HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 09-01-07
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Between:
THt:: CORPORATION OF'THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE
(The IIEmployer")
- and -
r
I
j
!
i
,
I
[
j
:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVIcE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 303
(The IlUnlon")
Re: Union Grievances: 2005-0303-007,008,009 and 0010 .. CMEs
AWARD
Paula Knopf M Arbitrator
Appearances:
Counsel for the Employer - Philip J. Wolfenden
Counsel for the Union - Emily l.awrence
Award Is based on written submissions received In December 2008,
7 "
(, d
OEEj 'ON
~dll:l OIOl '6 'g~j
This Case cOhcerns scheduling and compensation for c6niinulng medical eduoational
sessions provided to the 200 full-tima and 60 part-time paramedics In this bargaining
unit. Paramedics are requlfed to maintain a variety of qualifications, Including
.
immunizations, driver's license, and knowledge levels mandated from time to time by
the Ministry of Health) the supervising Base Hospital or this Employer. This Is
accomplished through mandatory conUhulng educatlonal training and re-certlflcatlon
sessions. This Employer provides bi-annual (spring and fall) mandatory continuing
medical educational training and fe-oertlflcation sessions (CMEs).
I
i
I
I I
i !
I
....
The Union has objected to many of the ways that the Employer has organized the
CMEs. However, the issues that have been referred to this Arbitrator arise out of a
series of six training sessions in 2008. The arrahgements prior to that are not relevant.
The main issues concerh whether the Employer Is administerIng the CMEs in a manner
consistent with the Collective Agreement In terms of scheduling, compensation and
overtime provisions.
The majority of paramedIcs In this bargaining unit work a 12.hour shift schedule. while
others work 1 O-hour and a.hour schedules. The training sessions were all 8 hours In
lehgth. Paramedics attshded 40 hours of CMEs over six days. Days 1,2 and 3
occurred in the spflng and Days 4,5 and 6 occurred In the fall. Paramedics attended
Days 1, 2. 4, and 5 on regularly schedUled shifts and Days 3 and 6 on days on which
they had not been oflginally scheduled, but were rescheduled with over four weeks'
notice. The way their pay was administered was as follows:
0) paramedics who regularly worked a-hour shifts would be assIgned to
attend training on regularly scheduled shifts; [This raises no concerns
from the Union]
(ii) 'paramedics who regularly worked 1 O-hour shifts would be rescheduled
from two 10-hour shifts to attend two B.hour training days. Paramedics
would receive 20 hours of pay In the pay period In which they completed
16 hours of trainIng. The Employer faotored the axtra 4 hours of pay Into
the computation of pay for the further {raIning sessIons: and
(iii) paramedics who fegularly worked 12-hour shifts would be rescheduled
from two 12~hoUr shifts to attend two Owhour training days. Paramedics
would receive 24 hours of pay In the pay periods In which thay completed
....
E 'd OEES 'or~
Wdll: l OlO~ '6 'g8j
2
16 hours of training. The Employer reserved the extra paid hours and
applied them to the day~ of the future training.
All paramedics were required to attend one 8-hour training shift on a day that they had
not originally been scheduled to work, but had been rescheduled with four weeks'
advanca notice of the change.
The Employer treated all the sessions as IIscheduled" days of work for the individual
paramedic. The r'thlrd" and IIslxth" days ot-the training sessions Involved the paramedics
being given more than four weeks' advance notice of a change of a day from what had
otherwise been an unscheduled day of wor/<. They were also given parameters of
options, This seems to have affected paramedics differently because some had fewer
days from which to chOOse because they were required to attend on a day that they had
not been regularly scheduled to work, end on a day not immediately before or after a
night shift.
These grievances allege that the Employer Improperly compensated paramedics for the
CMEs, the Employer could not reschedule a day off to become a scheduled day and,
further, that the paramedIcs should have been paid overtime for attending training on
this "rescheduled" day.
From the Employer's perspective, the effect of the arrangements was quite minimal and
within the terms of the CollectIve Agreement. It was stressed that the 10-12 hour
paramedics were only in training for a-hour sessions and yet received their regular full
shift's pay for the fIrst two days. Then It was said that the 12-hour paramedics received
theIr regular days pay for the third "rescheduled" day, and'the 1 Q-hour paramedics were
paid four hours' overtime for their third 'freschedulad" day. As a result, it was said that
these paramedics suffered no loss of payor benefits over the course of three CMEs.
The grIevances raIse the fol/owJng Issues:
(A) What is the pay entitlement for a paramedIc who Is assigned to a
training shift on a reguJarly scheduled workday, when he or she
regularly works 10 or 12-hour shifts?
'0--
V 'd OEES 'ON
~dll:l Olel '6 'qaj
3
(B) What Is the pay entitlement for a paramedic who is assigned to a
training shift on a day that he Is not regularly scheduled to work?
(C) Does the CollectIve Agreement permit the Employer to unilaterally
bank time for hours paid but not worked and to compel paramedics
to work to repay that oanked time at a later date?
(D) Does the Collectiw.l Agreement require the Employer to pay
paramedics overtime for any training shifts they work In excess of
their normal hours of work in a two-week pay period?
The relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement are:
ARTICLE 3 - MANAGEMENT RIGI::tlli
I :
I
3,01 The Union acknowledges that It is the exclusive function of the Employer
to:
(a) MaIntain order and effiolency;
(b) Hire, promote, classify, assign, transfer, suspend and rehire
employees, and to discipline or discharge any employee for just
cause provided that a claim by an employee who has acquired
seniority that he/she has been discharged or discIplined without just
cause may be the subject of a grIevance and dealt with as provided
hereinafter;
3.02 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Employer
agrees that thf:J exercise of any of the above rights shall be In a m~lnner
that is fair, reasonable and consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 16 - LEAVES OF AI3SE~CE
16.07 Education ~ Mandatory In Service & Rece.dlUoaOon Training
Employees who are required to attend training on a scheduled workday'
shall suffer no loss of payor benefits. It such training iB on an
unscheduled workday the employes shall be paid at time and one half (1
~) their regular hourly rate for the full perIod they attend the traIning, With
four (4) weeks' advance notice, the Employer may reschedule regular
work asslgnmenls to coincide with traIning days, The Employer will
provide meals.
S 'd GEES 'Ol\j
Wd II : l 0 l 0 l '6 'q a :J
4
ARTICLE 17 - HOURS OF WORK AND OV~HTIME
17.02(a) Full Time Emplovees
Tlma and one-half (1.5) shall be paid to all full time employees for
all hours worked In elccess of the normal workday and the normal
two (2) week pay period. Notwithstanding the provisIon tor statutory
holidays or the fact that1 since employees work a compressed
workweak, they may work up to sixty (60) regularly scheduled
hours in anyone (1) week period. Where premium time Is involved
such hours shall be first offered to full-time employees on the basis
of availabllity and 86 equitably as possible, provided the fulHlms
employees have confirmed their availability. If the notice gIven to
the Employer to fill such shifts Is less than fIve (5) hours1
operational requirements shall take precedence over equity.
ARTICLE 18 ~ BANKED TIME
18.01 Full time employees may elect to bank time In lieu of receiving pay in
accordance with the appropriate artIcle. Suoh time off must be taken at a
mutually agreeable time. If the time is not taken then the employee shall
be paId out upon raquest or at the end of the year In which it was earned.
ARTICLE 23 - MISCELLANEOUS
23,06 Scheduling
The Employer shall post the work schedule covering a thirty (30) day time
frame and the schedule shall be posted a minimum of thirty (30) days In ,
advance of Its commencement. Upon request each employee will receive
a master/perpetual work schedule for the year. Changes arising to an
employee's schedule from the application of Artlole 15.02 with respect to
Temporary Positions shEll! not be subject to this article.
THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Submissions of the Union
The Union argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words of the Collective
. .
Agreement should be applied in order to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
9 'c OEES 'all!
ViJdll: l OlOG '6 'g8j
5
Reliance is placed on the principles of Interpretation set out in the following authorities:
Brown & Beatty, Canadian L{JbourArbJfrat~on, 41h ed" at para. 4:2100; United
Steelworkers of America, Looal 6571 v. Co-Steel Lasco (OvertIme Grievance) [2000J
a.L.AA. No. 847 (Whitaker); CanadIan Bank Note Co. and Graphic Communications
Union, LocBI41 uM (1999), 61 L.A.C. (4111) 107 (R. Brown); Board of School Trustees of
School District No. 39 (Vancouver) and Vancouver Teachers' Federation (1996) 53
L.A.C. (4Ih) 33 (Hope); and Re CN!CP Telecommunications and Canadian Assoolatlon
of Communications and Allied Workers (1905) 18 L.A.C. (3d) 78 (P.C. Plcher). The
Union puts great emphasis on Article 16.07 and its promise that employees who are
required to attend training on a scheduled workday shall suffer no Joss of payor benefits
and that If such training falls on ,an unscheduled workday, the employee shall be paid at
time and one-half (1 Yz) their regular hourly rate for the full period they EittEmd the
training, The Union argues that the effect of Articles 16.07 and 23.06 Is to set the rate of
pay for training and the requirement of four weeks' notice for trElining, regardless of
whether It Is an already scheduled workday or a rescheduled workday. The Union
concedes that when paramedics receive training on Days 1 and 2 of their regularly
scheduled shifts, they are suffering no actual Joss of payor benefits, While the training
day may be 8 hours, they were paid for theIr regular 8, 10 or 12-hour shifts. However,
for the third day of trainIng, the Union complains that the Employer is factoring the extra
4-8 hours paid from the fIrst two training days into the compensation for the third day,
The Union alleges that this violates Article 16.07 because the Employer required
paramedics to attend the third day of training on a day that employees had not been
"regularly" scheduled to work. Therefore, the Union demands that paramedics be paid
at time and one-half (1%) of their regular hourly rate for the hours that they spend In
training during that third or "unscheduled work day". The scheduling aspect is Important
to the Union because full-lime employees work on a rotating schedule that is provided
each December. As well, paramedics have access to their schedules for the upcoming
two months through an online scheduling program, It was argued that Article 16.07
~ .
would have no meaning If the Employer could unilaterally change the day that Is
normally a day off to a "scheduled workda( and thereby avoid the requirement to pay
overtime.
L 'd OSSS 'oi~
~dGl:l OlOl '6 '~~j
6
I '
The UnIon submits that the Intention of the parties was only to permit the Employer to
schedule training sessions, and to reassign paramedics from their home base locatIon
to the training location, This ability to reschedule "work assignments" was said to be
dIstinct from the Employer's ability to reschedule "regular scheduled workdays", The
Union argues that the term ''work assignment" refers only to the location to which a
paramedic reports, and that the word "assign" refers only to stations or locations. The
Union points to Article 3.01 (b) that includes the rIght to "assign employees as a
managemAnt rlght" and Article 4.01 that defines a "float employee" as someone
"reassigned from statton to station", The UnIon argues that the phrase IIre8chedule
regUlar work assignments to coincIde with training days" should be interpreted to only
permit the Employer to substitute a regUlarly soheduled workday for a training day. The
affect of this would be to limit all traIning to a paramedic's regularly scheduled wo(/(days
and/or to require that they be paid overtime if "an additional workday" is created by
"rescheduling" a paramedic to work on a day off that had not been orIgInally scheduled.
The Union also argues that the way the Employer has been factoring the hours of
training and compensation amounts to paying paramedics for hours fhey did not work
(during the fIrst and second training days) and then applying or recouping that extra pay
on the third day of training by unilaterally. rescheduling to meet "the Employers own
convenienCe and financIal gain." This was said to be like a system of "banking" time in
lieu of receiving pay, However, the Union stressed that time can only be lIbanked'! by
"mulual agreement'J under Article 18.01, The UnIon argues that since the Employer
created A bidding process to select the training days that fall on unscheduled workdays,
this does not comply with Article 18,01 because there can be no "mutuallty" where the
8mployer requires that paramedics bid on days on which they are not already
scheduled.
Finally, the Union argues that the Employer must pay overtime for any training shifts
worked in excess of normal hours of work in a two..week pay perIod, It Was pointed out
-'"
that paramedics who attend an eight-hour training sessIon on their day off, In addlUon to
8 'd OEES 'ON
WdGl:l OlOe '6 'q8j
7
their regularly scheduled shifts, may end up actually working more thah their normal
number of hours in a two-week pay period. It was submitted that Article 17.01 should be
applied so paramedIcs who work In excess or the normal number of hours in a twa-
r;
week pay period receive time and one-half pay for the hours so worked,
Tlls Submissions of the Employer1
'rhe Employer stressed that paramedics work within an emergency service that Is
mandated to operate 24 hours per day, every day of the yearJ while their schedules
provide for "sIgnificant periods of unscheduled time" which is not part of their vaoatlon
schedule. Paramedics are also required to maintain their qualifications, while thIs
Employer must provide certain additional training. This creates considerable demands
upon the time and resources of the Service. It was said that the Collectlve Agreement
provides the Employer with "a level of flexibility" that is designed to facilitate training In a
manner that allows for the continuation of operations and service. It was stressed that
there are significant cost implications to the traIning because whenever a paramedlc'ls
attending traInIng on a scheduled day of work. the Employer must backfill that opening
with a part-lime paramedic or bring someone in on overtime.
With that a.s a context for this case, the Employer argues that the onus is upon the
Union to demonstrate there has been a breach of the Collective Agreement. The
Employer objects to the Union characterizing the way that training sessions have been
paid as a method of time "banking'1, It was stressed that there Is no dispute about the
mandatory and approprIate nature of the training that was provIded and that the
Employer is entitled to sohedule paramedics for training on days that the paramedics
would have worked as part of their schedule. Further, the Employer gave all of the
paramedics more than four weaks' advance notice of training and eaoh paramedic had
the opportunity to select alternative days for that third day of training, The Employer
argues that once it put these conditions in place, it had the "unfettered right" to
1 '
Tf1e Union look !he posll1on lha.llhe Emjlloyor's submllllilOflS should not be oonsldElred by Ihls ArbJlralOI beGlluse Ihl;lY were flied
two days IlitBr IJlEm Ihl) agreed upon Urna frame, While It 18 Iwe Ihellhe submIssIons were .j810~ and !hlo dill ora ale incollV6n[6noo
In lelTI1s or 1M prajlarnUoll ot Ihe R(Jjlly, Iho dOlay Is flol slgnll1canlll.nl1 dId nol cause any real jlfeJudice, Thelll(Orll, III 0100t IhallM
merH~ oflllls case Can bll projlerly delarmln~d, Iha Employer's submfs610ns have been accopl11d and COnsIdered. '
6 ' dOE E ~ '0 r~
!Ndll: l OIOe '6 'Pj
8
schedule trainIng sessions in a maImer that worked best for the SeNice. provided only
that Il was done in a manner that was fair and reasonable, and within the terms of the
Agreement. It was stressed that the EmpJoyer scheduled four out of the six training
sessions to coincide with a day on Which the paramedics would normally have wOfl<ed.
requiring the County to backfill that paramedic with a part-tImer, or bring someone else
in on overllme for all four ,of those days. Further, the Employer stressed that It gava
more than four weeks' notice to rescheduling those paramedics to work on a day they
would not have worked otherwise I but gave them the opportunity to select ffom an
"extensive list" of available dates. It was said that this was done "in order to create what
It believed would be the most positive labour relations response)) and to create "fairness
and equity",
The Employer argues that there has been no breach of Article 16.07 because
paramedics all received their regular pay for ~II the pay pefiode in which they received
training. The Employer suggests that the effect of the Union's argument might be that
training be scheduled for 12 hours ihstead' of 8 hours. However, It was sfressed' that no
party believes that sessIons of that length should be put in place.
The Employer also argues that It is "nonsensical" for the Union to submit that the
Employer cannot convert an unscheduled work day Into a scheduled workday with four
weeks' advance notlce under ArtIcle 16.07. It was said that this clause provides a
financial consequence for forcIng an employee to come in on an unscheduled day,
however, it also gives the Employer the flexibility of giving the paramedic a month of
notice to reorganize things for theIr "rescheduled'l day. It was argues that this amounted
to "a fair compromise" that balances the need to do training within the sphere of fa.irness
to the employees. The Employer argues that the Union's suggestlon that "assignments"
be limited to "locations" makes no sense because that would mean that a provIsIon
dealing wIth notice of the moving of a paramedic's base location would be found In an
article dedicated to compensation for attending training,
The Employer also argued strenuously that..lt "makes no sense" that the parties would
have agreed that they could reschedule to allevIate the consequences of overtime in
Ol 'd OEES 'O!~
~dGl: l OlOr: '6 'g~j
9
ArtIcle 16.07, only to turn that Into _~nother situation requirIng overtime pay in ArtIcle
17,02.
The Employer disagrees with the Union's ~ contention that there has been a "bankIng" of
time. It was stressed that the paramedics were paid fully for all of their time and never
had their time "banked", Further, all of the paramedics were paid theIr regular pay for
their normal two-week pay periods, as long as they worked their scheduled days, The
Employer says that they then had another scheduled day "averaged" Into theIr pay "for
trainIng". It was argued that the Collective Agreement allows the Employer this
l'f1axlbility in this narrow situation", It was then conceded that If the E:mployer aSKS a
paramedic to work an extra day over and above their regular schedule, and that day did
not fall within the exception allowed by Article 16.07, then the paramedic would be
entilled to overtime If s/he otherwise fell within the tenns of Article 17.02.
The Employer stressed that it shoulders a significant responsibility for the cost and
scheduling of the extensive amount of training. It was said that the paramedIcs were
only "mlnimally inconvenienced" by having one unscheduled day moved to a
rescheduled day, and that this Is permitted by Article 16.07. It was argued that the
Collective Agreement allow9 the Employer to reschedule days off into training days and
that this should not be treated as attracting overtime liability. It w~s submitted that there
Is no restriction on the Employer's rIght to generally change the schedules other than
the requirement to post the schedules 39 days in advance, and to provide any
paramedic who a6ks a copy of "...8 master/perpetual schedule for the year..." It was
said that this master schedule does not create individual rights.
The Union's Reply SubmissIons
The Union argues that the Employer's administration of the CMEs Is not "fair" or
"reasonableJl because It does not comply with the Col/ectlve Agreement's prescription of
how they should be handled. It was also said the Union's restricted Interpretation of
"assignment" referring only to locations makes sense in the context of Article 16.07
Il 'd OEE~ 'Or~
WdGl: l OlOi: '6 '~dj
10
because that clause addresses a number of elements of mandatory training beyond
compensation, including the provision of lunch during training.
The Union also challenged the Employer's assertion that paramedics had an "extensive
list of dates" to choose to attend Days 3 and 6 of CMEs in 2008. It was pointed out that
paramedics may have had only a few options for attendance because they could not
attend on regularly scheduled workdays or on days immediately before or after a night
shift. For the selection of Day 3, paramedics were further limited because they were
required to attend Day 3 before Day 4 of training.
Dealing with the issue of pay administration, the Union modified its submissions,
agreeing that the Employer was not actually "banking" the paramedics' time. The Union
pointed out that "banking time" actually involves employees taking time off without
experiencing a dip in income. It was said that this Employer is actually attempting to pay
paramedics for time they have not yet worked, and then "collecting" the credit months
later by "unilaterally scheduling them for training on their days off."
The Union also argued that it is inaccurate for the Employer to characterize the situation
as one of "pay averaging". It was pointed out that paramedics generally work 84 hours
every pay period. The Union contends that only two "unique" platoons, amounting to
only six paramedics in a Bargaining Unit of over 250 paramedics, have their pay
averaged: one because of the nature of their unit (emergency response) and the other
because of the hours they regularly work (9am to 9pm rather than 7am/pm to 7pm/am).
It was said that their "pay averaging" is an established exception that applies narrowly to
meet the scheduling requirements and the unique circumstances of these two platoons.
The Union argued that nothing in the Collective Agreement permits the Employer to
average a paramedic's pay over subsequent pay periods unilaterally, because to do so
would override the overtime and hours of work provisions of the Collective Agreement.
The Union summarized its position by saying that regardless of how the current
administration of the CMEs is characterized, Article 16.07 mandates that paramedics
should receive their regular daily rate when they attend training on their regularly
11
scheduled days and 8 hours at the overtime rate when they attend training on a day that
they are not regularly scheduled to work. Further. It was said that the Collective
Agreement does not permit the Employer to administer the CMEs by 'Ipay averaging" o~
"time banking" because of the language of Articles 16.07 and 1T02(a). F'lnally, it was
argued that Article 17.02(a) requires the Employer to pay paramedics overtime for any
training shIfts they attend In excess of theIr normal hours of work in a two~week pay
period.
THE DECISION
There Is no question that there are enormous cost implications and complexIties
associated with the planning and scheduling of the CMEs. TraIning Is mandated by the
Ambulance Act and is alBa necessary for the malnten~nce of modern and effective
operations. CMEs banefit the paramedics and th,e community they serve. One has to
appreciate and admire the planning that must be done to put in place those
arrangements. However, It must be emphasized that the task of this Arbitrator Is not to
determine what she considers to be fair or appropriate In terms of compensation flnd/or
administration. The sole Jurlsdlctlon of an arbitrator in thi6 case is to analyze the facts to
determine whether there has been compllanoe with the parties' Collective Agreement.
Therefore one must begin with the Colleo~lve Agreement itself. Article 3.01, gives the
Employer the exclusive right to "assign') employees and to malntaJn "order and
efflciency" in a manner "that Is fait, reasonable and consistent with the terms" of the
-
Colleotive Agreement. Those generalized rights are then specifically modified by
ArtIcles 16.07, the overtime provIsions in Article 17 and the scheduling provision of
23.06,
A key to this case is an understanding of the term "unscheduled workday" under this
contraot. The Union has argued that any training days that occur outside of the
regularly scheduled workday are entitled to payment at the rate of one and one-half
their hourly rate for the time of thalr attendance. The effect of the Union's position Is that
paramedIcs would essentially be given a guaranty that there would be no changes to
r l ';
c d
OEES 'oN
~Ul: l OlOl '6 '~dj
, .
12
the rotating schedule that Is supplied to them in December of a given year and that
there would be a promise that no changes can be made for trainIng without them
receiving time and one"half of their regular hourly rate for their attendance. However,
when the Collective Agreement Is read as a whole, this position cannot be accepted,
The only direct schedullng provision in the Collective Agreement/s Article 23.06. It
does require the Employer to post schedules for a 30Mday tirYIsframe. But nothing in the
Col/ective Agreement either guarantees hours or takes away the Employer's right to
alter the schedules for traIning purposes, All the Collective Agreement does Is mandate
consequences if changes are made with less than 30 days' notice, It Is a fundamental
principle of interpretatIon that all words must be given meaning In a Collective
agreement. This must be applied to the sentence in Article 16.07 that provides: 'With
four (4) weeks' advance notlceJ the Employer may reschedule regular work
assignments to coincide with traIning days.~J For this sentence to have any real
meaning, it must have the effect of allowing the Employer to reschedule an employee's
Elsslgnment from active duty to training and therefore from a previously "unscheduled" .
day to a new "rescheduled" day. The term "re$Ghedul~" In the last sentence of Article
17.07 must be recognized as meaning that the alteration has created a new IJschedule".
This Is consistent with Article 23.06 that requires the Employer to post a paramedlo's
I'work schedule" 30 days in advance. It Is also consistent with the Collective
Agreement's requirement that overtime be p~ld for hours in excess of the normal work
day or the normal two-week pay period [Article 17.03(a)]. This does not permit an
unlimited ablllly to alter schedules in order to avoid overtime provisIons. But it certainly
does permit the Employer to IJreschedule" with requisite notice to facilitate the training
sessions.
So when the Collective Agreement Is read as a whole it must be concluded that if and
when the Employer plans training sessIons that require It to alter a long range "master"
schedule and more than four weeks' advance noUce is proVided, the new assIgnment to
training duty becomes another rrscheduled workday'. As a r'esult. it would be Incorrect
to adopt the Union's suggestlon that any training sessIon that was not originally part of
the paramedic's regular rotating schedule attracts overtime under Article 16;07. The
vl 'd OEES 'ON
~dGl: l OIOG '6 'g8j
13
clause provides that time and one-half is only to be paid for attendance during an
"unscheduled workday'l which would be a traIning day assignment Imposed with less
than four weeks' notice under this Collective Agreement.
However, the Union is correct that Article 16.07 requires that paramedics receive their
regular daily rate for attendance at the training sessions. For the 10 and 12-hour
employees, this would mean that they are to be paid for all those hours even if the
session only lasts for eIght hours. This must be so because the cJause promIses that
they shall "suffer no loss of payor benefits/I It is acknowledged that the Employer has
illustrated that these paramedics had actually suffered no such losses in the long run
under the current arrangement because their pay over the totality of the three or six
sessions amounts to the same number of days' pay that they would have received had
they been assigned to active duty. However, the Employer has achieved this resull by
applying what It calls /Jpay averaging" to the day that they were required to work that
would otherwise have bean off. Nothing in the Collective Agreement suggests that Such
a right exists. The Employer is obligated to pay employees the prescrIbed rates of pay
as the hours are worked. If an employee attends a scheduled training session, s/he
must be paid for that time unless a specific election Is made to ('bank" that time under'
Article 18. It is clear that no such elections were made In this case. In the case of the
payment for the "third" or "sixthH scheduled training day that the Employer trGated as
being capable of being Haveraged!l into the computation of pay, this meant that
employees effectively worked one day without attracting further earnings or
compensation for that shift. It may be true that over the course of the year. they
suffered "no loss of payor benefits." But It cannot be denIed that durIng the Week that
they attended their third scheduled training day, they were not receiving their regular
pay and benefits for that attendance. Therefore, the Employer's administration of Article
16.07 on the third and sixth days of training must be considered to be In violation of the
Collective Agreement.
WhlJe It has been concluded that the Employer has the right to reschedule shifts for
training pu rposes with four weeks' notice under Article 16.07, it appears that the
~l 'J OEES 'Oil!
~dEl:l OlO~ '6 'g~j
14
demands of the $ervice and the complexity of the scheduling process may sometimes
result in paramedics working In excess of their normal hours of work In a two~week pay
perIod, If and when that occure, the excess hours of work should be treated the same
as any overtime under Article 17.03(a) where all hours actually worked in excess of the
normal twOwweek pay perIod be paid at the rate of time and one"half. If this results,
they are entitled to receIve time and one-half for those additional hours In any given pay
period. OvertIme entitlement is earned and accrued on the basis of one'8 "normal"
workday or a normal two-week pay period, It cahnot be done by"averaglng" hours
beyond those time frames, Otherwise. the purposes of Article 17.03 wbuld be defeated.
As a result, the grievance is upheld in part. The Union has succeeded in establishing a
breach of the Collective Agreement with regard to some of the a8pects of the
'administration of payment for training s€!sslons. ParamedIcs assigned to training for B-
hour training sessions are entitled to theIr regular day's pay, whether It was for 8.10-12
hours by virtue of the speclfic wording of Article 16.07. However, the Employer's
positIon with regard to its ability to reschedule assigned shifts with four weeks' notice
has been upheld. That means that If the regular shift rotation or assJgnment is altered
with sufficient notice for trainIng purposes, the payment for the session shall be at the
paramedic's regular pay rate for a scheduled workday, not at an overtime rate. As a
result, it has also been concluded that the Employer is not entitled to apply "averaging"
to the administration of compensation under this Collective Agreement. Further, If the
training sessions result in hours worked In 'excess of those In a "normal work day" or
"normal two week,pay period", the overtIme provisions of Article 17.02 will apply to
those excess hours.
At the Union's request. I remit this matter back to the parties to deal with the
implications of these conclusions, However, I remain seized with regard to the
implementation of this award should the parties require further assistance.
9l 'd OEES 'ON
V>JdSl:l OlOG '6 'q2j
15
Finally, I must express my respect and gratliude to counBel for their able and helpful
written submissions.
Dated at Toronto this 7th day of January, 2009.
L l ' d 0 S S S . 0 r~
l~dSI:l OlOl '6 '~dj