Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-2079RUTKOWSKI_ET_AL98_ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-139<5 GSB # 2079/97 CUPE 2412 # SL030 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN CUPE 2412 (RutkowskIlLavergne) , Grievor - and - The Crown In Right of Ontano (Sudbury & DIstnct Ambulance ServIce) Employer BEFORE R. Brown Vice-Chair FOR THE R. Carnovale UNION NatIOnal RepresentatIve CanadIan UnIon of PublIc Employees Local 2412 FOR THE D Robmson, Q C EMPLOYER Counsel Mathews, Dmsdale & Clark HEARING Apnl30,1998 \ DECISION The gnevors are employed In the posItIOn of ParamedIc I and have apphed for advancement to the posItIOn of ParamedIc II To make thIS move, they must complete OPALS Advance Care ParamedIc traInIng In the selectIOn of candIdates for such traInIng, the Sudbury Base HospItal accords preference to employees who have completed courses In Advance CardIac LIfe Support (ACLS) and BaSIC Trauma LIfe Support (BTLS) The Issue before me IS whether the employer IS oblIged to pay the cost of the gnevors takIng these two courses ArtIcle 23 02 of the collectIve agreement states Where Employees are reqUIred by the Employer to take new Courses to maIntaIn, up-grade or acqUIre new employment quahficatIOns, the Employer shall pay the full costs associated WIth the Course Where Courses are offered by the Employer, or such Courses are approved by the Employer to acqUIre new employment skills, opportumtIes for these Courses shall be available to all employees on a competItIve baSIS and will be WIth pay The employer contends thIS artIcle apphes only to courses whIch an 2 employee IS reqUIred to take m order to contInue workmg In hIS or her current posItIon, and not to courses whIch an employee must take If he or she wIshes to advance to another posItIon ReJectIng the dIstInctIOn between these two types of courses, the unIon claIms the artIcle apphes to all courses that an employee IS reqUIred to take for any reason The language of the collectIve agreement IS somewhat ambIguous on thIS pomt At thIS stage m the proGeedIngs, neIther party has led extnnsIC eVIdence of negotlatIOn hIStOry or past practIce to resolve the ambIguIty Instead, the partIes asked me to Issue a rulIng as to how artIcle 23 02 should be mterpreted If reference IS not had to any such extnnslC eVIdence I find the employer's readmg of the collectIve agreement to be the more plausible of the two competIng mterpretatIOns The ratIOnale for reqmnng the employer to pay for courses whIch an employee must take to keep hIS or her current Job IS much the same as the ratIOnale for requmng an employer to pay for a unIform wluch the IndIVIdual must have to work Just as employers commonly pay for a unIform, they commonly pay for thIS sort of course It IS not the norm for employers to pay the cost of courses whIch qualIfY employees for advancement or promotIOn. There IS nothmg m the language of artIcle 23 02 to suggest the partIes had tIllS latter type of course m mInd when negotIatIng "- 3 WIthout specIfic language on thIS pOInt, artIcle 23 02 should be Interpreted III accordance WIth common Illdustnal relatIOns practIce In the absence of any eVIdence about negotIatIOn hIStOry or past practIce, artIcle 23 02 should be Interpreted as reqUInng the employer to pay only for courses whIch an employee must take to contInue workIng III hIS or her current pOSItIOn So long as the employer IS willmg to mamtaIn an employee In such pOSItion, management IS not oJ:>hged to pay the cost of courses reqUIred for advancement to another pOSItIon ~ RIchard M. Brown, VIce-ChaIr Ottawa,Ontano May 13, 1998 4 "