Clothing A worker made a claim to the Board for back pain arising out of putting on his coveralls before starting work. The policy of the Board is that normally claims for changing clothes prior to or after work are not acceptable. An adjudicator denied the claim. The worker appealed to the Review Board who ruled that the act of changing clothes was in the course of employment but they referred the claim back to the Board for a determination of whether the injury arose out of employment. In the employer's view this was much like a dog chasing its tail. The policy of the Board acknowledges that the act of changing clothes may well be in the course of employment but have set in place a policy which in effect states that an injury arising out of that activity will not be compensable, hence it does not arise out of employment. All the poor adjudicator would be able to do was to disallow the claim again and back it would go to the Review Board. The employer appealed to the Appeal Division. In summary they argued that Section 96(1) of the Act gave the Board the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether a an injury has arisen out of or in the course of employment. The Board was therefore free to set general policy with respect to those issues as long as that policy did not fetter the discretion of the Adjudicator. In this case the Board set a policy with respect to changing clothes prior to and after work. That policy did not fetter the discretion of the Adjudicator and was a policy within the purview of the Board as set out in s. 96(1). It is therefore in the view of the employer lawful. The Review Board did not find that anything out of the ordinary occurred to make that lawful policy not applicable. The decision of the Adjudicator was made in accordance with that policy after considering whether there were circumstances which would negate the policy. That decision should stand. The Appeal Division ruled in favor of the employer. They stated "we do not agree with the Review Board conclusion regarding the policy in #20.40. It is a narrow exclusion with respect to personal activity that is incidental to the employment, but such a policy is within the authority of the policy makers at the Board. The policy is not unlawful...Having accepted the lawfulness of the policy we find the incident described by the worker is not one within his employment."