HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-2079.Rutkowski et al.98-05-13EMPLOY& DE LA COlJFiONNE
DE L’ONTARkZ
COMMISSION DE
RtGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WES 7; SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G lZ8
180, RUE DUNDAS OUE.57; BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) h45G lZ8
TELEPHONE/&iPHONE : (416) 3X3-1388
FACSIMILEil~L~COPIE : (416) 326-1396
GSB # 2079197
CUPE 2412 # SLO30
TN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINTNG ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
CUPE 2412 (RutkowskiKavergne)
BEFORE R. Brown
FOR THE
UNTON
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Sudbury & District Ambulance Service)
Vice-Chair
R. Carnovale
National Representative
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Local 2412
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
D. Robinson, Q.C.
Counsel
Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark
Grievor
Employer
HEARRVG April 30, 1998
DECISION
The grievers are employed in the position of Paramedic I and have applied
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 grievors taking these two courses.
Article 23.02 of the collective ageement states:
Where Employees are required by the Employer to take new Courses to
maintain, up-grade or acquire new employment qualifications, 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, opportunities for these
Courses shall be available to all employees on a competitive basis and will
be with pay.
‘.
The employer contends this article applies only to courses which an
2
employee is required to take in order to continue working 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 applies to all courses that an employee is
required to take for any reason.
The language of the collective agreement is somewhat ambiguous on this
point. At this stage in the proceedings, neither party has led extrinsic evidence of
negotiation 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 interpreted if
reference is not had to any such extrinsic evidence.
I find the employer’s reading of the collective agreement to be the more
plausible of the two competing interpretations. The rationale for requiring 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 requiring an employer to pay for
a uniform which 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 qualifjr employees for
advancement or promotion. There is nothing in the language of article 23.02 to
suggest the parties had this latter type of course in mind when negotiating.
3
.
Without specific language on this point, article 23.02 should be interpreted in
accordance with common industrial relations practice.
In the absence of any evidence about negotiation history or past practice,
article 23.02 should be interpreted as requiring the employer to pay only for
courses which an employee must take to continue working in his or her current
position. So long as the employer is willing to maintain an employee in such
position, management is not obliged to pay the cost of courses required for
advancement to another position.
Richard M. Brown, Vice-Chair
Ottawa, Ontario
May 13,199s
4