Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1508.Union.96-10-15 Decision ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 1508/95 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN SEU, Local 210 (Policy Grievance) Grievor - and - Sun Parlour Emergency Services, Inc. Employer BEFORE: R H Abramsky vice-Chairperson FOR THE E R Durham GRIEVOR union Representative Service Employees Union, Local 210 FOR THE B R Baldwin EMPLOYER Counsel Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark Barristers & Solicitors HEARING July 18, 1996 September 18, 1996 AWARD At Issue In this arbitratIon IS whether the employer could properly requIre ItS Emergency MedIcal Care Attendants (EMCAs), who participated In a medicatIOn pIlot proJect, to continue to perform this added SkIll after the eXpIratIon of the pIlot proJect and eXpiratIOn of the parties' agreement that thIS work would be done for a penod of two years without compensatIOn. The umon requests that the employer eIther be ordered to cease requmng that this work be performed or be ordered to compensate the employees for thIS added responsibilIty A. Facts The employer IS an emergency medical servIces provIder In Essex County, Ontano, working In conjunctIon WIth the Windsor Base HospItal, formerly Grace Hospital and now Hotel-DIeu Grace HospItal In Windsor Most of the employees are Emergency Medical Care A-SsIstants who are certIfied by the Province of Ontano, some are not certified but Instead were "grandfathered" after the govermng legIslatIon, the Ambulance Act, reqUired certIficatIon. The employer maintaInS four bases In Essex County Tecumseh, LeamIngton, Tilbury and W oodslee In 1993, a medIcatIOn pilot project was approved by the Base HospItal UtIlIzatIon ReVIew CommIttee One of the members of that commIttee IS John Jacobs, AssIstant Manager of Sun Parlour Emergency ServIces. The pIlot proJect was designed by Dr J C Fedoruk, MedIcal DIrector of the Base HospItal Program, along wIth Mr Casey Balvert, Base HospItal Coordinator, and the Mimstry of Health. Under this pIlot proJect, EMCAs were to be trained to InitIate certain medIcatIOns (nebuhzed ventohn, subcutaneous epInephnne, sublingual mtrospray, Intramuscular glucogon, and oral aspmn) enroute to the hospItal under certain protocols and the directIOn of the Base Hospital physIcian. Boxes, know as "drug boxes" containing these drugs and reqUIred supplies would be placed In each ambulance for use by the EMCAs The traInIng consisted of a review of precourse matenals (WhICh witnesses Said took between ten to twenty hours to complete) 2 and an eight (8) hour formal trammg penod, conslstmg of both classroom and chmcal expenence Successful completIon of the program resulted m the employee's certIficatIon by Base Hospital to admmlster these medIcatiOns Pnor to thiS pIlot proJect, EMCAs did not admImster any medicatiOns and the trammg mvolved was beyond what an EMCA normally receives as part of their provmcial EMCA certificatiOn. ImtIally, only the employees at the Tecumseh base were approached regardmg thIS pilot proJect. Base HospItal Coordmator Casey met WIth Mr Ron DroUillard, the umon steward at Tecumseh. Accordmg to Mr DrOUIllard, Mr Balvert told him about the pilot project, explamed what would be mvolved m terms of trammg and responsibIhty and sought the agreement of the employees. CompensatIOn was also dIscussed Mr Drouillard testIfied that Mr Balvert stated that the employees would be paId for the trainmg, that the pilot proJect would be for two years and there would be no compensatIon for thIS two year penod. Mr DroUIllard explamed that he could not make the deCISIon to partICipate alone, but would dISCUSS It WIth the umon and the employees, as well as the employer One of the condItiOns for the base to partICIpate m the pilot proJect was the voluntary partICIpatIOn of the employees At first, not all of the employees were m favour of partiCIpatIng m the pIlot proJect, Includmg ChIef Steward John Fast. Mr Fast and a number of employees were skeptical about what would happen after the pIlot proJect ended m terms of compensation. Mr DroUIllard expressed thIS concern to Mr Balvert who responded that there would be no obligatIon to contmue With the program after the two year penod Mr Drouillard testIfied that he assumed from thIS statement that at the end of the two years, the employees would have no obligatiOn to contmue WIth the program and that the drug boxes would be removed from the ambulances It was Mr DroUIllard's understandmg, based on his conversations WIth Mr Balvert, that the program would be penodlcallY reVIewed and at the end of the two-year pilot proJect, a determmatiOn would be made whether the program was feasible Mr DroUIllard expected that If the program were successful, It would be contmued and the employees would be compensated. If not, he expected that the program 3 would be ended and the drug boxes would be pulled from the ambulances When Mr Balvert's message was taken back to the membership, the employees unanimously approved particIpating In the pIlot proJect Dunng his diScussions with Mr Balvert, Mr DroUillard also tned to reduce the length of the pilot proJect from two years to one year, but Mr Balvert remained firm that the proJect should last for two years Once the employees agreed to partIcipate In the pIlot proJect, Mr John Fast and Ron Drouillard, on behalf of the Union, discussed the proJect with John Jacobs on behalf of the employer At first, Mr Jacobs would not agree to pay for the employees' trainIng, but later agreed to do so Mr Jacobs also insIsted on a letter from the union which stated that the employees would not be compensated for thIS added responsibIlIty dunng the two year pilot proJect. Mr Jacobs testIfied that he wanted thIS letter to ensure that the lack of compensatIon would not form a basIs to dIscontinue the pilot proJect He wanted a wntten commItment that the employees agreed to partIcIpate wIthout addItIOnal compensatIOn. Although Mr Fast opposed this agreement, the proJect Involved only the employees at the Tecumseh base and Mr DroUillard, as union steward for that base, agreed to proceed and drafted the following letter at the request of the employer That letter states, In pertInent part, as follows August 3 1993 Mr Ed Jacobs Sun Parlour Emergency Services Re Base Hospital Drug Programme ThIS WIll confirm that the employees at T ecumseh Base have agreed to partake III the pIlot programme wIth Base HospItal for the adminIstratIon of certain drugs as prescribed by Base Hospital It IS understood that this programme wIll run for a penod of two years with pen odic reviews It IS further understood that we are to be paid for the training but there wIll be no Increase In pay for the admInIstratIOn of drugs for the penod of two years 4 If funding should become available or other services In the Province are reimbursed for administratIOn of the drugs then It IS understood that we shall receive the same reimbursement Yours very truly, Is/ Ron Drouillard, Umon Steward Mr DroUillard testIfied that the last paragraph of this letter dealt with the potential for fundmg or reimbursement dunng the two year pilot penod. The Idea behind It was that If fundmg became available or other ambulance servIces started to pay their employees for such services, then the employees at Tecumseh would be sImIlarly paid AccordIng to Mr Jacobs, neither he nor anyone authonzed to represent the employer ever told Mr DrouIllard that the pIlot program would be dIscontInued at the end of the two year pilot proJect or promise that the drug boxes would be removed from the vehIcles Nor, he testIfied, was a specIfic promIse made that upon completIOn of the program the employees would be compensated The only promise was that If funding became available or others were patd for thIS work dunng the two year penod, the employees would be too Conversely, he acknowledged that nothing was said to Indicate that the proJect mIght be extended beyond the two year pIlot. Instead, the dIscussIOns focused solely on the two-year pilot proJect Onglnally, some noncertlfied EMCAs were allowed to partIcipate In the pilot proJect, but after a short time, Dr Fedoruk, the physIcian responsible for certIficatIOn of the employees In the program and under whose hcense they perform the delegated medIcal act of admlnIstenng medicatIOn, decided to limIt participatIOn In the program to EMCA certified candidates, based on hIS readmg of the Ambulance Act Consequently, some ambulance attendants are reqUired to utihze the drug boxes m the vehIcles and some are not authonzed to do so At the time, a gnevance was filed over the refusal to allow noncertlfied EMCAs to participate m the proJect, but that gnevance was not pursued after the reasons for the decIsion were explamed m wntmg. 5 - The medicatIOn pIlot proJect began at the Tecumseh base In August 1993, and It was qUickly vIewed as a success by Base Hospital and the employees as well In December 1993, the program was extended by Base Hospital, with the approval of the Ministry of Health, "for a penod of up to two years" to the remamder of Essex County mcludlng the remammg bases operated by the employer The Union was not asked for ItS consent to thiS expansIOn, and although Mr Fast verbally obJected to the expansIOn, no gnevance was filed. There was no agreement between the umon and employer regardIng this expansIOn of the pIlot proJect, but the terms applIed to the Tecumseh base appear to have been apphed to the other locatIOns - namely, the employer paid for the employees' trammg but the employees were not otherwIse compensated The chOice, however, whether to partIcIpate m the proJect was the employee's No employee was reqUired to partIcIpate In June 1995, the Base HospItal UtihzatIon RevIew CommIttee met and dIscussed the medIcatIOns pilot proJect At that meeting, the CommIttee agreed to contInue the medIcations pilot proJect beyond the expIratIOn of the pilot proJect date The mInutes of that meetIng, In pertlllent part, state as follows 3 NEW BUSINESS 3 1 Symptom RehefPackage All partIes present at the meeting agreed that the Symptom RelIef Package [I e, the medIcatIOn pIlot proJect] III prehospltal care was an excellent addItIOn to Health Care Services III Essex County Everyone, unammously supported the Idea that thIS servIce should contInue beyond the expIratIOn of the pIlot proJect It will expIre III Tecumseh III August of 1995 I understand that there are some problems wIth the umons threatemng to withdraw services Compensation m performmg these delegated medIcal acts IS not given by the Ministry MOTION by Mr Jacobs, seconded by Mr Maner passed unammously that the MedicatIOns PIlot ProJect would be continued beyond the expiratIOn of the PIlot ProJect date and that the Ministry of Health and the EHS Branch should make all efforts to continue this service m ambulance services m Essex and Kent Counties 6 Dr Fedoruk will send a copy of this motion to Mr Brown at EHS Branch and a copy to Mr Arbour A copy of the "Evaluation Report" of the Pilot ProJect by the Mimstry of Health, shall be sent to all members of the commIttee by Mr Balvert In February 1995, dunng negotiations for a successor collective agreement whIch had expired on 1993, the umon proposed a premlUm of $2 00 per hour for medIcatIon admInIstratIon. The parties are currently Involved In Interest arbitratIon before ArbItrator Stanley and the issue of compensatiOn for medIcation adminIstratiOn IS one of the Issues before that board. The umon has proposed a premlUm of $2 00 per hour, whIle the employer has taken the posItiOn that no addItiOnal compensatIon IS reqUlred. Heanngs before the Stanley board have recently been completed and the partIes awaIt the board's determination. Currently the only delegated medIcal act performed by EMCAs that IS paid a premlUm under the collectIve agreement IS defibrillatiOn, for which the trallllllg Involved IS sImilar to medIcatiOn administratIon. In additIon, ArtIcle 30 of the collective agreement states as follows ARTICLE 30 - ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT PROGRAM 3001 In reference to advanced lIfe support program, the Company agrees to negotiate wIth the Bargaining Umt all conditions of employment concerned Illcludlllg monetary issues There IS no assertiOn that the medicatiOn pilot proJect was an "advanced lIfe support program" under Article 30, and the eVidence presented at the heanng showed that the current form of the program, the Ontano Prehospltal Advance Life Support Study (OP ALS), IS a slgmficantly more Involved program. I 7 - In July 1995, John Jacobs requested that Mr Fast provide him with the unIon's positIOn on the contmuatlon of the medication pilot proJect Mr Fast responded In wntIng on July 12, 1995, as follows July 12, 1995 Mr Ed Jacobs Owner/Operator Sun Parlour Emergency Services Inc Dear Mr Jacobs Please consider this letter as firm notIfication of cessatIon of our Symptom Relief Agreement. ThIs agreement was for a two year penod ending on August 31, 1995 and obvIOusly has been beneficial to our local public We feel we have acted In good faith on this Issue However, wIthout proper compensatIon we will be forced to stop usmg the Drug Box on August 31,1995 Yours truly, Is/ John Fast Chief UnIon Steward SEIU Local 210 There IS no dispute that the "Symptom Relief Agreement" set forth In this letter refers to the medicatIon pilot proJect On August 30, 1995, Mr Jacobs responded to thIS letter, stating that the "drug boxes and contents will rem am In the vehIcle" The memorandum, WhICh was posted on September 8, 1995 states as follows August 30 1995 MEMO TO All Staff FROM Ed Jacobs RE Symptom Relief Program 8 In reference to the letter dated July 12, 1995 from Service Employees' InternatIOnal Union signed by John Fast stating that effective August 31, 1995 staff will no longer partIcipate In the Symptom Relief Program until remuneration IS made I apprecIate that staff have participated In this program without remuneration and numerous patIents have benefited from your partIcipation. However, due to ongoing negotiations In this matter there has still been no resolutIon, Unfortunately, I cannot anticipate or guarantee what the remuneratIOn will be for this program. The drug boxes and contents WIll remain In the vehicle They are part of the MinIstry of Health approved eqUipment list and are to be checked, as has been past practice, as part of the daily vehIcle check. I sIncerely hope for a speedy resolutIon to this matter The Instant gnevance followed It asserts, In pertInent part, that "to force some employees to check this drug box and use It IS dISCnmInatIon when other UnIon and nonUnIon employees do not have to do this extra work." In terms of relief, the gnevance seeks "compensation of $2 00 per hour for this added skIll and responsibIlity, retroactIvely to August 31, 1995 " To date the drug boxes remain In the ambulances and employees have continued to and are expected to use them. Mr Fast testified that he requested decertificatIOn from Base Hospital so that he would not be reqUired to utilize the drug box but that hiS request was refused. In additIOn, It appears that employees ongInally had to be recertIfied annually but that IS no longer reqUired. According to John Jacobs, the drug boxes are part of the approved eqUipment by the Mimstry of Health and cannot be removed Without permIssIon. Such permissIOn has not been requested by the employer Mr Jacobs explained that the employer felt as If It were In a "Catch 22" SituatIOn - If they removed the drug boxes whIch could aid someone, they would be held responsible The program, however, IS not mandated by the Ministry 9 j\o, of Health. It IS uncontroverted that no fundmg for this program has become available from the Mmlstry of Health 2. Arguments of the Parties The unIon contends that the parties entered mto an agreement, for a two year penod, for which an added skill would be performed by the employees wIthout compensation. That agreement, It asserts, has now expIred and the employer cannot contInue to reqUIre the employees to perform this work without compensatIOn In Its VIew, the letter from Mr DrOUIllard to Mr Jacobs, dated August 3, 1993, was an agreement for the employees to perform work WhICh had never been done before and It was for a specific penod of two years With the expIry of that agreement, the UnIon asserts that Its members have no oblIgatIOn to contmue to perform this work. The umon argues that the eVIdence clearly demonstrates that Its agreement With the employer to perform drug admInIstratIon WIthout compensatIOn was stnctly for a penod of two years, m connection WIth the medication pilot proJect It pOInts to the August 3, 1993 letter from Mr Drouillard to Mr Jacobs dated August 3, 1993, the mInutes of the Base Hospital UtIlIzatIOn ReVieW Committee WhICh acknowledged the "expIratIon" of the pilot proJect and the July 12, 1995 letter from Mr Fast to Mr Jacobs, notIng the expIratIOn of theIr two year agreement SInce no compensatIon was forthcomIng, the umon contends that It was free to declIne to perform thiS added skill and service It was the unIon's understandIng that after the two year pilot proJect ended, the employees would be compensated for their labour or the program would cease It notes that the employer's August 30, 1995 memorandum does not refute that VIew Instead, It merely mdlcates uncertaInty as to what the amount of compensatIOn will be The umon further submits that by leaVIng the drug boxes m the vehicles, the employer has, m fact, UnIlaterally contInued the program. It vIews thiS as an arbitrary extension of the parties agreement It pOInts out that because the employees are certified to admInister the drugs In questIOn, they are reqUired to use them To fall to do so, the 10 UnIon argues, would make the employees neglIgent In their responsibilities and place their certification as EMCAs at nsk The UnIon submits that If the employer wants to contInue to use the drug boxes, which It IS not reqUired to do by the MinIstry of Heath, It must renegotiate Its deal with the UnIon. It cannot, the UnIon claims, simply rely on the fact that the drug boxes are now "authonzed eqUipment" which cannot be removed The UnIon therefore seeks a declaratIOn that ItS agreement to perform thIS work without compensation has expIred and that the employer has no nght to contmue It unIlaterally It seeks an order that the drug boxes be removed Alternatively, If I do not order drug boxes removed, It requests a make-whole remedy In the nature of compensatIOn. It asserts that the questIOn of compensatIOn IS properly before me In thIS context, not Just the Stanley board of arbItratIOn. The employer takes the posItIOn that the Issue of compensatIOn for admmlstenng medIcatIOns IS properly before the Stanley board of arbitratIOn and that a gnevance arbitrator has no JunsdlctIon to order compensatIOn for an added skill under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, as amended, or the partIes' collective agreement It notes that the only authonty for mid-term negotiatIOns IS Article 30 of the agreement, m connection with the Advanced LIfe Support Program It further notes that there no correspondIng provIsion to negotiate In the event an employee's Job content IS changed Further, the employer asserts that under the Management RIghts clause, the employer has the nght to determme the content of an employee's Job and work assignments It asserts that the purpose of the August 3 1993 letter was not to obtam the unIon's consent for the employees to perform these added Skills, but was, Instead, to obtain a wntten waiver by the UnIon for any claim for compensatIOn dunng that penod The employer contends that It wanted an estoppel, In the form of a wntten representatIOn, If a claim was made for compensatIOn dunng that penod The employer argues that the August 3, 1993 letter contams no agreement to remove the drug boxes at the completIOn of the pilot proJect Nor It asserts, was there an agreement to dlscontmue the program upon the expiry of the pilot proJect In ItS View, the August 3, 1993 letter was Simply an 11 agreement by the umon that there would be no claim for compensation for the two year proJect Further, In Its View, the employer's nght to establIsh Job content was eVidenced by Its umlateral extensIOn of the pilot proJect to ItS other bases, with no gnevance from the umon The employer also argues that while the umon may have Inferred that the drug boxes would be removed after the pilot proJect, that Inference could only be based on representatIons from Mr Balvert, who was not authorIzed to speak on behalf of the employer The employer submIts that any understandIng the UnIon may have had regardIng what would occur after the two year pIlot proJect was not contaIned In the August 3, 1993 letter AccordIngly, the employer requests that the grIevance be dismIssed 3 Decision There can be no doubt that the employer has contInued to reqUIre ItS certIfied EMCAs to admInister drugs when It IS medically Indicated The presence of the drug boxes In the vehIcles, combIned WIth the employees' certificatIOn, compels theIr use when medIcally reqUired The employer cannot support that deCISion Simply by the fact that the drug boxes are now "authOrIzed eqUipment" A request to Mimstry of Health to remove them could be easIly be made by the employer, yet no such request has been made Consequently, by keepIng the drug boxes In the vehicles, the employer has requIred Its certIfied employees to admInister drugs after the expiratIOn of the two-year medicatIOn pilot proJect The questIOn IS whether that actIOn IS permissible under the collective agreement, the August 3, 1993 agreement, and the facts and circumstances of this case The startIng pOInt In thIS determInatIOn IS the eXistIng collective agreement The Management Rights Clause states, In pertInent part, as follows Article 4A - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The umon recogmzes and acknowledges that the management of the statIOns and directIOns of the workIng force are fixed exclUSively In the 12 / Company and, without restnctIng the generalIty of the foregoing, the umon acknowledges that It IS the exclusive function of the Company to (d) determine the nature and kllld ofbusllless conducted by the Company, the kInds and locatIOns of statIOns, eqUIpment and matenals used, the control of matenals and parts, the methods and techniques of work, the content of Jobs, the work schedules, work assIgnments, the number of employees to be employed, the extenSIOn[,] lImItatIOns, curtailment or cessatIon of operatIons of [SIC] any part thereof, and to determme and exercise all other functions and prerogatives which shall remain solely WIth the Company except as speCifically lImited by the express prOVISIons of thIS Agreement. Under thiS prOVIsIon, It seems clear that the employer may reqUIre Its employees to admInister drugs and use the drug boxes as part of their Job, prOVIded they have the reqUISite traInmg and certificatIon. Use of the drug box IS part of the "content of [the] Job[]", to be determmed exclUSIvely by the employer Consequently, the employer does not need a separate agreement WIth the umon to reqUIre ItS employees to perform the added responsibility of admlllIstenng medicatIon, nor dId It need such an agreement In 1993 GIven the fight of the employer to establIsh the content of the Job, It seems more likely than not that the purpose of the August 3, 1993 letter (WhICh was wntten at the mSIstence of the employer) was to ensure that It was clearly understood that there would be no addItIonal compensatIon for thIS work dunng the two year pilot project rather than to obtam the unIon's consent for the employees to perform thiS addItIonal work While consent of the employees was sought and obtamed, that consent was not requIred under the parties' collectIve agreement Instead, the employees' consent was a conditIon of partlcIpatmg m the pilot proJect The real questIOn IS whether the employer's nght to establIsh the content of the Job was somehow limIted by the August 3, 1993 agreement between the employer and Ulllon concernlllg the medicatIOn pIlot project The August 3, 1993 letter followed negOtiatIOns between the umon and the employer and confirmed the employees' agreement to 13 particIpate In the pilot proJect for a two year penod, with the employer to pay for the training Involved but with no other Increase In pay for the two year penod It also confirmed that If the Ministry of Heath decided to fund the program or other ambulance services In Ontano were paId for It, the employees would receIve the same reimbursement By Its terms, therefore, the August 3, 1993 letter deals with what was to occur during the two year pIlot proJect. It contains no explIcit statement regarding what would occur after Its eXpiratIOn at the end of the two year penod There IS no explIcIt promise that the employees would thereafter be paId, nor IS there an explIcit promise that the program would be discontinued By ItS terms, the August 3, 1993 letter IS lImited to the two year medicatIOn pIlot proJect There IS also no eVIdence that an oral promise was made by the employer either to pay compensatIon or remove the drug boxes at the end of the pIlot proJect. The negotIatIons between the employer and umon that led to the August 3 1993 letter Involved whether or not the employer would pay for the tramIng required It agreed to do so, but would not pay any additIOnal compensation except If fundIng from the Mimstry was provIded or other servIces paId for this work. Dunng these diScussions, there was no oral promIse by the employer that the drug boxes would be removed at the end of the pIlot proJect or that the employees would be compensated Nevertheless, the umon clearly belIeved that at the end of the two year penod the employees would either be compensated for their added work, or the drug boxes would be removed That understandmg, however, was based on representatIOns by Mr Balvert, who had no authonty to speak. on behalf of the employer It was Mr Balvert who led the umon to belIeve that the employees would have no obligatIOn to contInue performing the work Involved after the pIlot proJect ended and It was that representatIOn which led to the umon's agreement to partIcipate In the proJect The eVidence, however, revealed that no Similar representations were made by the employer 14 ./ Consequently, the August 3, 1993 letter contams no explicit wntten promise regardmg what would occur after the completion of the pIlot proJect, nor was there any verbal promIse made In that regard Likewise, the August 3, 1993 letter cannot be reasonably construed to have Implicitly promised - by limiting the agreement regarding no compensatIOn to two years - that there would either be compensatIOn at the end of the proJect or the proJect would be dlscontmued The two year penod was based on the length of the pIlot project What would occur after the expiration of the project was simply not dIscussed between the parties and nothmg about It IS contamed m the August 3, 1993 letter As a result, neIther the August 3, 1993 agreement nor the negotiatIOns surrounding It can be VIewed as limltmg what the employer could otherwise do under the collective agreement, after the expiration of the pilot proJect Nor can the August 30, 1995 letter from the employer be construed as a promIse to pay the employees additIOnal compensatIOn. The employer states In that letter that It "cannot anticipate or guarantee what the remuneratIOn will be for thiS program." ThIS cannot be Viewed as a promIse that there would, In fact, be compensation WIth uncertainty Just as to ItS amount, partIcularly Since at the tIme It was wntten, the employer's pOSItIOn at the bargaInIng table was clearly that there should be no such additIOnal compensatIOn. In my VIew, however, the frustratIOn and anger that the Union and Its members feel at bemg reqUired to contmue to perform thIS added skIll Without addItional compensatIOn after the expIry of the pIlot proJect IS understandable Based on the representations of Mr Balvert, the Union believed that at the end of the two year pilot proJect, they would have no obligation to contmue such dutIes If they were not to be compensated Now, however, the pilot proJect has ended and the employees find themselves certified and the drug boxes still In the vehicles As a result, they are compelled, both legally and morally to use them. If they do not, they could face senous ramifications. Consequently, because they are certified and the drug boxes remam m the vehicles, they are stuck. performing thiS responsibility Without any extra pay Further, at least one employee's efforts to escape 15 this situatIOn by decertificatIOn has been refused Surely, then, It IS the employees, more so than the employer who IS In a "Catch 22" sltuatton here But In the partIes' collectIve agreement, there IS no provIsIon for mId-term bargalnmg when the content of a Job has been changed The only such provIsIon In the partIes' collectIve agreement IS Article 30, whIch pertains to the "Advanced LIfe Support Program. " That program, however, IS slglllficantly different than the medicatIOn pilot project at Issue In thiS case. The absence of such a provIsIon In respect to other programs or reVISIons In Job content, indIcates that the employer has no requIrement to bargain, mId- term, wIth the Ulllon over ItS continued use of the drug boxes. Instead, the Ulllon must present ItS claIm for additIOnal compensatIOn, as It has, at the collective bargaining table and at mterest arbItratIOn. The Issue of compensatIOn IS presently before the Stanley board of arbitratIOn and will be decIded there Finally, although no argument regarding dIscnmlnatlon was raised at the heanng, that Issue was presented In the gnevance and I will bnefly address It There IS no questIon that as a result of the declSlon by Dr Fedoruk to not allo\\> "grandfathered" EMCAs to partIcipate In the medIcatIOn pilot proJect, there are now some ambulance attendants who are not reqUIred to use the drug boxes, while other attendants are requIred to do this extra work. While that does amount to "dlscnmlnatlOn" among the ambulance attendants, It does not vIOlate the parties' collective agreement The dIfference In treatment IS based on a bona fide factor - the employee's tralnmg and certlficatton In admlnIstenng drugs - and IS therefore a valId basIs of distinctIOn. Whether the certified EMCAs are entItled to a premIUm for this extra work IS a different question. In sum, for the reasons set forth above, the gnevance IS dismissed I conclude that there IS nothing In the partIes' collective agreement, the August 3, ] 993 agreement or the negotiatIOns surrounding that agreement or since then to negate the employer's nght, under the management's nghts clause, to determine the content of the employee s Job The employer, therefore, has not vIOlated the parties' collective agreement or the August 16 3, 1993 agreement by continuing to keep the drug boxes In the vehicles The Issue of compensation for this Important added responsibility IS for the Stanley board of arbitration to determine Issued this 15th day of October, 1996, In Toronto, Ontano 17