Clearing the air - enforcing no smoking policies in the work place - includes related article - Special Report

HR Magazine, Feb, 1993 by Jeffrey S. Harris

At Michigan Bell, the CWA demanded arbitration when a smoke-free policy was instituted. The union claimed (interestingly, in light of the Merck experience) that smoking was a working condition that could be changed only through collective bargaining. Michigan Bell took the position that the union had waived its right to bargain because it did not so demand after the company notified all employees of the policy. In the arbitration proceeding, the union produced several employees who were allegedly addicted and could therefore not work effectively without smoking. The arbitrator dismissed both grounds for the action, noting that addicts belonged in treatment rather than on the job. He made the analogy that alcohol addiction did not imply a protected right to drink on the job.

All companies surveyed indicated that violations of the smoke-free policy should be handled in the same manner as any other work rule infraction. This is the case at every company surveyed. The most common form of disciplinary procedure is the progressive discipline process.

Employee reactions

One of the top concerns of any management team at a company contemplating becoming smoke free is that there be minimal negative reaction from employees. Employee reaction at all companies surveyed has been overwhelmingly positive. The degree of positive reaction, especially among smokers, appears to increase the longer the policy has been in place.

Many smokers have reacted positively to smoke-free policies, saying that it gave them a compelling reason to quit. Some have also stated that their families were glad they had quit. Three implementation issues were of particular concern:

Communication tactics. Employee involvement and communication are critical to trouble-free implementation. The handling of communications, surveys and peer support varied. Some companies used adopt-a-smoker campaigns. Some took before and after surveys. Others, concerned about antagonizing already irate smokers, did neither. There is no obvious way to determine which of these was more effective, since no post-implementation attitude surveys on communication techniques have been done, and no obvious incidents were ascribed to communications.

Smokers may be defiant or defensive. Several companies successfully defused this issue by taking a low-key approach. At Comerica Inc., for example, a positive, matter-of-fact approach was used in communication and implementation of the program. There were no adopt-a-smoker activities nor a formal campaign. Employees were informed and involved through two memos, a Q and A newsletter, plus group and one-on-one communication from managers to their employees in a "management cascade," which began six months before the change in policy.

Smoking rooms. Policies that allow designated smoking areas were felt to be difficult to administer because of the amount of smoke in the areas and because the policies are felt to send mixed messages. Designated smoking rooms create an unsafe environment, provide an amenity not available to nonsmokers (breaks may be similar) and are costly. They are also contrary to the philosophy of a smoke-free policy. In addition, smaller offices often cannot accommodate a designated room or space.