HomeMy WebLinkAboutGilmour 13-04-22IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION brought pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations
Act, 1995, as amended
(Grievance of Gilmour - #2011-0431-0048)
BETWEEN:
PROVIDENCE CARE (MHS)
(the “employer”)
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(the “union”)
AWARD
Arbitrator: Marilyn A. Nairn
Hearing held: April 22, 2013
(Kingston, Ontario)
APPEARANCES
For the union: Peggy Smith
Mary Lou McCartney
Dan Anderson
For the employer: Steven Menard
Rob McDonnell
Lorna Wilson
1
AWARD
1. This grievance asserts that the grievor had been improperly classified. The grievor
is a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) and is seeking to be paid the Registered Nurse
(“RN”) wage rate. Apparently a number of RPNs in the bargaining unit share the grievor’s
concern.
2. The essence of the grievance however is a concern about the assignment of work
duties that reflect the evolution of nursing practice over recent years. The fact is, the duties
of an RPN have changed and increased within the scope of their professional practice. In
the same way, the duties of an RN have also changed and increased within the scope of
their professional practice. Examples of those changes were reviewed in detail in a recent
decision by Arbitrator Luborsky in St. Lawrence Lodge (Brockville) v. CUPE Local 2107,
[2010] O.L.A.A. No. 414. And see Ottawa Hospital and OPSEU (Job Description Grievance),
[2003] O.L.A.A. 509 [Kaplan]. There is no suggestion that the grievor is working beyond the
scope of her professional practice.
3. Article 31.2 of the collective agreement before me is the provision that allows an
individual to grieve that she has been improperly classified. That provision does not allow
for the creation of a new classification. It is a means whereby an employee can seek to be
reclassified to a higher, but existing classification. In this case, that would be the RN
classification. However, the grievor is not an RN and does not qualify to be reclassified. In
the absence of holding that classification, the collective agreement does not allow for an
RPN to be paid as an RN.
4. To the extent that the grievor is seeking a wage increase to her RPN classification,
that is a matter for negotiations between the parties. The union did pursue the issue of
appropriate pay for RPNs during the most recent round of collective bargaining. The union
made a number of arguments concerning the RPN wage rate during negotiations and at
interest arbitration. The interest arbitration board did award an increase to the hourly pay
of RPNs in its recent award.
5. The classifications of RPN and RN work within the scope of their respective
professional practices. This grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Kingston, Ontario this 22nd
day of April, 2013.
________________________________________________________
Marilyn A. Nairn, Arbitrator.