As safety professionals, we understood how cell phone use on the job increases injury risk. But what we tend to overlook are the concerns that make workers feel compelled to carry them  in the first place. A recent Ontario case is a reminder that policies restricting cell phone use must reflect common sense and the legitimate concerns of workers.   Worker Claims Cell Phone Ban Discriminates The case takes place at a  warehouse that requires workers to leave their cell phones in their locker during shifts and not use them except while on break and outside the work area. Kam Chong Li is a forklift operator at the warehouse whose elderly mother speaks no English. Since she can’t communicate with the company’s switchboard receptionist, her only means of reaching her son at work is by calling him on his cell phone. Of course, company policy bans Mr. Li from carrying his cell phone while on duty. Mr. Li ends up suing the company. One of his claims: The ban on cell phones discriminates against him on the basis of family status. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal rules that the cell phone policy was adopted for legitimate safety reasons and wasn’t family status discrimination [Li v. Novopharm Ltd., [2009] HRTO 885 (CanLII), June 19, 2009]. See, http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2009/2009hrto885/2009hrto885.pdf The Lesson: Don’t Make Cell Phone Bans Overly Restrictive The key point here isn’t that Mr. Li lost his case but that he brought it in the first place. Sure, the warehouse’s cell phone policy was sound as a matter of safety; but it had practical consequences that the company didn’t foresee. Don’t make the same mistake. When deciding how to deal with the problem of cell phone distractions, keep in mind that the cell phone is also the line of communication between workers and their families. A policy that totally cuts off this line of communication can be extremely hard for workers to accept. Try to be more flexible in your own policies. Remember that the danger from cell phones stems from their use, not their mere possession. So, a policy that bans workers from carrying cell phones at work may be overkill. In fact, the warehouse did eventually back away from its policy in an effort to accommodate Mr. Li and offered to let him carry his cell phone during work set on vibrate. Then, if the phone vibrated, Mr. Li would know his mother was trying to reach him and request a break so she could call him back. This proposal was a much more sensible arrangement. Unfortunately, it didn’t get raised until after the lawsuit had already begun. Bottom Line: Displaying open-mindedness with your own workers should enable you to address your cell phone safety concerns without triggering resentment that can fester into grievances and lawsuits.