Laserfiche WebLink
86 <br />if Section E, Part 4 were changed from shall be requested, to'may be <br />requested, if that would be easier to live with. <br />Mr. Feneli said if you a•r.e go.ing to have a..policy, he thinks it should <br />be enforced. <br />Mr. Go1ey said he felt it would not.destroy the concept ot the ordinance <br />and would preserve Section E. <br />Mr. Goley addressed Mrs Schroeder of Holiday Inn, asking if it would be <br />easier if no smoking areas were only designated in their stationary work <br />area. Mr. Goley said the ordinance does not require an employer to <br />reassign or to move an employee. It states that the employer will <br />take reasonable action. Now the question arises, what is reasonable <br />action? Mr. Goley said that Mr. Whitehouse said the building is <br />adequately air conditioned; that may be sufficient action to solve the <br />problem of. toxicants in the air. Mr. Goley feels some things can be <br />worked on without having to destroy Section E. <br />Mr. Feneli - read Section E, saying that implementing other measures might <br />leave us some l:atitude by requesting the expansion of a work area. <br />If a non-smoker is not satisfied to his/her satisfaction with the efforts <br />to reduce smoke, expanding the work area could be as broad as the peri- <br />meters of the building. Maybe some work needs to be done with that section, <br />maybe it is broader than we think it is; and gives the non-smoker extreme <br />power. From a legal standpoint, he does not know how we are going to <br />resolve these things, or how the ordinance will be enforced. <br />Mr. Andy Ginsburg said the heart of the concept is to turn around the <br />previous concept giving all rights to the smoker. He said it only affects <br />the smokers rights where other people are affected, they should not have <br />the right to smoke. in that situation, with no restriction. Mr. Ginsburg <br />said in the section that talks about the kinds of accommodations an <br />employer would be required to take, it does not mean those examples must <br />be used. It would be possible'_to strike those examples and simply say <br />that a reasonable measure must be taken. The person to define "reasonable <br />measure" would probably be the building inspector, then it may be <br />litigated. From his experience, it does not go that far. <br />Mr. Feneli said he does not feel the ultimate arbitrator is the building <br />inspector, and feels the ordinance is too broad concerning the rights of <br />the non-smoker. He said the ordinance was drafted in favor of the non- <br />smoker. <br />Mr. Goley asked if the problem of balancing rights would be eliminated if <br />the building commissioner was stated in the ordinance as the person deter- <br />mining that the ordinance was being followed. <br />Mr. Feneli said that may be an option, the other ordinances he has seen were <br />for cities on a larger scale and a health official was designated. He <br />said he did not know if the building commissioner would have the expertise <br />needed in this particular field, but could not think of anybody else to <br />name.