, and unrea- sonable, the arbitrator found that management sought and obtained substantial input from the workforce, which put the union on notice of the proposed change. Employee Backing Boosts Reasonableness The number of employees supporting the ban in the poll, as well as the unanimous recommendation of a joint committee examining the issue supported the reasonableness of the employer's action, said the arbi- trator. He noted that the maintenance of benefits clause referred to "economic benefits" and relief per- iods, not what employees did on those periods. In addition, the arbitrator found that the rule was intend- ed to "promote good health on the part of the employ- ~ ees and other users of the hospital," which also en- p hanced the "basic mission and business objectives" of the institution. Finally, the arbitrator concluded that state law ~ required health institutions to be smoke free by Jan. 1, ~ 1990. The legislation, he observed, created no bar to a~ hospital implementing an earlier smoke-free policy. Similarly, an arbitrator found that a state agency's ~ modification of its workplace smoking policy to re-LI strict smoking to departmental break rooms was con-li 1fl-23-$9 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3016/89/$0+.50

12 (Vol. 7) sistent with the department's mission (Department of Health, State of Ohio and AFSCME Local 11, 89 LA 937). In this instance, the employer modified a smoking policy for a test period of one year. Employees were notified of the new policy by payroll check insert, and the department anticipated the need for smoking ces- sation classes and other assistance. A meeting was held with the union to explain the new policy, but no changes were made in the policy in response to union objections. In its grievance, the union claimed that the depart- ment was required to bargain over the change and that the new policy violated the maintenance of bene- fits clause of the parties' contract and was unreason- ably implemented. The arbitrator ruled that any requirement for the department to bargain over the new policy was de- rived from state law not the contract, thus arbitration was the wrong forum. The benefit clause clearly referred to "financial and fringe benefits," and the smoking policy was not a fringe benefit, the arbitrator decided. As for the reasonableness of the rule, the arbitrator found that the mission of the department was "safe- guarding ... health and promoting positive health practices." In addition, the 1986 U.S. Surgeon Gener- al's report on passive smoking clearly linked tobacco smoke to health problems, the restriction of smoking to break rooms resulted in a reasonable tradeoff between the rights of smokers and non-smokers, and no past practice could establish that smoking was a term or condition of employment. Also, the arbitrator noted that the employer did not abruptly introduce the new rule. Not only did the no-smoking policy promote the objectives of the department, it set an example "con- sistent with its public duties," the arbitrator held. Failure To Request Bargaining Often when smoking prohibitions have been institut- ed with adequate advance notice and a union fails to object or request bargaining, arbitrators will find that the union waived its rights. For example, a telephone company that provided notice months in advance of instituting a smoking ban was found to be within its rights (Michigan Bell Telephone and Communications Workers, 90 LA 1186). The company announced in December 1986 that it would implement a smoke-free workplace policy in July 1987. Provisions were made to ease the adjust- ment of smokers to the new policy. The company argued that it had no obligation to bargain over the issue because it involved managerial discretion. The union stated that the company should be compelled to bargain over the new policy. The arbitrator noted that the smoking policy had been the subject of a number of union-management meetings since it was first proposed, yet the union remained neutral on the subject. Because of its failure to request bargaining despite plenty of notice, the arbitrator determined that the union waived any right it might have had to bargain over the issue. BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY Failure to Consult Committee In another instance, an arbitrator found that a company may introduce a new smoking policy in the wake of safety concerns and soaring insurance costs, but it must first consult the union's shop committee pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement (Acorn Building Components Inc. and UAW Local 2194, 92 LA 68). For 16 years, a manufacturing company permitted smoking on its plant production floors. However, after its insurer threatened to terminate coverage unless smoking restrictions were adopted, management noti- fied employees that it would institute a policy limiting smoking to designated areas during breaks or lunch periods in three weeks. The union argued that the company could not unilat- erally change the rule without consulting the shop committee. The arbitrator upheld the company's right to create a policy promoting safety in the workplace, particu- larly in light of an insurer's warning to adopt restric- tions or risk losing coverage. However, the arbitrator held that the labor agree- ment required the company to discuss changes with the shop committee first and suspended the policy for two weeks to permit discussions between management and the union. Management Rights Another recent case involved the expansion of smoking restrictions from the workroom to the entire facility (Worthington Foods Inc. and Seafarers, 89 LA 1069). Management provided advance notice that it intend- ed to restrict smoking in company restrooms, lunch- rooms, and locker rooms where it had been permitted in the past. Federal and state law had restricted smoking in production areas for 15 years. The com- pany informed workers of the new policy and offered to subsidize smoking cessation classes. The union filed a grievance, contending that the ability to smoke in designated areas constituted a past practice. The union also claimed that the company made no safety argument in support of total ban. Further, the union said it did not challenge past re- strictions because they were reasonable, but the new, total ban was unreasonable. The arbitrator said that it was undisputed that the company had established previous rules and that its authority to promulgate rules was unchallenged. Al- though the lack of a challenge was not determinative, the arbitrator held, he noted that "widespread docu- mentation" of the probable effects of tobacco smoke, and the decision to phase in the new policy over a six- month period with support programs offered for em- ployees trying to quit made the company's decision a reasonable one. Other cases that involved a management right to alter office or work rules include: Des Moines Regis- ter and Tribune and Typographical Union, 90 LA 777; and JR Simplot Co. and OCAW, 91 LA 375. A smoking ban unilaterally implemented at a manu- facturing plant was reasonable where the employer 10-23-89 Copyright 0 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3018189J$0+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT had a contractual right to change rules and smoking was a privilege and not a contractual right, an arbi- . trator ruled (Wyandot Inc. and UFCW Local 227, 92 LA 457). A company announced that a new smoking policy banning smoking inside all buildings would take place in six months. Previously, smoking had been allowed in designated areas. The union objected, arguing that the policy was unreasonable to the 50 percent of employees who smoked at the plant who would be forced to smoke outside in any weather following the ban. The com- pany claimed that the management rights clause of the agreement permitted it to institute new rules or modify old ones. The arbitrator found that the the parties' agreement was "clear and unambiguous" in giving the company the "unilateral right to change existing rules, create new ones, and modify conditions of employment." Furthermore, he found the claim that the policy was unreasonable was unfounded. He noted that the com- pany facilities are private property, and on private property, "smoking is an accorded privilege and not a right." The arbitrator also cited the "employer's obliga- tion" to maintain a healthful workplace. In light of "overwhelming evidence" of the health hazards of smoking, the arbiter concluded, the company did not unreasonably implement the policy. No Binding Past Practice Found Another arbitrator has found that affording employ- ees the privilege of smoking does not constitute a binding past practice (Dayton Newspapers and The Newspaper Guidd, 91 LA 201). During contract negotiations that eventually led to impasse, a newspaper company and union discussed a new smoking policy that would expand restrictions from public areas to other areas within the building. Following five meetings discus.Cing incentives, ven- tilation, discipline, cessation clinics, private offices, and open work areas, the company announced its final position. Three more meetings were held before the company declared impasse and unilaterally imple- mented the policy. The union charged that the new policy was unrea- sonable, arbitrary, and capricious as well as a change in past practice and working conditions. The arbitrator found that the imposed policy was reasonable in part because the employer was willing to negotiate over its terms. He noted that "So long as the smoking policy is reasonably applied and adminis- tered within the proposed constructive disciplinary procedure, the policy cannot be considered unreason- able or arbitrary." In addition, the arbiter observed that the "practice or privilege of smoking while working did not consti- tute a binding past practice" since the contract did not grant employees the right to smoke. Further, since the parties bargained in good faith to impasse, the imple- mentation of the policy was not a contract violation or a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Another arbitration that interpreted management's right to implement smoking restrictions broadly was (Vol. 7) 13 Central Telephone Company of Nevada and IBEW, 92 LA 390. A company imposed a ban on smoking except in certain rooms during work hours without bargaining with the union. The union charged that the employer unilaterally altered "the conditions of employment," and thus was required to bargain before implementing the change. The company stressed that under its right to direct the workforce, it has a legitimate business interest in the health and safety of its employees and a "unilateral right to establish rules and regulations." It cited the 1986 Surgeon General's report addressing the dangers of secondary smoke, and argued that its duty to maintain a healthy work environment overrides any obligation to bargain over the issue. The arbitrator observed that while an employer may not "intrude on employees' personal rights absent some legitimate business reason," an employer also has a "legal obligation to maintain a safe working environment." The Surgeon General's report cites "ambient tobacco smoke in the workplace" as a health hazard, the arbiter noted. Thus, he reasoned, "Failure by the employer to correct known safety hazards might expose it to substantial liability." The arbitrator further noted that em- ployers are lawfully obligated to elimi- nate "toxic agents" from the work- place. The arbitrator further noted that employers are lawfully obligated to eliminate "toxic agents" from the workplace. As a result, he found total ban on smoking during working hours "appropriate," and not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Arbitrators may rule that the unilateral imposition of broad smoking restrictions is not per se negotiable, as in Honeywell Inc. and IAM Lodge 570, 92 LA 181. In this arbitration, a manufacturer unilaterally im- plemented a total ban on smoking in all its buildings, giving the union four months notice. The union filed a grievance, claiming the new policy was contrary to past practice and that a change required bargaining. The arbitrator held that although the change in working conditions was drastic, such a change was not necessarily negotiable. Security regulations, safety practices, and smoking restrictions in areas where the presence of a spark would obviously be harmful are not per se negotiable, the arbitrator observed. Fur- ther, restrictions are only grievable if they conflict with the "express terms of a collective agreement or are unreasonable," the arbitrator said. Furthermore, the arbitrator found the rule consist- ent with the duty to provide a safe and healthful workplace. As for past practice, the arbitrator ruled that the parties' agreement did not require past prac- tice to be examined before changing rules, nor did the past practice of permitting smoking amount to a "benefit accruing to employees." Calling smoking and the exposure to tobacco smoke a "detriment," the arbitrator rejected the union's argument. El 10-23-89 8NA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3016/89/50+.50

14 (Vol. 7) LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY (' e Federal Action TOTAL AIRLINE SMOKING BAN ADVANCES; SUIT TO FORCE OSHA ACTION WITHDRAWN Smoking issues continue to be debated at the federal level. Fifty-one bills addressing smoking or tobacco were introduced in the 100th Congress, and 35 have been introduced as of October 1989 in the 101st. The bill with the greatest chance for success is one intend- ed to eliminate smoking on all domestic airline fiights. On Sept. 14 the Senate passed an amendment to the fiscal 1990 appropriations measure for the Depart- ment of Transportation that would permanently ban smoking on all domestic airline flights. The current ban is scheduled to expire in April 1990. The amendment was added to the $10.5 billion fiscal 1990 Department of Transportation appropriations bill (HR 3015). A House-Senate conference committee approved the amendment Oct. 16, clearing the bill for floor votes and then the White House, 7 ER W 1337 (Oct. 23, 1989). The health of flight attendants-who are exposed to tobacco smoke and other air contaminants in closed airline cabins throughout their work shifts-remains a major concern for proponents of the amendment. The ban's chief proponent in the Senate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), said after the vote, "This is a victory for the majority of airline passengers who don't want to breathe other people's cigarette smoke. It will protect people from the damage caused by passive smoking and improve air quality on all U.S. domestic flights." During debate, Lautenberg called the ban "long overdue." "Here we have a problem that takes up to 400,000 lives a year and yet there are those who will do everything in their power to keep it that way. If banning smoking for four to five hours means the end to a business, then it is time to look for another way to make a living," he said. However, the Washington, D.C: based Tobacco Insti- tute and tobacco-state senators denounced the expan- sion of the ban to all flights, including those of foreign carriers, that originate and end in the United States. Reguiatory Activity Smoking in all federal buildings operated by the General Services Administration is prohibited except in designated areas under regulations that went into effect Feb. 6, 1987. The regulations cover about one- third of all federal buildings. However, the actual implementation of smoking restrictions in federal buildings has been slowed by a number of considerations including building design and ventilation, union desires for participation, and cost considerations. For example, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last month affirmed the right of federal unions to negotiate over employee smoking policies, upholding a Federal Labor Relations Author- ity decision (Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, CA DC, No. 88-1304, 9/15/89). The Health and Human Services Department's Indi- an Health Service should have bargained with the National Federation of Federal Employees before im- posing a smoking ban at five facilities in Oklahoma City, the court determined. The court also noted that FLRA decisions may be set aside only if they are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. FLRA's determination that there was nothing in the record indicating that the proposals would interfere with the agency's objective "can hard- ly be characterized as arbitrary or capricious," the court said. Suit To Force OSHA Action Withdrawn A national public interest anti-smoking organization Sept. 14 filed a notice of entry of dismissal of its lawsuit seeking to compel the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ban or restrict smoking in the workplace (Action on Smoking and Health v. OSHA, DC DC, No. 89-1915). Athena Mueller, counsel for the Washington, D.C.- based Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), explained that the organization filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prompt the agency to respond to ASH's 1987 petition for an emergency temporary standard prohibiting smoking in the workplace or adopting workplace smoking re- strictions already promulgated by other federal agencies. The object of the lawsuit was to force the agency to respond to the petition, Mueller said, and because the agency did file a written response Sept. 1 denying the petition for an ETS, the organization agreed to dismiss the case. ASH filed its petition in May 1987 seeking to force OSHA to designate tobacco smoke a carcinogen and protect workers in the 4.8 million workplaces under the agency's jurisdiction from its effects. Despite as- surances by OSHA that a response would be forthcom- ing, Mueller said, nothing had happened by the time the organization filed the lawsuit in July to compel an agency response. On Sept. 1, OSHA issued its response, denying ASH's petition. The agency explained that, after reviewing the studies relied upon by ASH, it concluded that the data do not definitively establish a "grave danger" from tobacco smoke at current exposure levels in the workplace. Therefore, the agency said, ASH did not meet the "stringent statutory criteria for issuance 6 an ETS." [] 10-23-89 Copyright m 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, >).C. 20037 0739-3016/89/$0+.50

(Vol. 7) 15 STATE LAWS L State Regulations MAJORITY OF STATES REGULATE SMOKING IN PUBLIC; HANDFUL REGULATE WORKPLACE In 1972, Utah was the only state with a law regulat- ing smoking in public places. Since that time, a major- ity of states have enacted such laws, which frequently include public and private sector workplaces. In addi- tion, a handful of states have laws on the books that specifically regulate workplace smoking. A report to Congress on smoking and health, submit- ted in accordance with the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-474), noted that at least 42 states and the District of Columbia have on the books some law controlling smoking. These laws were not passed as fire safety measures, but rather to inform the public about and to protect non-smokers from the adverse effects of environmental tobacco smoke on their health. The laws vary greatly in scope, from the narrow regulation of the District of Columbia prohibiting smoking in designated places, such as passenger ele- vators, to the broad brush application of Minnesota's law that encompasses virtually all indoor areas, in- cluding offices and worksites-such as factories, warehouses, and mills-not usually frequented by the public. State laws regulating workplace smoking may cov- er both public and private employers, or specified groups of employers, such as retailers, restaurateurs, educational institutions, cultural facilities, or health care offices and facilities. Some laws may cover only employers of a particular size. Workplace smoking laws usually fall into the fol- lowing three categories: • Laws that require employers to adopt, implement, and post a written smoking policy but do not spell out the specifics of the policies; • Laws that provide some guidelines for establishing smoking policies or complying with the law but that give employers discretion to determine how smoking controls should be implemented; and • Laws that designate specific no-smoking areas or that give non-smoking employees specific rights. Local Laws In addition to state laws, a number of municipalities have adopted some form of non-smokers' rights laws that apply to public areas or workplaces. Those laws may be broader and more stringent that the state law, and often mandate stiffer fines for violations. Local no-smoking ordinances, which may contain provisions on workplace smoking, have been enacted in Anchorage, Alaska; Alameda, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Fresno, Los Angeles, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San 10-23-89 Jose, San Rafael, and Santa Clara, Calif.; Aspen and Ft. Collins, Colo.; Topeka, Kans.; the counties of Anne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince Georges, Md.; Cambridge and Newton, Mass.; Kansas City, Mo.; the counties of Nassau, Orange, Suffolk, and West- chester, N.Y.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Multomah County and Salem, Ore.; San Antonio, Tex.; the counties of Arling- ton, Fairfax, and Prince William, Va.; and Newport News, Va. Additionally, governors of a number of states, such as Maryland and Massachusetts, have issued executive orders or policy statements that address the issue of smoking in state-controlled buildings and offices. Toxic Substance In addition to California's law regulating smoking in public places, proposition 65, California's Safe Drink- ing Water and Toxic Enforcement Act requires em- ployers of 10 or more employees to provide "clear and reasonable warning" of any toxic or cancer-causing substances in the workplace. Tobacco smoke is includ- ed among such substances. In Ft. Collins, Colo., smoking is banned in common areas of offices by city ordinance. In addition, employ- ers must honor non-smokers' requests for a smoke- free work space. In Cambridge, Mass., a city ordinance stipulates that at the written request of one or more employees, an employer "may designate the area in the immedi- ate vicinity of the employee's work station a smoking area, if the employer finds that such a smoking area will not allow non-smoking employees or the public to breathe any significant amount of smoke." In disputes over the policy, the concerns of non-smokers take precedence. Utah's law restricting smoking in public places prohibits the placement of portable or table top ash- trays in areas designated as no-smoking areas. No employee or applicant for employment in Vir- ginia can be required, as a condition of employment, to smoke or use tobacco products on the job. Nor can they be required to abstain from smoking outside the course of employment, with some exceptions, includ- ing police and firefighters. Federal Workers Federal government workers are protected against involuntary exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke on the job, although agencies have the right to designate smoking areas. Under General Services Administration regulations, which cover all buildings controlled by the GSA, in- cluding leased sites, smoking is prohibited, except in designated areas, in general office space. Office space may be designated for smoking, pro- vided it is large and sufficiently ventilated to reduce involuntary exposure to secondhand s e. 202~'09~~f-31 BNA's Empioyee Relailons Weekly 0739-3076/89/50+.50

16 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY ; State Smoking Policy Requirements: Pnv~te Sec~ States with Lauvs ~ Covering Private Employers Q° ~ cn m~ o Q~ CY FU ac~°c F cm `ma ° ~ C'j • • N F . y New York Pennsyvaoia Rhode lsland Vermont asF:agtori • • ! ! • • • • © ,> .. ;. . ... A BNA Graphic (D 10-23-89 Copyright 0 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016J89/$0+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT State Smoking Policy Requirements: }'ubl States with Laws Covering Public Employers Aiz;;;ka • • Arizona Ar~ C,!ifornia • • G Cr,•loraao Connecticut trict cf Cu'~mbia Florida • Hawaii Idcho Irdi;>n:3 Iowa Kansas Maine tvlaryland • r1-,_sachusetts • • • Michigan Minnesota Montana Nebraska T; ;r Hamusllire • NewJersey 0 • • fJAw Mexico 0 ! • 0 New York • : • • • A;cr.n Dakota ~ • , Ohio • • t:'raahoma • • • Cregon • • • Pe r~yivania R-.r~`p Island •• • • ! Utah • • ~ ` ! Vermont • • • • 4;'asntngion Wisconsin c Sector (Vol. 7) 17 A BNA Graphic 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3016/69/$0+.50

18 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY The following is a state listing of relevant state statutes on smoking: Reference Cite/Code: ('Private Sector Employees, zPublic Sector Employees) Alaska-zAlaska Stat., Sees. 18.35.300-18.35.360 L. 1975; as amended by Chap. 34, L. 1984, effective July 17, 1984. Arizona-ZAriz. Rev. Stat., Title 36, Sec. 36-601.02, as added by Chap. 413, L. 1966, Aug. 12, 1986; as amend- ed by Chap. 337, L. 1987, effective Aug. 18, 1987. Arkansas-'Act 462, L. 1987, effective July 20, 1987. California-'Proposition 65, California's Safe Drink- ing Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (see Chap. 6.6 and regulations under Title 22, Chap. 3). zExecutive Order D-62-87, effective March 2, 1987. Colorado-'Executive Order On Smoking in State Buildings, D0096 85, effective November 21, 1985. Connecticut-',zConn. Gen. Stat. Ann., Secs. 31-40q, as enacted by Public Act 83-268, L. 1983, effective Janu- ary 1, 1984; as amended by Public Act 87-149, L. 1987, effective April 1, 1988. District of Columbia-2D.C. Code Ann., Sees. 6-911 to 6-917, L. 1979. Florida-',2Florida Clean Indoor Air Act, Sees. 1-12, as enacted by Chap. 85-257, L. 1985, Oct. 1, 1985. Hawaii-2Act 245, L. 1987, effective June 27, 1987. (Under amendment to Haw. Rev. Stat., Sec. 328-K, regs on smoking in workplaces apply to any private corporation, firm, or association receiving state funds. See Act 289, L. 1988, effective June 15, 1988). Idaho-zIdaho Code, Sees. 39-5501 to 39-5509, L. 1985. Indiana-ZInd. Code 13-1-13, as added by Clean Indoor Air Law, Act No. 1007, Chap. 13, L. 1987, effective Sept. 1, 1987. Iowa-',2Iowa Code Ann., Secs. 98A1-6, L. 1978; as amended by H.F. 79, L, 1987, effective July 1, 1987. Kansas-zKan. Stat. Ann., Sec. 21-4008 [S.B. 121, L. 1975, regulating smoking in public places] repealed; Sees. 1-7, as enacted by H.B. 2412, Chap. 110, L. 1987 effective July 1, 1987; H.B. 2823 and S.B. 779, Ls. 1988, effective July 1, 1988. Maine-',zMe. Rev. Stat. Ann., Title 22, Sec. 1580-A, as enacted by Workplace Smoking Act, Chap. 126, L. 1985, effective January 1, 1986. Maryland-zExecutive Agency Policy on Smoking, , Executive Order No. 01.01.1987.13, 1987, effective May 6, 1987. (See also 72 Opinions of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 87-030, July 8, 1987) Massachusetts-zExecutive Office for Administration and Finance, Administrative Bulletin 87-1, effective March 15, 1987 (Phase I) and May 15, 1987 (Phase II). Michigan-2Mich. Comp. Laws Ann., Act 368, Sees. 33.12601 to 333,12617, L.1978; as amended by Act 198, Part 126, L. 1986, effective January 1, 1987; as amend- ed by Act 294, L. 1988, effective October 1, 1988; as amended by Acts 296 and 315, Ls. 1988, effective 90 days after the legislature's adjournment. Minnesota-',2Minn. Stat. Ann., Sees. 144.411 to 144.417, as enacted by Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Chap. 211, L. 1975, effective August 1, 1975; implementing rules and regulations , Chap. 76, Minne- sota Department of Health, effective Apri12, 1976. Montana-',zMont. Code Ann., Sees. 50-40-101 to 50-40- 109, as enacted by Montana Clean Indoor Air Act, Chap. 368, L. 1979; Sec. 50-40-104, as amended by Chap. 458, L. 1989, effective April 5, 1989. Nebraska-',zNeb. Rev. Stat., Sees 71-5701 to 71-5713, as enacted by Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act, L. 1979. New Hampshire-','N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., as amended by adding Chap. 108, Sees. 155.50 to 155.53, L. 1986, effective January 1, 1987. New Jersey-',zN.J. Stat. Ann., Chap. 184, Sees 26:3D- 23 to 26:36-31, L. 1985, effective March 1, 1986. New Mexico-ZN.Mex. Stat. Ann., Sees 24-16-1 to 24- 16-11, as enacted by New Mexico Clean Indoor Air Act, Chap. 85, L. 1985, effective January 1, 1986. New York-',2N.Y. Pub. Health Law, Art. 13-E, Sees. 1399-n through 1399-x, as enacted by Chap. 244, L. 1989. Provisions covering workplaces are effective 270 days after the Act becomes law. The enforcement provision is effective 60 days after enactment. The remainder of the legislation is effective 180 days after the Act becomes law. (The law was signed July 5, 1989). North Dakota-ZN.D. Cent. Code, Sees. 23-12-2 and 23- 12-09 to 23-12-11, L. 1977. Ohio-2Ohio Rev. Code Ann., Sec. 3791.031, L. 1981, as amended by S.B. 339, L. 1988, effective July 20, 1988; Ohio Rev. Code Ann., Sees 2917.41(2) and 2917.41(3XE), L. 1984. Oklahoma-2Smoking in Public Places Act, Title 63, Okla. Stat. Sup. 1987, Sees. 1-1521 to 1-1527, as en- acted by Chap. 151, L. 1987, effective November 1, 1987; Sec. 1-1523, as amended by Chap. 232, L. 1989, effective November 1, 1989. Oregon-ZOre. Rev. Stat., Sees. 192.710 and 192.990, L. 1973; Ore. Rev. Stat., Sec. 479.015, L. 1975; Ore. Rev. Stat., Sec. 441.815, L. 1977; Ore. Rev. Stat., Sees 243.345 and 243.350 L. 1977; Ore. Rev. Stat., Sees. 433.835 to 433.990(5), as enacted by Indoor Clean Air Act, L. 1981. (See also H.B. 2179, L. 1985). Pennsylvania-',ZPa. Stat. Ann., Title 35, Sec. 1225. See Pub. Law 465 (No. 299) L. 1927, as amended by Pub. Law 1889 (No. 518), L. 1951, and Act 168 (S.B. 26), L. 1988, effective February 21, 1989. See also Pa. Stat. Ann., Title 53, Sees. 3702 and 37403(33), L. 1947; Pa. Stat. Ann., Title 35, Sec. 361, L. 1977. Rhode Island-',2R.I. Gen. Laws, Title 23, Sees. 23- 20.7-1 to 23-20.7-7, as added by Workplace Smoking Pollution Control Act, Chap. 86-442, L. 1986, effective June 27, 1986. Utah-',zUtah Code Ann. 1953, Sees. 76-10-101, 76-10- 106, and 76-10-108 to 76-10-110, as enacted by Chap. 10, L. 1976; as amended by Utah Indoor Clean Air Act, H.B. 173, L. 1986, effective April 27, 1986. Vermont-',ZVt. Stat. Ann., Title 18, Chap. 28, Sub- chap. 2, Sees. 1421 to 1428, as added by Act 69 (H.86) L. 1987, effective July 1, 1988; Sees. 1421 and 1422, as amended by Act 162 (H. 399), L. 1988, effective July 1, 1988. Washington-',2Wash. Rev. Code Ann., Title 70, as enacted by Clean Indoor Air Act, Chap. 236, L. 1985, effective May 10, 1985. Wisconsin-Wisc. Stat. Ann., Sees. 101-123(1)-(9), as enacted by Clean Indoor Air Act, Act 211, L. 1983, effective Apri126, 1984. 0 10-23-89 Copyright ® 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016/89/30+.50

(Vol. 7) 19 UNION VIEWPOINT Smoking Policies COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED POLICES SEEN BY UNIONS AS MOST FAIR APPROACH U.S. labor unions continue to hold to the position that the best workplace smoking policies are ones that are negotiated. At the same time labor officials ac- knowledge that smoking policies generally are becom- ing more restrictive. But a tough policy, even one that totally bans smok- ing, need not preclude bargaining, say union officials who spoke to BNA. So long as employees are consult- ed, and accommodations made for those who smoke, unions generally are prepared to go along with quite restrictive policies. The entire workplace smoking issue has become much less contentious in the last two or three years, labor officials agree. "It's not as controversial as it was," said David LaGrande, health and safety director for the Communications Workers of America. "People are more accepting of policies restricting smoking. Smokers don't see it as an imposition to go somewhere else to smoke," he said. Non-smokers also seem to be accepting of the rights of their co-workers who smoke. "It's a matter of reaching an accommodation, with the goal of achiev- ing a smoke-free environment without trampling on people's rights," said James August, health and safety specialist for the American Federation of State, Coun- ty and Municipal Employees Union. There are meth- ods of accommodating smokers, he said, that will satisfy even fairly militant non-smokers. Fighting Unilateral Policies What unions are not prepared to accept is the unilateral imposition of a smoking ban. The Washington Federation of State Employees, an AFSCME affiliate, last year fought a ban imposed by the Department of Social and Health Services for its offices around the state. In January, the Washington Personnel Board ruled that the department had com- mitted an unfair labor practice by implementing the ban without first negotiating with the union and or- dered the department to bargain over the policy, 7 ER W 190 (Feb. 6, 1989). Pat Sisco, a union area representative who recently negotiated separate policies for employees in two agencies within SHS, said both policies reflect the strong sentiment within the general population that workers are entitled to breathe clean air. The policies also had to fall within the strictures of the state's 1985 Indoor Clean Air Act, which prohibits smoking in common work areas. The two negotiated policies nonetheless take differ- ent approaches in addressing the issue, Sisco said. At the division of support enforcement offices in Olym- pia, management agreed in a contract ratified in September to construct pre-fabricated gazebo-type shelters outside the building where smokers can smoke. The agency had just moved to a new building, Sisco said, and an employee poll showed that employ- ees did not want smoking in the building. "They're really quite attractive," Sisco said of the smoking shelters. In contrast, union members working for the com- munity services division wanted to accommodate inte- rior smoking, the union negotiator said. The solution was smoking lounges vented to the outside and desig- nated smoking and non-smoking lunchrooms on differ- ent floors. In both cases, Sisco explained, the objective of the union is to try and resolve conflicts within the mem- bership. "We try to be sensitive to non-smokers and still maintain some sense of realism" in accommodat- ing smokers, she said. Arbitrator Upholds Total Ban Unlike the situation in Olympia, the Communica- tions Workers of America lost its fight to have Michi- gan Bell bargain over a policy that totally bans smok- ing in company buildings and vehicles. The company imposed the ban in July 1987 leading the union to file a series of grievances on behalf of smokers. In May 1988 Arbitrator Robert Howlett upheld the ban, finding that the union had waived its right to negotiate over the policy because it had failed to request bargaining after it was notified initially of the company's intention to institute the policy (90 LA 1186). The company had argued in instituting the ban that it had a responsibility to provide a healthy and safe environment for its workers. Donald Lindemier, administrative assistant to the international vice president for CWA's district four in Michigan, said that the company has accommodated smokers by permitting them to go outside to smoke on their breaks. "They're very unhappy. They feel really put upon," Lindemier said of the smokers. "It's cold as hell outside in the wintertime." Lindemier credited the company, however, with providing smoking cessation programs for those who want to quit. According to the arbitration record, about 25 percent of the workforce were smokers at the time the policy was imposed. The union is now facing the possibility of yet an- other imposed ban, according to Lindemier. Ameri- tech Publishing, which publishes the Yellow Pages for the Ameritech region, told the union that it is institut- ing a designated smoking area policy as of Oct. i and a total ban on Jan. 1, 1990. Some of the company's offices previously had desig- nated smoking areas and the union sees this as a reasonable way of accommodating smokers, Linde- mier said. However, it opposes a total ban and has written a formal letter to the company to this effect. 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3016/89/$0+.60

20 (Vol.7) When the company first announced its decision, the union demanded to bargain. While the union has yet to convince management to modify its position, Linde- mier said "I feel there has been good faith bargaining and there will be further talks" before the target Jan. 1 date when the ban is set to go into effect. Lindemier speculated that there are probably fewer smokers at Ameritech Publishing than there were at Michigan Bell, and the jobs are not as stressful. Conse- quently a total ban would not upset as many employ- ees. Nonetheless, the union will continue to demand that other alternatives be used, he said. David LeGrande at the CWA's international office conceded that while a total ban is not what the union would want, when such a policy is imposed "there is not a lot we can do; it doesn't leave us with a whole lot of options." LeGrande said that all of the major telecommunica- tions companies with which CWA bargains now have some form of smoking policy. In general, "bargaining has worked," he said. LeGrande said that in CWA's bargaining this past summer with AT&T and more recently with the var- ious regional Bell companies, holding down the cost of health care and preventing cost shifting to employees was a major objective of the union. Smoking is a recognized health hazard, known to result in more illness and lost work days, LaGrande said. Reducing AFA PUSHES FOR TOTAL BAN The Association of Flight Attendants is one union that has taken a strong stand in favor of a total smoking ban in its members' workplace. The union recently joined with anti-smoking and health groups in lobbying for passage of federal legislation prohibiting smoking aboard all domestic airline flights. The measure, an amendment to the Transportation Depart- ment's appropriations bill (HR 3015), has been approved by a House-Senate conference and awaits floor action, 7 ERW 1337 (Oct. 23, 1989). "Thousands of flight attendants are made literally sick on a daily basis" by cigarette smoke in airplane cabins, said Matthew Finu- cane, AFA health and safety director. . The union has advocated a ban on smoking during all flights since 1986, Finucane said, when the National Academy of Sciences issued its report, "Airline Cabin Environment." The report showed that attendants are subjected to secondhand smoke equivalent to living with a pack-a-day smoker, and it recommended a to- tal ban on smoking on domestic flights. The NAS report, coupled with numerous complaints from members who suffered from dizziness, nausea, and coughing as the result of passenger smoke, convinced the union that it needed to take a strong stand against in- flight smoking, Finucane said. "We're pursuing a smoking ban as aggressively as we can." BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY smoking among workers can produce savings in health costs in the millions of dollars for a company the size of AT&T, he said. If the union and its members expect the company to continue to pay the full cost of health care, there has to be cooperation on smoking policies. People now recognize this and "are making the link between the advantages of not smoking and health," he said. Indoor Air Quality Union officials who spoke to BNA were quick to point out that workplace smoking policies cannot be separated from the broader issue of indoor air quality. Too often restrictive smoking policies are used as an excuse not to address inadequacies in the design and maintenance of building ventilation systems, said Bill Borwegan, health and safety director for the Service Employees International Union. "Employers think they can remedy the problem [of poor air qual- ity] by banning smoking, but that doesn't deal with other air contaminants," he said. "Dealing with indoor air quality is a multi-faceted problem and smoking is only a part of it." Borwegan observed that the air quality issue has emerged in the last three years as a leading health and safety concern for those among SEIU's 925,000 mem- bers who work in office settings. In negotiating and servicing contracts the union has gone beyond smok- ing policies, he said, to address the broader air quality issue. The New Hampshire State Employees Association, SEIU Local 1984, for example, has been pushing for the last 10 years to get proper ventilation in the Concord, N.H., building which houses the state depart- ment of health and human services. While smoking initially was seen as part of the poor air quality problem in the building, it quickly became apparent that there were serious deficiencies in the heating and ventilation systems, according to Dennis Martino, Lo- cal 1984 director of education and training. Characterizing the structure as a classic case of sick building syndrome, Martino said employees work- ing in the building have suffered from respiratory problems, rashes, and burning eyes as a result of the poor ventilation. Committee Pushes For Renovations The building cost about $8 million to construct, Martino said, but in the last 10 years the state has spent at least that much again in efforts to correct ventilation deficiencies. The joint labor-management health and safety committee pushed for the initial $200,000 study to determine what the problems were in the building. Since then the committee has testified several times before the state legislature for capital expenditure bills to rectify the problem. A letter- writing campaign initiated by the committee generat- ed 1,000 letters of appeal to the governor to include money for building renovation in his capital budget message. "Without the health and safety committee pushing from day one the state would have been inattentive," Martino said. "The committee just kept at it." 0 10-23-89 Copyrlght ® 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016/89J$0+.50

(Voi.7) 21 CASE STUDIES Cosmetics COSMETICS FIRM GAMBLES ON TWO-TO-ONE ODDS FOR EX-SMOKERS Employees who quit smoking at Bonne Bell Inc. are paid ;250 by the cosmetics company with the agree- ment that if they ever resume smoking, they must pay the company $500. The Cleveland, Ohio company checks periodically with those who have quit to see if they have stayed smoke-free, said Connie Schafer, public relations man- ager. No one ever refuses to pay the company back, Schafer told BNA. "Everyone is on their own. We've had the plan so long, it just runs itself," she said. The Cleveland-based company has prohibited smok- ing on company premises for the past four years. Prior to that, a smoking room was set aside for employees to smoke on breaks. Currently, "employees have to go outside to smoke, but they don't," according to Schafer. The company has not surveyed its employ- ees to determine what percentage are smokers. Currently there are no special smoking cessation plans being offered at Bonne Bell, but "from time to time" the American Heart Association conducts on- site programs, said Schafer. Bonne Bell, known for sponsoring sporting events throughout the country, does not have a wellness center but does have on-site exercise facilities to promote health for its 150 employees. Financial Services INSOLVENCY ENDS $20 MONTHLY BONUS FOR NON-SMOKERS AT CITY FEDERAL Since the mid-1960s, employees at City Federal Savings and Loan Assn. in Birmingham, Ala., who refrain from smoking both on and off the job have received an additional $20 monthly for every month they abstained, regardless of whether they were smok- ers or non-smokers on the day they were hired. On June 1 of this year, the benefit was eliminated for new employees. Due to the savings and loan's insolvency, only those who had received the bonus previously remain eligible for the incentive, according to Beth Mengel of the bank's human resources department. It is the employees' responsibility to let the payroll department know when their smoking status changes. "People tend to go back and forth between smoking and non-smoking," said Steve Mannich, who is respon- sible for making the payroll assignments. City Federal, however, does have a lower percent- age of smokers than the average company, Mengel pointed out. The percentage of non-smokers has in- creased in recent years-from 77 percent three years ago to 83 percent in 1989. Unlike findings at many other companies, however, an absenteeism study of City Federal's 338 employees found that smokers do not have a higher absentee rate than non-smokers, Mengel added. The company has always limited smoking in the workplace, allowing it only in restrooms and specific lounge areas, Mengel told BNA. The incentives policy began about 25 years ago when the chairman of the board had a change in his beliefs about smoking and wanted to encourage employees to refrain from smoking. Computers ONE-TIME $500 OUITTING BONUS OFFERED TO COMPUTER FIRM'S EMPLOYEES Cybertak Computer Products Inc., Los Angeles, Ca- lif., pays $500 to employees who quit smoking for one year. The incentive is a one-time offer, and there is no penalty if an employee returns to smoking after re- ceipt of the "health bonus." In the last year, five employees have received the bonus, said Nancy Bass, manager of human resources. This rate has stayed consistent since the bonus was first offered. Six months ago the company instituted a total smok- ing ban, which allows no smoking on company prem- ises. About 20 percent of the company's 250 workers smoke, and smokers are not enthusiastic about the ban, according to Bass, but there has been no turnover as the result of it. Employees were not consulted about the policy decision but were given one year's notice and were reimbursed for attendance in smoking cessation courses offered by the American Cancer Society. The smoking policy was set up by Cybertak's presi- dent, who is a non-smoker and health advocate. An- other factor in the decision is that almost all of the company's clients are insurance firms, said Bass. Petroleum Products GIFT INCENTIVES AT ENRON CORP. PRECEDE 1990 SMOKE-FREE POLICY Smoking cessation incentives at Enron Corp. began with offers of pen and desk sets for company employ- ees and their family members who avoided smoking for three months. Today, the desk sets and other incentives are still being offered, with one major additional employee incentive to participate: by Jan. 1, 1990, the 3,000 employees at the company's Houston headquarters will be entirely smoke-free. The long-standing incentive program includes clocks for smokers who skip the habit for a full year, and smoking cessation videotapes and computerized 10-23-89 BNA's Empioyee Relations Weekly 0739-3018/89/$0+.50

22 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY pocket programs available to those who wish to use them, according to Bruce List, wellness coordinator at the international energy firm. Enron announced in October 1988 that the company would be smoke-free beginning in 1990. Enron's ef- forts to encourage smoking cessation will intensify in the months prior to the effective date, List told BNA. The company historically has been health-conscious. Its philosophy is that it makes good business sense to have healthy employees. "We have always been con- scious of the well-being of our employees. Our health center in our headquarters develops programs for our employees worldwide," said List. This is not an entirely recent development, List told BNA. In 1985, Internorth in Omaha and Houston Natu- ral Gas merged and created a new company, Enron Corp. Internorth had always been very active in health service for its employees before the merger, said List. After the merger, Enron added a health center, fitness facility, and cafeteria to its new site. Enron developed a three-year plan to see where the company wanted to go toward improving the health of company employ- ees, then it conducted a health audit of the firm. The audit helped the company to pinpoint the top health risks and determine where wellness efforts should be targeted. An anonymous survey, sent to every fifth employee included questions on such topics as blood pressure, body weight, cholesterol levels, smoking habits, and regular health treatment. The audit showed that the principal employee health risk was smoking. 70 Percent Response To Survey In mid-1988, the Houston-based company became involved with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas in conducting an analysis of the corporate risk for smoking in the workplace. The survey was developed under the Cancer Center's con- sultation and sent to approximately 7,000 Enron em- ployees. It received a 70 percent response. A number of issues were covered-the health of the smoker, the health of the non-smoker who is exposed to sidestream smoke, the cost issue of smoker vs. non- smoker, and the liability for the corporation that allows smoking to continue, considering the Surgeon General's warning that the leading carcinogen in the workplace is tobacco smoke, List told BNA. At the time of the survey, the company policy allowed smoking in offices and at workplaces only. Smoking was not permitted in common areas. The survey found that 17 percent of the employees, or 500 individuals, at the Houston headquarters were smokers in September 1988. That percentage is sig- nificantly less than the national average, which runs about 25 percent, List said. The survey also revealed that employees wanted a stricter policy than was in place. In addition, the Cancer Center survey found the striking discovery that non-smokers in the company have a genuine sensitivity to the difficulty smokers have in quitting, according to List. They made it clear that the com- pany ought to do whatever it can to help the smoker. Smoke-Free Policy Instituted As a result of the survey, Enron announced its smoke-free policy. Although the policy would only apply to the Houston location initially, it includes the caveat that it will apply to other unspecified locations later after "bugs" are worked out in Houston. Enron offers four main cessation programs. Two of them have operated on a group basis. Another is a behavior modification program. Another is for the long-term, hard-core smoker and includes the use of nicotine gum under a physician's care. The wellness plan also includes video and cassette tapes for self- help quitters. "We have tried to establish a wide variety of programs so that employees would find something they could be interested in," List told BNA. Subsidies For Cessation Programs Enron subsidizes the price of cessation programs up to 75 percent. At the start of the program, the com- pany pays for half. Another 25 percent is paid if, at the end of one year, the employee is still smoke-free. To qualify for the 25 percent payment, a co-worker who sits nearby must sign a document to certify that he or she has not seen that person smoke during the past year since the quit date. The charges for the group-supported programs can be covered by payroll deduction. Other self-help pro- grams are free. Spouses also are eligible for the cessation programs. Off-site programs will be paid for by the company, but must first be approved. On Sept. 22, 1989, Enron began its 100-day count- down to the first smoke-free day in the company. During the 100 days, there will be new incentives. One dollar a day will be offered to employees for each day they do not smoke. The kick-off to the countdown will feature a festival atmosphere with trips offered as incentives, a butt-flicking contest, and free member- ships to the company on-site fitness facility for the first 50 people who sign up for cessation programs, List said. If Enron were it change anything about its smoking cessation campaign, it probably would have planned a shorter time period between announcing the smoke- free policy and its implementation. Six months would have been long enough, List told BNA. "The 15 months Enron gave was too much, mainly because people tend to procrastinate and put off cessation until the latest possible time" he said. Automobiles TIGHTER RESTRICTIONS AT FORD GLEANED FROM TWO-YEAR STUDY DETROIT - (By a BNA Staff Correspondent) - Ford Motor Co., which had allowed smoking in all but hazardous locations in its worldwide plants and offices for more than 40 years, banned smoking in common areas this past June, and restricts smoking further effective Jan. 1, 1990. Ford's newly tightened restrictions on smoking come out of a two-year study conducted by a company task force. Prior to 1987, when the task force was 10-23-N Copyright m 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016/89/50+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT formed, the company encouraged employees not to smoke, but did not ban smoking. As of June 1, 1989, the 86-year-old auto giant pro- hibited smoking in hallways, conference rooms, train- ing rooms, classrooms, and auditoriums. This is in addition to the company's ban on smoking in eleva- tors, stairwells, sections of company eating areas, medical facilities, and fire and safety hazardous areas, said Ford spokesman Richard Routh. Effective Jan. 1, 1990, smoking restrictions will be expanded to include both private and open office areas. In effect, smoking will be prohibited in all North American facilities except: • Open production, manufacturing, and garage areas (excluding those where fire or safety hazards could result or where there is risk of damage to products or sensitive equipment). These areas, Routh said, must be of sufficient size and have adequate ventilation to dissipate smoke; • Designated sections in eating areas; and • Additional non-work areas as designated. Also by Jan. 1, every other floor at company head- quarters in Dearborn, Mich., will have in place at least one smoking lounge. "We now have a smoking policy that accommodates both smokers and non-smokers,' Routh said. "The boldest step was to prohibit smoking in offices. People would breathe tobacco smoke who did not want that. We've asked both sides to be considerate." Routh said smoking will be allowed in plants, since they all have high ceilings and are well-ventilated. New Regs Not As Tough As 1910 In 1910 company founder Henry Ford Sr., who had a general aversion to smoking, banned the practice in all Ford facilities throughout the world. The ban also covered tobacco chewing and spitting. If a worker was caught smoking or chewing tobacco he usually would be given a warning. If it happened a second time, the worker was likely to be fired. The auto manufacturer, with 105,000 hourly, union- represented employees, and some 52,000 white collar workers, decided late in 1984 that it had to more formally grapple with the issue of smoking in the workplace. The company early in 1985 posted an employee bulletin that discouraged smoking, but in- cluded few restrictions. It stated, in part: "Tobacco smoke poses a significant risk to the health of the smoker. It has been shown to be a contributing factor to heart attack, strokes, and several forms of cancer. For the non-smoker sec- ond-hand smoke may be discomforting and in some circumstances harmful in certain concentrations. "For this reason, the company encourages non- smoking and offers stop-smoking programs for in- terested employees. While Ford respects the right of employees to smoke or to not smoke, the goal of the company is to provide a safe, comfortable and healthful work environment for all employees." The 1985 policy held that all company activities were "expected to be operated in a manner that is consistent with this goal." That included designated non-smoking areas within company cafeterias, dining rooms, and, where practical, lounges. (Vol. 7) 23 The 1985 policy held that the preference of the non- smoker should be given consideration in conference rooms, classrooms, auditoriums, and shared office areas, and that local management with cooperation from employees is responsible for resolving conflicts of preferences concerning smoking in shared areas. "The same is true of the new policy," Routh told BNA. "We've left that (disputes) to local management. But one reason that we've taken our time in terms of implementation is that we want everyone to know what the rules are. It takes preparation." The company since 1985 has encouraged workers to join the company smoking cessation program. Routh said the program-which is paid for by the com- pany-has resulted in 40 percent of those enrolled to stop smoking for at least a year. Salaried, Hourly Cessation Programs Salaried and hourly employees are offered separate but identical in-house stop-smoking programs, with the program for hourly employees jointly adminis- tered with the United Auto Workers. The after-work sessions usually are held once a week for seven weeks. The company, while heralding the advantages of smoking cessation in relation to its effect on the health of individual employees, acknowledges that healthier workers make for a healthier bottom line. "We looked at several studies on this issue," Routh said. "We only picked up on what others were saying in terms of health costs. But it was a consideration." Ford began reassessing its smoking policy in light of the increasing evidence that environmental tobacco smoke poses risks to non-smoking employees. In October 1987 it released another bulletin on smoking in the workplace: "Recently, in light of the Surgeon General's report on the adverse effects to non-smokers of passive or secondary smoke, the com- pany has established an internal study group to study current practices and to consider whether certain steps should be taken." Routh said the task force consisted of 30 smoking and non-smoking employees, including management employees from Ford headquarters and individual Ford plants. The United Auto Workers union was not represented. The most recent policy statement targets all Ford employees in North America-including those who work in the company's 80 facilities in 20 states. Routh said no surveys have been taken as to how many Ford employees smoke, but he speculated that a majority do not. The new policy, released April 21, reads in part: "In response to a growing number of employee concerns and the U.S. Surgeon General's findings, a Smoking in the Workplace Task Force was formed in 1987. Its goal was to study the need for additional restrictions on smoking. Recommendations of the task force have been reviewed in-depth with line and staff manage- ment and the Policy and Strategy Committee. "The company believes the new smoking directive represents a positive step toward providing a clean, healthy working environment for employees, recogniz- ing that tobacco smoke can have adverse effects on smokers and non-smokers alike." 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3016J89/50+.50

24 (Vol.7) Retail NO-SMOKING HIRING POLICY INSTITUTED AT FORTUNOFF JEWELERS IN 1983 Bucking a trend toward merely restricting work- place smoking, Fortunoff Fine Jewelry and Silver- ware Inc., New York, instituted a new employment policy in March 1983. At that time the company declared it would no longer hire people who smoked- even if they confined their smoking to off-duty hours and off-premises locations. This total ban on hiring smokers was prompted, according to Vice President for Human Resources Louis Fortunoff, by the company's wish to maintain a clean and healthful environment for its staff, as well as the belief that it would be unrealistic to expect smokers-especially heavy smokers-to do without cigarettes throughout the workday. A complete ban seemed the best route to take-and the most consist- ent approach to use in the situation, Fortunoff said. The firm is a "very wellness-oriented company," according to Fortunoff: it sponsors a number of well- ness activities, produces a "wellness newsletter," and "asks every one of our employees to take a yearly physical." Employed Smokers Faced Restrictions He also said that while people who were employed by the company when the policy was implemented were "grandfathered in" without any threat to their jobs or loss of status, they were encouraged to enter smoking cessation programs and treatment-all at Fortunoff's expense. The only penalty current employees who smoked had to confront was that they had to limit their smoking to a particular area in the company cafete- ria, and the rules are applied consistently throughout the organization-no exceptions. Fortunoff dismisses any notion that these smokers who were "grandfathered in" have fared badly in the company because of their habit-their careers have not, he asserted, been negatively affected. Nonethe- less, through attrition, as well as the company-spon- sored smoking cessation programs, the number of employees who were smokers when the policy was instituted and who have continued to smoke has dropped to less than 5 percent of the Fortunoff workforce. The company "really has not been able to determine any impact on health care costs," Fortunoff said, suggesting that cause and effect in this situation would be particularly difficult to pinpoint. In any event, that was not the impetus for the policy, he said. Most employees have been pleased with the pro- gram, according to Fortunoff, who added that there has been no change in the quality or number of applicants or employees since 1983. One prospective employee, smoker Amy Lipson, was, however, unhappy with the no-smokers policy. Lipson filed a disability discrimination suit against the company after she applied for a job in 1986 and was rejected because of her smoking, even though she assured the firm that she would smoke only when not at work (Lipson v. Fortunoff Fine Jewelry and BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY Silverware, Inc., No. 2-E-D-84-99582, N.Y. Div. of Human Rights, 11/4/84). According to Fortunoff, litigation is still pending in the suit against the jeweler. Insurance EMPLOYEE SURVEYS AT GENERAL AMERICAN PRECEDE ADOPTION OF SMOKING POLICY General American Life Insurance Co., St. Louis, Mo., began its activities on employee smoking by forming a junior board committee composed of mid- management who surveyed employees on their atti- tudes about smoking in 1985 and again in 1987. The committee researched other companies' exper- iences (mostly other life insurance companies throughout the country), and made recommendations for General American. Members of the committee were to be the employees who would have to enforce any policy that was developed. "We found a dramatic shift in attitudes during the period from 1985 to 1987," said John Hundley, vice president of human resources. There was a 20 percent point shift on concern about sidestream smoke in that two-year period. "We have a fairly educated work- force. They read a lot. Most of them are professionals who became very aware of the sidestream smoke issue between 1985 and 1987," he explained. In the 1987 survey, on how employees viewed side- stream smoke on a scale of one to five-one being no threat to health-the majority of respondents an- swered "five." The company decided to go smoke-free. At that time 23 percent of the company's 2,000 employees smoked. The reimbursement offers were announced in mid-1987-six months before a smoking ban was to become effective on Jan. 1, 1988. Employees were offered reimbursement up to $75 for any smoking cessation program in which they participated off company premises. Smoking pro- grams were and still are offered by the company on- site during work hours. Since the ban went into effect, employees who participate in on-site cessation pro- grarns pay $15 initially, which is refunded upon suc- cessful completion of the course. 60 Percent Success Rate When the ban was first instituted, 150 employees participated in smoking cessation programs, and Hundley estimates that many quit without the aid of a program. He cites studies that have found that for every smoker who quits under a program, another quits on his own. Of those who participated in smoking cessation programs, the success rate was 60 percent, Hundley told BNA. "Workplace smoking cessation efforts generally have a higher success rate than other programs," said Hundley, referring to research conducted by the American Lung Association of Eastern Missouri. "Re- search also shows that some people have to go through programs several times before it works," he said. Hundley estimates that General American Life's smoking population is half of what it was before the 10-23-89 Copyright ® 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016J89J$0+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT smoking ban. "The ban was the best way to minimize employee distraction on the smoking issue. About half the smokers wanted to quit anyway," he said. "In our case, we didn't have a large percent of employees who were smokers apt to be belligerent about the ban," Hundley continued. "For our work- force the smoking ban was going to meet the satisfac- tion of the majority of our employees. Without it, we may have had a large percentage who were mad about having to breathe sidestream smoke," he said. "We have had no major disciplinary problems as a result of it," Hundley reported. General American Life had its lowest turnover rate in the company's history the year the ban was instituted. This is consist- ent with what other companies have experienced, according to Hundley. Health Care TELEPHONE COUNSELING OFFERED TO GTE IN GROUP HEALTH'S CESSATION PACKAGE SEATTLE - (By a BNA Staff Correspondent) - Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound has incorpo- rated telephone counseling into the cooperatives' smoking cessation program offered to companies that are trying to persuade employees to quit smoking. Telephone counseling, which has been provided to some 20 companies in Washington that have contract- ed with Group Health for smoking cessation pro- grams, has a higher success rate than group pro- grams, the cooperative has found. The smoking cessation program provided by the Health at Work section of the cooperative's Center for Health Promotion offers materials to smokers that can be used as self-help kits, in group programs, or in telephone counseling, according to Sharon LeVan, gen- eral manager of Health at Work. The quit rate for self-help and phone counseling smoking cessation pro- grams has been about 30 percent for a one-year program, a better rate than group programs and about the same rate as experienced at General Tele- phone Northwest, Inc., which has contracted with Group Health to provide smoking cessation programs, using telephone counseling, to employees. General Telephone Northwest General Telephone Northwest, based in Everett, Wash., in 1987 imposed a smoke-free policy on all buildings in the company's five-state area, to protect employees' health, according to Nancy McAfee, health programs coordinator. The deadline for the smoke- free implementation for all facilities was Dec. 31, 1987, but employees in the various company locations were notified well before the smoke-free date of the deadline, she said. Employee information meetings were held several months before the date of imple- mentation, and employees in individual locations were also allowed to choose a date on which to implement the smoke-free policy, as long as it fell before the end of the year, she said. In 1987, the company began offering on-site smok- ing cessation classes, and paid $55 per employee toward the cost of the classes, which were conducted (Vol.7) 25 by local providers, she said. Because the company recognized not all people like taking classes, it con- tracted with Group Health to provide a self-paced smoking cessation program, under which participants receive six calls over the year-long program from a Group Health counselor, McAfee said. GTE pays $85 per employee for the Group Health program, she said. The company also offered to reimburse employees $25 for the cost of other programs of their own choosing. As the number of employees attending the on-site classes dwindled after 1987, it became clear the "mainstay was going to be the self-paced program" offered by Group Health, she said. In company-spon- sored programs-not including those sought out by individual employees-204 of 500 employees who par- ticipated in smoking cessation programs have quit, McAfee said. Originally, the company calculated that 28 percent of its 5,700 employees in the five-state area were smokers, she said. GTE continues to notify em- ployees of the availability of smoking cessation pro- grams and pay for the programs, McAfee said. LeVan of Group Health said GTE is the largest company to have used telephone counseling in a smok- ing cessation program, adding that although telephone counseling is "still in the formative stages," Group Health plans to expand it. The kit provided to smoking cessation program participants includes a manual that, among other things, explains the technique for "nicotine fading," which uses brand-switching over a four-week period to a low-nicotine level so a smoker is more likely to quit, LeVan said. The kit includes two booklets that the smoking participant gives to family or friends to act as support persons, LeVan said. GTE's participants are receiving six telephone calls from counselors over a the year rather than the usual three, she said. The first call is made within a few days of the smoker receiving the materials, she said. The counselor ex- plains the materials and basically gets a commitment from the smoker to the program. The second call, LeVan said, is sometime around the smoker's quit date, the third is six months from the first, and the others are made during the rest of the year as needed, she said. Calls can be as short as a few minutes, she said. Computers ACCOMMODATION, POLICY REVISION IS KEY TO POLICY AT IBM CORP. Accommodating both non-smokers and smokers is the gist of the smoking policy at IBM Corp., according to spokewoman Rita Black. The policy takes into consideration the preferences of both groups, at the same time "maintaining a safe, healthy, and produc- tive work environment." The current policy, which was last updated in 1987, calls for designated smoking and non-smoking areas. The corporate guidelines may be expanded on to ensure that a facility complies with state and local laws and to take into consideration specific factors of the individual site. Black said that IBM has had smoking guidelines for 10-23-89 8NA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3018/891$0+.50

26 (Voi.7) about 16 years, and that they are updated and re- viewed on a regular basis "to reflect the most current medical information available." Smoking is permitted in work spaces-unless near- by employees object-and in certain designated areas, such as portions of the cafeteria. Although smoking is allowed in private offices, it is prohibited in enclosed offices that are also used for meetings. Smoking is also prohibited in hallways, most res- trooms, lobbies and reception areas, sundry shops, libraries, elevators, copier rooms, small terminal rooms, stairwells, medical waiting and examination rooms, waiting lines, food service areas, shuttle buses, and indoor recreation facilities. Conference rooms and classrooms are non-smoking areas, unless local man- agement decides otherwise and the room meets venti- lation requirements. Rather than wait to hear complaints from employ- ees, managers are encouraged to identify potential conflicts among smokers and non-smokers, and to take steps to resolve them with suitable accommodations. When no suitable accommodation can be found, the preferences of the non-smoker are to prevail. Printing 'UP FRONT' SMOKE-FREE POLICY GREETS APPLICANTS AT LITHO INDUSTRIES RALEIGH, N.C. -(By a BNA Staff Correspondent) - When Litho Industries Inc. of Raleigh, N.C. adopted a policy of not hiring tobacco users, it chose to be "up front" about the company's preference for non-smok- ers, avoiding the "quiet discrimination" which smok- ers sometimes face, according to a company spokesman. "We feel it was a move to be up front about something that goes on all the while," Stanley Morse, vice president for manufacturing, said of the printing company's hiring policy, which began in January. Morse said illegal discrimination against smokers sometimes occurs when companies do not have smok- ing policies. "If you go into a large company or one with multi- ple departments, you will find departments where everybody smokes, and departments where nobody smokes. "The department head is quietly discriminat- ing without ever letting the people have any idea why they do not get hired," he asserted. Morse said "if the department head is anti-smoking, then he or she tends to discriminate illegally." Policy Has Not Hurt Recruiting Litho, on the other hand, lets prospective employees know "up front" that the company will not hire anyone who has smoked or chewed tobacco in the previous year, he said. On the advice of the company's lawyers, the policy is included in job advertisements and on applications. Despite the Raleigh area's unemployment rate of less than 3 percent, Litho's new policy of not hiring tobacco users has not made it hard for the company to find new employees. "We have not found anyone who qualified who was disqualified solely on tobacco use," BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY Morse said. Because Litho advertises the hiring policy in employment advertisements, "it is less likely that we are going to see such people," he added. The company, which has approximately 165 em- ployees, does not require potential workers to undergo blood tests or breathalyzer tests to prove they do not smoke. Morse said, however, that "tobacco users are pretty obvious" because "you can smell them." He acknowledged that if job applicants "were real light users so they do not reek of smoke, and they lied on the application and in the interview process, then they might get hired." Including false information on a job application could be grounds for dismissal, he said. Safety Concerns Prompted Policy Occupational safety was the chief reason the com- pany decided to adopt a smoking policy, Morse said. "'We are a printing company, and in some departments we use volatile chemicals. In other departments, we chop up paper into small pieces, so we have the potential for fire safety problems," he said. The first step toward a policy came in the fall of 1987 when the company moved all smoking into one smoking room. Afterwards, Morse said, "we discov- ered that a certain percentage of our employees' productivity dropped because of the amount of time they were spending in that area :' The decision to stop hiring smokers came later, when "it became obvious that we should not add to that problem," he said. Despite the ban on hiring new tobacco users, nearly a third of those already employed at Litho still smoke, Morse estimated. Although it offers a $50 cash incen- tive to those who quit, the company still provides a break room for the 30 percent who use tobacco. "We think that is important because some of the tobacco companies in the state that we do not want to offend find that very important-that we at least allow smokers a place to smoke," Morse said. He said the tobacco companies "are a little mystified" about Litho's rule on not hiring smokers. North Carolina companies produce about half of all the cigarettes manufactured for sale in the United States or abroad, according to Tobacco Associates, Inc. of Raleigh. Publishing SMOKE-FREE WORKPLACE EVOLVED WITH DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES AT LA TIMES Many smoking consultants believe that partial smoking bans at companies are just temporary mea- sures until a total smoking ban is instituted. That was the case at the Los Angeles Times, where a depart- mental smoking policy, which began in 1985, became a smoke-free workplace policy in July 1987. The departmental smoking policy varied by depart- ment. There were some smoke-free areas in every department, and usually there was a smoking room. The cafeteria was divided into smoking and non- smoking sections. The cafeteria smoking section kept shrinking as time went by and more and more smok- ers quit, said Clare Whitley, a registered nurse and health program coordinator for the Times. 10-23-89 Copyright+D 1989 by The Bureau of Natiowi Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-301618;/50+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT The company decided that the departmental policy did not protect employees from the effects of others' smoke, Whitley told BNA, and it was clear that a gradual reduction in the percentage of smokers had occurred since the first policy went into effect. When management decided to look at the issue, it formed employee committees, which consisted of half smokers and half non-smokers, half management and half rank-and-file, to look at the pros and cons of a smoking ban and to anticipate any problems the com- pany might face. They came up with the new policy- a total ban on indoor smoking. The reasons the Times went smoke-free were health concerns and the realization that fewer and fewer employees smoked, said Whitley. Also, she said, by the time of the smoking ban, non-smokers who were allergic to smoke or believed it was doing them harm felt resentment and anger toward smokers. About seven months before implementation, em- ployees were sent a series of memos to educate them about the hazards of smoking and alert them to the upcoming policy. At that time, smokers "grumbled and pouted and refused to go to cessation classes," Whitley told BNA. "We have some employees who took a while to decide that the company has their interest at heart." Smoker Resentment At First "At first, after the total smoking ban went into effect, there was no interest in quitting," according to Whitley. "The smokers harbored resentment in the beginning. But they have to go outside to smoke, and they realized that they could do without smoking. Many have stopped on their own with just the help of educational materials from the company's Wellness Center-handouts, videotapes, and counseling. Em- ployees who are quitting receive a great deal of support from their co-workers." Whitley said that the reform-minded workers, who normally would have no occasion to meet in the large company of 5,000 workers, make an effort to meet informally daily to encourage each other to remain smoke-free. The Times has been encouraging smoking cessation by offering Freedom From Smoking clinics ever since the 1985 departmental smoking policy went into ef- fect. "We're down to the hard-core smokers now, so we are not offering the on-site smoking cessation clinics as frequently as before," said Whitley. Whenever enough people are interested, Whitley schedules a clinic. If an employee participates in an off-site smoking cessation program, the company re- imburses up to $100 of the cost. Overall smoking cessation programs have been quite successful, according to Whitley. When the ban began, 70 percent of the smokers who decided to quit did so successfully-a figure Whitley calls "rather unreal." The overall rate of smokers who stay smoke- free is closer to 50 percent, but it can vary depending on the instructor, said Whitley. In 1989, 14 employees have taken the Freedom From Smoking clinics, and, after six months, 80 percent are still non-smokers. The company has not surveyed the workforce to determine what percentage still smokes. "We do not (Vol.7) 27 check the numbers because we do not want to put employees on the spot," Whitley told BNA. "Our objec- tive was to provide programs if there was a need. We believed there was a need." Insurance CESSATION CLASSES, PLUS CASH GEARED TO CESSATION ENVIRONMENT Any smoker employed by Metropolitan Life Insur- ance Co. worldwide is eligible for a one-time offer of $100 upon enrollment in a bona fide smoking cessation program. In addition to the financial incentive, the company provides smoking cessation classes free-of- charge for its approximately 100,000 employees in the New York metropolitan area. The incentive, begun in 1986, and the free classes are part of a gentle effort on the part of MetLife over the past 10 to 15 years to provide a company environ- ment in support of smoking cessation. Company Medi- cal Director Charles Arnold credits MetLife's top ex- ecutive leadership as "necessary for the success" the company has had in making a "smooth development to a virtually smoke-free environment." Arnold points out that there is not a smoker among the leading corporate management and that CEOs over the years have been quite outspoken in company and community health promotions, lending their time and names to the Great American Smoke-Out and encouraging the dissemination of health information to raise the awareness of smoking as a health hazard. "Also, there are special aspects to our industry, as a major life insurance underwriter and carrier where smokers are a substandard risk," which add to em- ployees' consciousness and have led to an environment where smoking is not acceptable, said Arnold. MetLife has not surveyed its workforce to deter- mine what percentage still smokes, but Arnold esti- mates that the proportion of smokers is slightly less than the national average, because the education level in the company is slightly higher. Management discussions on the topic began in the early 1980s. In 1985, as the result of an executive decision, all cigarette machines were removed. On Jan. 1, 1988, MetLife announced a policy of reasonable accommodation. In an effort to protect the air of non-smokers, the new policy provided that any employee could request a smoke-free work area. The new policy coincided with the effective date of New York City's new smoking law, but MetLife took the occasion to institute the policy companywide. As a result, smoking is banned now in most of the com- pany's common areas, work areas, and rest rooms. Unions NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION PREPARES TO INSTITUTE TOTAL BAN SLATED FOR 1991 When the National Education Association completes renovation of its Washington, D.C., offices in the spring of 1991, it will also institute a total ban on smoking at its headquarters and regional offices. 1o-2'd-s9 BNA's Empioyee Relations Weekly 0739-3018/89/$0+.50

28 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY The ban, which was announced by NEA executive director Don Cameron on Sept. 23, 1988, will apply to some 550 NEA employees-450 workers located at the headquarters building in Washington and approxi- mately 100 employees working in six regional offices. The ban also applies to tenants in the Washington, D.C. building. As both an employee organization and a large em- ployer, the NEA is in a unique position as it attempts to implement its new smoking policy. With two million members, NEA is the largest professional and em- ployee organization in the country, according to NEA spokesman Charles Ericson. NEA members include elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, educational support personnel such as school bus drivers and cafeteria workers, retired educators, and students who plan to become teachers. NEA has 50 state-level affiliates, 12,500 affiliated local associ- ations, as well as overseas educational associations and affiliates in Puerto Rico and the District of Co- lumbia, Ericson said. 'Practice What We Preach' The smoking ban is an attempt by the educational association to "practice what we preach," according to NEA health expert Jim Williams. NEA is trying to be a model as an employer of what it recommends to its members, Williams said, noting that NEA has a policy to assist its state and local affiliates to attain a smoke-free environment in schools. The smoking ban at NEA was issued in response to health concerns and the transition to newly renovated quarters presented a good transition point for imple- menting the ban, Williams said. Until they move into the newly renovated offices, employees must abide by a limited smoking policy announced by director Ca- meron in May of 1987, according to Bud Halstead of NEA's employee relations office. Under that policy, smoking is not allowed in meeting rooms where two or more employees gather and where one employee is obligated to attend. The policy allows employees to smoke at their immediate work stations during work and lunch breaks, in staff lounges, and designated areas of the cafeteria. Employees may not smoke in aisles, corri- dors, or common office areas, the policy states. NEA management deals with individual problems by mov- ing non-smokers away from smokers if an employee complains or by using desk top air cleaning machines, Halstead said. By announcing the policy in the fall of 1988, NEA administrators gave workers who smoke more than two years to prepare for the ban, Halstead said, noting that the association is paying for half the costs of smoking cessation programs for those employees who opt to participate. An informal survey of NEA managers conducted in the spring of 1987 found that about 92 NEA employees smoke, or about 18 percent of the workforce, accord- ing to Haistead. As of September, 1989, a year after Cameron an- nounced the upcoming smoking ban, NEA employees had participated in three types of smoking cessation programs, according to NEA health service figures. Seventy-three NEA employees signed up for the Wesselton Health Restructuring Program, with 11 quitting the program, according to Barbara Floyd, a nurse in NEA's health service clinic. The program involves a three-hour session that includes hypnotism and a cassette to reinforce the session. Employees can take a refresher course after 30 days, Floyd said. The Wesselton program addresses weight loss as well as smoking cessation, she said. Sixty-five NEA employees have participated in the American Lung Association's Freedom from Smoking Program, a self-help program in which participants receive a smoking cessation kit, according to Floyd, who noted that two employees quit that program. The program, which includes a book and cassette, outlines a 20-day regimen for smokers to follow. Twelve NEA employees have participated in a pro- gram called the Breathe Free Plan to Stop Smoking, with four dropping out of the program, according to NEA figures. The clinic is a five-day plan that focuses on behavioral changes, Floyd said. Dialogue With The Unions There has been a continuing dialogue with the un- ions that represent the NEA workers, both before the announcement of the policy and during its implemen- tation, according to Williams. The three unions that represent NEA employees are the NEA Staff Organi- zation (NEASO), representing 350 employees; the In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers, represent- ing 18 employees; and the Affiliate Field Service Employees, representing 66 members. Union negotiators raised the issue of a smoking policy during contract negotiations in 1986, but man- agement rejected the inclusion of smoking language in the contract because they believed it would limit their flexibility in dealing with the situation, Halstead said. According to NEA health expert Williams, the tran- sition is going fairly smoothly but he noted that there may be some employees who "will retire before they quit" smoking. Insurance EARLY STATEMENT OF HEALTH GOALS LEADS TO SMOOTH SMOKE-FREE POLICY ST. PAUL, Minn. - (By a BNA Staff Correspondent) - Northwestern National Life Insurance Company of Minneapolis had three things going for it when it implemented its no-smoking policy in January of 1986: it was not unionized, it had announced corporate health goals to its employees two years earlier, and it knew that keeping employees well informed was the key to preparing them for any change. As a result, a company spokesman said, Northwest- ern National's transition to a smoke-free environment went smoothly, and four years after its implementa- tion it is still considered a success. While that success may be difficult to quantify in terms of productivity or cost savings, he said the company is sure its work environment is healthier, and that translates into healthier employees. 90-23-89 Copyright C 1989 by The Bureau of Natlonal Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3098/99/50+.50

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT David K. Cummings, second vice president of corpo- rate relations for Northwestern National, said the company's no-smoking policy can be traced back to 1984, when NWNL announced two corporate health goals. Those goals were to express care and concern for the well-being of all employees by promoting good health and mental well-being, and to pioneer and model the company's commitment to good health. A wellness program was begun, he said, but it was not until May of 1985 that the company announced it would attempt to meet the health objectives by estab- lishing a smoke-free workplace Jan. 1, 1986. The policy eliminated smoking throughout NWNL's home offices except for a few designated areas. Those areas included a small section in each of the com- pany's cafeterias, and in the lounge of NWNL's main office. Employees may only smoke in those areas during their lunch hour, or before or after their regu- lar work hours. While smoking was prohibited in conference rooms during meetings, smoking is al- lowed during those meetings if clients indicate they wish to smoke. Smaller Offices Set Own Policy Cummings added that the policy applies only to NWNL's main offices located in Minneapolis, or only to about 2,200 of its 2,800 employees. He said offices located outside the Twin Cities area have the option of implementing the policy, but they are not required to do so. He said the outside offices were not included in the no-smoking policy because many of them are quite small, with staffs of 10 people or less. "The local option depends on their environment," he said. "We hope they choose our policy, but we're not going to fly out to San Diego to see if a three-person sales office is enforcing a no-smoking policy or not." Those violating the policy face the company's stand- ard disciplinary procedures, Cummings said. First offenses merit a verbal warning, while second of- fenses merit a written warning. Those employees violating the policy a third time are terminated from their positions. He said no employees have yet been terminated under the policy, and that he was not sure anyone had ever received a written warning. Several verbal warnings have been issued, he said. Those who violate the policy are usually "new peo- ple who forget there is a policy and have to be reminded to adhere to it," he said. Cummings said when the plan was announced, the company simultaneously began offering more on-site smoking cessation classes. The seven-week classes, which had already been offered as part of NWNL's wellness program, were offered on company time, and were offered without charge. He said employees who preferred to enroll in other smoking cessation courses or see hypnotists as a means of quitting smoking were reimbursed for 80 percent of their costs, up to $100. Other steps the company followed in implementing the policy, he said, included employee meetings, week- ly reports on the smoking cessation classes in the NWNL publication PIPELINE, the removal of the cigarette machine from its home office, and the im- (Vol.7) 29 mediate prohibition of smoking in conference rooms during meetings. NWNL hired an employee wellness and develop- ment supervisor that September, with her first as- signed duty to develop an action plan to ease the company into a smoke-free environment. Cummings said the supervisor promoted a number of activities in anticipation of the policy's implementation, including a contest aimed at getting employees to quit smoking. He said NWNL's chairman and chief executive offi- cer, John E. Pearson, wrote a letter to all company managers and supervisors in October, asking them to be supportive of employees as they adjusted to a smoke-free environment, especially those who smoked or who were attempting to quit smoking. However, Cummings added, employees who smoked asked that they not receive any special treatment when NWNL opted to implement the policy. He said he discussed the policy with a smoker focus group before its implementation, and it asked the company to avoid "sugar-coating" the policy. At no time throughout the policy's implementation did NWNL survey its employees to determine what percentage of them smoke. However, NWNL estimat- ed that about half of those who smoked would enroll in some type of smoking cessation class. He said the company believes that about 150 to 200 people en- rolled in classes. A survey conducted after one of the classes indicat- ed that about half of those taking the course complet- ed it as a non-smoker. However, he said, because of the nature of smoking, it is difficult to ascertain whether 50 percent is a true cessation rate for the courses. Even for those employees who have successfully completed smoking cessation classes, Cummings said, it is difficult to determine how cost-effective the classes, or the no-smoking policy, have been. Some of the effects of smoking tobacco are not known until years after the fact, he said, so it is difficult to gauge whether the policy has added years of health to a person's life. He said it was also difficult to determine whether the policy has saved NWNL any money. Engineering studies have indicated that ventilation systems are not as stressed when they are operated in a non-smoking environment, he said, but the company did not pursue any studies of its own to determine how much it would save either in lower energy bills or in greater worker productivity. The company did, however, peruse research that indicated that companies tend to spend more in insur- ance claims for employees who smoke and that non- smoking policies often resulted in lower absenteeism, better morale, increased productivity and better safe- ty records. One adjustment to the policy, Cummings said, was to open the firm's cafeterias 24 hours per day. He said employees who worked the night shift in computer operations asked that the cafeterias extend their hours so they could smoke within the rules. Aside from that change, he said, the policy has not been altered. Unlike other companies which have im- plemented policies, Northwestern's policy has not grown more restrictive as time has passed, he said. 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly 0739-3018/89/$0+.50

30 (Vol. 7) Agricultural Goods CASH INCENTIVE AT PIONEER HI-BRED CUTS SMOKING IN HALF IN NINE YEARS Nine years ago, Pioneer Hi-Bred in Des Moines, Iowa, instituted a smoking cessation incentive that pays $150 to employees who quit smoking for one year. Employees who remain smoke-free for the sec- ond year receive an additional $75. The offer still stands. When the cash incentive first went into effect, 30 to 40 percent of the workforce smoked. Now, for the past four years, the population of smokers has held steady at 23 to 24 percent, Mary Hanigan, corporate wellness administrator, told BNA. In the past two or three years, fewer than 20 employees have used the Cut-Out-Tobacco cash incen- tive program, according to Hanigan. "Perhaps only the hard-core smokers are left," she said. When asked if smokers resented the monetary offer, Hanigan replied "No, but non-smokers did. They said 'if you are unhealthy, you get some money.' " Those who had never started smoking are ineligible. In July 1987, the company set up a smoking policy. that allowed company divisions to designate non- smoking areas. Although policies differ among divi- sions, about 95 percent allow smoking only in the common areas, such as lunchrooms and lounges, which are divided into smoking sections. Most individual offices are for managers only, so equity issues have arisen where smoking was allowed in those offices. Employees argued that people need to go into managers' offices, and it is not fair to expose them to sidestream smoke, according to Hanigan. The smoking policy has been evolving and the current trend is toward smoking only in common areas for everyone. But one division has a completely smoke- free building with just one designated smoking area- "out back by the dumpster," Hanigan said. When the current smoking policy was established, another incentive was offered. Employees who wished to enter a smoking cessation program would be reim- bursed for 50 percent of its cost after six months and after one year, if still not smoking, the company would reimburse the remainder up to $250. No one has taken advantage of that offer, Hanigan reported. The company is wrestling with whether to revise its two-year-old policy, said Hanigan. "It appears that we will go the route of a stricter smoking ban under any new policy. My guess is that the majority of the workforce would like to have further limits imposed on smoking, but the issue still generates heated discus- sion among smokers," Hanigan told BNA. Manufacturing COURTESY TAKES PLACE OF POLICY AT REYNOLDS, WHERE PRODUCT IS TOBACCO RALEIGH, N.C. - (By a BNA Staff Correspondent) - R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in Winston-Salem, N.C. counts on courtesy, rather than a smoking policy, as a way to address workplace tobacco use among its more than 9,000 employees. BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY "We find that common courtesy and cooperation are the best ways to deal with smoking issues," Reynolds okesman DeeDee Dyer said in a recent interview ~ s . p Dyer said that "the desires of the smokers and the non-smokers should be equally accommodated, and mutually agreed upon solutions should be made when- ever and wherever possible." Second Largest Cigarette Producer R.J. Reynolds is the second largest producer of cigarettes in the United States, according to Dyer. It manufactures some of the most popular U.S. brands, including Winston, Salem, and Camel. The company employs approximately 12,500 workers, including its field sales force. Dyer said that R.J. Reynolds does not have an official smoking policy or special provisions for non- smokers. She was unaware of any disputes between smokers and non-smokers over workplace smoking, but said that Reynolds employees "respect one an- other enough that if it does bother someone, they would find a solution." Reynolds allows smoking throughout the company except in areas where it is prohibited because of potential fire hazards or where it might interfere with the manufacturing process, Dyer said. Employee break rooms are located throughout manufacturing areas. "They may smoke in there, but employees on the line are not allowed to smoke while they are on the floor," she said. Dyer said that Reynolds has no information about how many of its employees currently smoke, but she said "there is no reason why the percentage of Reyn- olds Tobacco employees who smoke would be any different than the percentage of the general popula- tion of smokers." The company feels that the decision to smoke is a personal choice, Dyer said. Moreover, she asserted, "history has found that smokers and non-smokers get along very well with each other when mutual respect is present." Telecommunications WEEKLY BONUS OFFERED TO EMPLOYEES AT SPEEDCALL TO REFRAIN FROM HABIT Since 1984, Speedcall Corp. has paid its employees $7 for each week they refrain from smoking during work hours. That incentive plan is still in progress and "working really well," according to Linda Brown, company spokesperson. The plan was instituted at the Hayward, Calif. telecommunications firm at the suggestion of one of the plant managers. Twenty-five of Speedcall's 27 employees are non- smokers and have remained so for years, Brown told BNA in an interview. "No one goes back and forth between smoking and non-smoking," she said. Speedcall is a completely smoke-free workplace, said Brown. 0 10-23-89 Copyright 0 1989 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0739-3016/89/$0+.50

(Vol. 7) 31 APPENDICES • AFL-CIO Statement on Smoking Policies • EPA Fact Sheet: Indoor Air Facts, Environmental Tobacco Smoke • New Jersey Group Against Smoking Pollution Inc. (GASP), Summit, N.J. From "Toward A Smokefree Workplace," second edition, written by Regina Cartson, published by New Jersey GASP, with a grant from the Respiratory Health Association. • Center for Corporate Public Involvement, Washington, D.C. From "Nonsmoking in the Workplace-A Guide for Insurance Companies" 10-23-89 8NA's Employee Relations Weekly

32 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY AFL-CIO STATEMENT ON SMOKING POLICIES Statement by the AFL-CIO Executive Council Issued February 19, 1986 The 1985 Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Smoking- Cancer and Chronic Lung Disease in the Workplace-has focused new attention on smoking and occupational disease. The report purports to be a review of available scientific evidence on the combined risks of smoking and exposure to known occupational hazards. Rather than shedding light and contributing new information on the occupational health problems faced by many workers, the report minimizes the risks posed by workplace toxins. Broad conclusions are reached that smoking poses a greater risk to workers than their workplace environment, yet there is no evidence in the document to support these findings. The AFL-CIO believes that employers will attempt to use the report to shirk their responsibility to clean up the workplace and to place blame for occupational disease on workers who smoke. The labor movement recognizes that smoking is a major public health problem of concern to both smokers and non-smokers and that there are real issues related to smoking and the workplace that should be addressed. It is well documented that employers' failure to control exposures to toxic substances in the workplace increases the risk of diseases for many workers. For workers exposed to some of these hazards, such as asbestos, there is evidence that smoking may further increase the risk of certain diseases. Our first priority is to limit exposures to toxic substances to reduce the risk of all exposed workers. We support programs to provide medical surveillance, education and counseling about the risks of disease to workers at high risk. Such programs should address the dangers of exposure to toxic substances and the added risk that may be posed by smoking, and provide assistance to those workers who wish to quit smoking. Many unions have already implemented these kinds of education and assistance programs. We oppose employer discrimination against hiring of smokers and employer proposals to mandate the removal of smokers from certain jobs or to require participation in smoking cessation programs as an excuse not to meet their responsibility to clean up the workplace. Employers should not be allowed to shift the burden to individual workers. Proposals to ban smoking in the workplace are also increasing. Unions are faced with legislation or unilaterally imposed employer policies that forbid smoking on the job and infringe on the rights of workers who smoke. Unions have a legal responsibility to represent the interests of all their members-smokers and non-smokers. The AFL-CIO believes that issues related to smoking on the job can best be worked out voluntarily in individual workplaces between labor and management in a manner that protects the interests and rights of all workers and not by legislative mandate. The AFL-CIO is committed to improving the working conditions and health of all our members. We urge our affiliated unions to continue their efforts to reduce workplace hazards and to provide voluntary assistance and education to workers who smoke as part of ongoing comprehensive programs to improve the health of union members. 10-23-89 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT U^..ed States Env,ronm er?taf Protect:on Agency (Vo1.7) 33 0!;:_~~ (ji June 1989 Air and Rod.ei:on (AN R-445) :.EPA Indoor Air Facts Environmental Tobacco Smoke Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is one of the most widespread and harmful indoor air pollutants. EIS comes from secondhand smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream smoke emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. ETS is a mixture of irritating gases and carcinogenic tar particles. It is a known cause of lung cancer and respiratory symptoms, and has been linked to heart disease. Breathing in ETS is also known as'invoiun- tary' or 'passive' smoking. What's The Big Deal About A Little Smoke? In the United States, 50 million smokers annually smoke approximately 600 billion cigarettes, 4 billion cigars, and the equivalent of li billion pipesful of tobacco. Since people spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors, this means that about 467,000 tons of tobacco are burned indoors each year. Over a 16-hour day, the average smoker smokes about two cigarettes per hour, and takes about ten minutes per cigarette. Thus, it takes only a few smokers in a given space to release a more-or- less steady stream of ETS into the indoor air. In 1985, three major bodies were independently convened to consider the public health implications of passive smoking. Commissioned by the U.S. Public Health Service under the Surgeon General, by the National Research Council (NRC) at the request of EPA, and by the congressionally-mandated Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer, Heart, and Lung Disease, the three bodies arrived at a consensus: passive smoking significantly increases the risk of lung cancer in adults. In the words of the Surgeon General, 'a substantial number of the lung cancer deaths that occur among nonsmokers can be attributed to involuntary smoking.' Moreover, there was agreement that passive smoking substantially increases respiratory illness in children and the NRC recommended eliminating ETS from the environ- ments of small children. 10-23-$9 No. 5 Why ETS Is Harmful Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds, including: carbon monoxide, nicotine, carcinogenic tars, sul fur dioxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, vinyl chloride, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, radionuclides, benzene, and arsenic. These chemicals have been shown in animal studies to be highly toxic. Many are treated as hazardous when emitted into outdoor air by toxic-waste dumps and chemical plants. There are 43 carcinogenic compounds in tobacco smoke. In addition, some substances are mutagenic, which means they can cause permanent, often harmful, changes in the genetic material of cells. EPA research has shown that ETS is the major source of mutagens indoors when smoking occurs. Higher levels of mutagenic particles are found in homes with ETS than in homes with wood stoves or in outdoor urban environments with numerous diesel trucks and buses. Many studies have shown that nonsmokers absorb ETS components in their body fluids. The effect of ETS on nonsmokers depends on the duration of exposure. According to the National Research Council, short=term visitors to a smoking area are most likely to be annoyed by the tobacco smoke odors, whereas nonsmoking occupants of the area are more likely to complain about irritating effects to the eyes, nose or throat. Long-term exposure to ETS may lead to more serious health effects. Impact On Children ~ ~ Passive smoking induces serious respiratory symp- ~a toms in children. Wheezing, coughing and sputum ~ production among children of smoking parents '~ increase by 20 percent to 80 percent depending on ~ the symptom being assessed and the number of s~ smokers in the household. Asthmatic children are ~ particularly at risk. ~ BNA's Employee Relations Weekly C4

34 (Vol. 7) Children of smokers have significantly higher rates of hospitalization for bronchitis and pneu- monia, and a number of studies report that chronic ear infections are more common in young children whose parents smoke. Also lung development is slower in children exposed to ETS. Lung problems caused by ETS exposure in childhood can extend into adult life. ETS And Cancer The U.S. Surgeon General and the NRC agree that ETS can cause cancer. The NRC estimates that the risk of lung cancer is roughly 30 percent higher for nonsmoking spouses of smokers than for nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. In 1986, an estimated 23,000 U.S. nonsmokers died from lung cancer, and the Surgeon General attributes a substantial number of those deaths to passive smoking. ETS And Heart Disease The Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer, Heart, and Lung Disease Workshop on ETS concluded that the effects of ETS on the heart may be of even greater concern than its cancer-causing effects on the lungs. ETS aggravates the condition of people with heart disease, and several studies have linked involuntary smoking with heart disease. ETS's Contribution To Indoor Air Pollution There are many potential sources of indoor air pollution, including chemicals emanating from building materials, furnishings, and consumer pro- ducts; gases from combustion appliances like space heaters and furnaces; and biological contaminants from a variety of sources. Because cigarettes, pipes, and cigars produce clouds of tar particles when smoked, ETS is a major contributor of particulate indoor air pollution. ETS also contributes numerous toxic gases to indoor air, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and ammonia. Field studies, controlled experiments, and mathe- matical models show that, under typical conditions of smoking and ventilation, ETS diffuses rapidly throughout buildings and homes, persists for long periods after smoking ends, and represents one of the strongest sources of indoor-air particulate pol- lution in buildings where smoking is permitted. Studies of indoor air quality in commercial and public buildings show that particulate levels in areas where smoking is permitted are considerably higher than in nonsmoking areas. Studies using personal air monitors have shown that a single smoker in a home BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY can double the amount of particulate air pollution inhaled by nonsmoking members of the household. Evidence Of Nonsmoker Exposure Nicotine, a chemical unique to tobacco, has been found to be a widespread air contaminant in build- ings where smoking occurs. Nicotine breaks down into cotinine as it passes through the body. Cotinine can be detected and measured in the saliva, blood, and urine of nonsmokers, indicating they have absorbed tobacco smoke from the air. Concentra- tions of cotinine have been found in the body fluids of infants of smoking parents, and of adults who were unaware they had been exposed to E'I'S. Removal Of ETS From Indoor Air Environmental tobacco smoke can be totally removed from the indoor air only by removing the source (cigarette smoking). Separating smokers and non- smokers in the same room may reduce, but will not eliminate, nonsmokers' exposure to tobacco smoke. Placing smokers and non-smokers in separate rooms that are on the same ventilation system also may reduce nonsmokers' exposure to tobacco smoke; this approach, however, will probably not eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke since most pollutants readily disperse through a common air space and since, in public or commercial buildings, most IiVAC systems recirculate much of the contaminated indoor air. In 1981, the American Society of I leating, Refri- gerating, and Air-Conditioning I;ngineers (ASIIRAE), in its standard 'Ventilation for Accept- able Indoor Air Quality' recommended five cubic feet of outside air per minute per occupant (cfm/occ) in smoke-free office buildings and 20 cfm/occ in buildings where smoking is permitted. These recommendations were not designed to reduce health risks (for example, limiting cancer incidence or eye irritation); rather, the recommcndations were intended to control the odor from tobacco smoke so that 80 percent of visitors (smokers and nonsmokers combined) to the building find it acceptable. A proposed revision of this standard recommends a minimum of 15 cfm/occ in all buildings. Research indicates that total removal of tobacco smoke through ventilation is both technically and economically impractical. '1'he effectiveness of air filters for removing 1~'f'S particles from the indoor air is generally dependent on the type and efficiency of the air cleaner used; the effectiveness of air cleaners in removing the gaseous components of 10-23-89 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT tobacco smoke and other air pollutants requires further research. Since there is no established, health-based thres- hold for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and since EPA generally does not recognize a no- effect or safe level for cancer causing agents, the Agency recommends that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke be minimized wherever possible. The most effective way to minimize exposure is to restrict smoking to smoking areas that are separately ventilated and directly exhausted to the outside, or by eliminating smoking in the building entirely. The Public Reaction To ETS People are becoming increasingly sensitized to the issue of ETS. Numerous surveys have documented that the majority of both smokers and nonsmokers support restrictions on smoking in public, particular- ly in the workplace. In a 1987 Gallup National Opinion Survey, 55 percent of all persons inter- viewed (including smokers and nonsmokers) were in favor of a total ban on all smoking in public places. As a result, thousands of businesses and hundreds of cities, as well as over 40 states and the District of Columbia restrict smoking in various settings. The number continues to grow rapidly. Conclusion EPA shares the recommendations of the 1986 Sur- geon General's Report: o Adults should protect the health of children by not exposing them to environmental tobacco smoke. o Employers and employees should ensure that the act of smoking does not expose nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke by restricting smoking to separately ventilated areas or banning smoking from buildings. o Smokers should ensure that their behavior does not jeopardize the health of others. o Nonsmokers should support smokers who trying to quit. For More 1nformation For additional information on environmental tobacco smoke, contact your state or local health depart- ments, nonprofit agencies such as your local Lung (Vol. 7) 35 Association, Cancer Society or Heart Association, or the following: Office on Smoking and Health U.S. Public Health Service 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 1-10 Rockville, MD 20857 Public Relations Office American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 1791 Tullie Circle, NE. Atlanta, GA 30329 Office of Cancer Communications National Cancer Institute 1-800-4-CA NC ER Smoking Policy Institute 914 East Jefferson Suite 219 P.O. Box 20271 Seattle, WA 98102 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights 2054 University Avenue Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Action on Smoking and Health 2013 t-1 Street, NW. Washington, DC 20006 Cigarette smoke is only one of many indoor air pollutants that can affect your health and comfort. Other El'A publications concerning the quality of indoor air include: o The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality o Directory of State Indoor Air Contacts o Indoor Air Facts #1: EPA and Indoor Air Quality o Indoor Air Facts #2: EPA Indoor Air Quality Implementation Plan o Indoor Air Facts #3: Ventilation and Air Quality in Offices o Indoor Air Facts #4: Sick Buildings These publications, as well as additional copies of this fact sheet, are available from: Public Information Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code PM-21 1 B 401 M Street, SW. Washington, DC 20460 a re 10-23-89 8NA's Employee Relations Weekly

36 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY A MODEL POLICY This model policy contains elements found in the policies of many companies that have created smoke free work areas wbile allowing some designated smoking-permitted spttces. Feel free to adopt it as your policy. It is our intent to create a smoke-free environment within our company. Background: Smoking is the major preventable cause of premature death today, killing 1/3 to 1/2 million Americans annually. Nonsmokers, who comprise more than 70% of the adult population in the United States, are harmed by secondhand smoke. The hazards range from immediate reactions (eye irritation, headaches, breathing difficulties) to long-term, serious effects - nonsmokers exposed to smoke may develop lung cancer and may lose lung capacity. Some employees already suffer from respiratory diseases, heart diseases or allergies; these especially susceptible individuals may be at risk in a smoke-filled environment. Therefore, effective , nonsmoking will be the policy in all company areas except where smoking is specifically allowed. This will eliminate an unnecessary toxic substance from our workplace and support all employees in choosing a healthful, nonsmoking way of life. Smoking-permitted areas may be established where smoking does not endanger life or property, or cause discomfort to others, or violate local laws. Smoldng-permitted areas will be designated only upon employee request and will be limited to outdoors and certain lounges. The company will provide a variety of services to help employees who want to stop smoking, including information, quit smoking clinics and referrals for other sources of help. Employees who violate this policy on smoking will be subject to the same disciplinary actions that accompany infractions of other company rules, up to and including termination. This new policy is one of the most important steps that our company can take to improve our work environment. We rely upon the cooperation of all our employees. From New Jersey GASP Chief Executive Officer 10-23-89 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATiONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT (Vol. 7) 37 Model Smoking Policy for Business and Industry Purpose and Background The purpose of this section is to provide employees with an understanding of the (Name of Company) policy on smoking. The policy is designed to foster the health and safety of all employees and the conduct of Company business. It does not totally prohibit smoking on company premises but does restrict it to certain areas. Smoking has been found to be harmful to the health of the smoker. It can damage sensitive technical equipment and be a safety hazard. In sufficient concentrations side- stream smoke can be annoying to non-smokers in the work environment. It may be harmful to individuals with heart and respiratory disease or allergies related to tobacco smoke. Currently, about 35% of the workforce in the United States smokes. Smoking is a complex behavioral problem which has some properties of a both psychological and physiological addiction. Many individuals require assistance to eliminate smoking from their lives. Thus, it is not a problem which can be solved completely by prohibition. This policy is provided to assist (Name of Company) employees in finding a reasonable accommodation between the needs of those who do not smoke and those -who do, and the desire to improve the health of all employees. Policy It is the policy of (Name of Company) to respect the rights of both the non-smoker and the smoker in Company buildings and facilities. When th;;sz rights conflict, managers should endeavor to find a reasonable accommodation. When such an accommodation is not possible, the rights of the non- smoker should prevail. From The Center for Corporate Public Involvement 10-23-89 BNA's Employee Relations Weekly f

38 (Vol. 7) BNA's EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WEEKLY Snloking is alvvays prohibited in areas where there is sensitive or hazardous material, and in other places designated by the Company. Prohibited Areas Smoking is not permitted in areas with sensitive equipment, computer systems, or where records and supplies would be exposed to hazard from fire, ashes or smoke. Smoking is prohibited where combustible fumes can collect, such as in garage and storage areas, chemical laboratories and all other designated areas where an occupational safety or health hazard might exist. Smoking is not permitted in confined areas of general access such as: libraries, medical facilities, cashier or waiting lines, elevators, restrooms, stairwells, copy rooms, lobbies, waiting rooms and fitness centers. Smoking is not permitted where Company premises are frequently visited by customers, such as public offices and customer service areas. The Company may designate other locations where smoking is not permitted. Work Areas In work areas, where space is shared by two or more persons, an effort shall be made to accommodate individual preferences to the degree prudently possible. When requested, supervisors shall make a reasonable attempt to separate persons who smoke from those who do not. Employees may designate their private offices as smoking or non-smoking areas. Visitors to private work areas should honor the wishes of the host. In Company vehicles, including company-sponsored van pools, smoking shall be permitted only when there is no objection from one or more of the occupants. Areas of Conxnon Use In meetings and enclosed locations, such as conference rooms and classrooms, smoking will not be permitted. Breaks and appropriate access to public areas will be scheduled to accommodate the needs of the smokers. In enclosed locations of common use, such as cafeterias, dining areas, employee lounges, and auditoriums, smoking shall be permitted only in identified smoking sections. Smoking is permitted in corridors. Employees and visitors are expected to honor the smoking and non-smoking designations, and to be considerate of non-smokers in their vicinity. From The Center for Corporate Public Involvement 10-23-89 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037