IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION CUPE, Local Unions of … · Bass Associates Jonah Gindin, Research...

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

PURSUANT TO THE HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTES ARBITRATION ACT

BETWEEN:

The Participating Hospitals

AND

CUPE, Local Unions of OCHU/CUPE

Before:

Appearances

Scarborough Hospital (September 9 & October 6, 2015)

For Scarborough:

For CUPE:

Rouge Valley Hospital (September 9, 2015)

For Rouge Valley:

(Local Issues)

William Kaplan, Chair Brett Christen, Hospitals Nominee Joe Herbert, CUPE Nominee

Amanda Hunter Hicks Morley Barristers & Solicitors

Barbara Wilker-Frey, National Representative Tracey Pinder, Hospital Coordinator Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Erin Miller, Legal Counsel & Director of Labour Relations

For CUPE:

Pembroke Hospital (September 17, 2015)

For Pembroke:

For CUPE:

Health Sciences North (September 29, 2015)

For Health Sciences North:

For CUPE:

Manitoulin Health Centre (September 30, 2015)

For Manitoulin:

For CUPE:

SickKids (October 6, 2015)

For SickKids:

For CUPE:

J.C. Lavigne, National Representative Tracey Pinder, Hospital Coordinator Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Raquel Chisholm Emond Harnden

Tammy Prescod, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

M. David Ross Hicks Morley Barristers & Solicitors

Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Kathleen Stokes Weaver Simmons Barristers & Solicitors


Craig Rix Hicks Morley Barristers & Solicitors

J.C. Lavigne National Representative

2

Brockville General (October 15, 2015)

For Brockville:

For CUPE:

Cornwall Hospital (October 15, 2015)

For Cornwall:

For CUPE:

Queensway-Carleton (October 15, 2015)

For Queensway:

For CUPE:

Peterborough Regional (October 20, 2015)

For Peterborough:

For CUPE:

Colin Youngman Hicks Morley Barristers & Solcitors

Cheri Dobbs, National Representative Tracey Pinder, Healthcare Coordinator

Vicky Satta Emond Harnden Barristers & Solicitors

Paul Boileau, National Representative Tracy Pinder, Healthcare Coordinator

Porter Heffernan Emond Harnden Barristers & Solicitors

Tony Cristiano, National Representative Tracey Pinder, Healthcare Coordinator

J.D. Sharpe Emond Harnden Barristers & Solicitors

Jenn Mizerovsky, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Campbellford Memorial Hospital (October 20, 2015)

For Camp bellford: Steven Menard Barrister & Solicitor

3

For CUPE:

Toronto Grace (October 21, 2015)

For Toronto Grace:

For CUPE:

Providence Health Care (October 21, 2015)

For Providence:

For CUPE:

Jenn Mizerovsky, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Blair McCreadie Den tons Barristers & Solicitors

Paul Edwards, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Brian O'Byme Faskens Barristers & Solicitors

J.C. Lavigne, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

North Bay Regional Health Centre (November 10, 2015)

For North Bay:

For CUPE:

Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance (November 17, 2015)

For Huron Perth:

For CUPE:

Notre Dame (November 19, 2015)

For Notre Dame:

Ryan Wood Bass Associates

Fran Belanger, National Representative Doug Allan, Research Officer

Lisa Kwasek Hicks Morley Barristers & Solicitors

Jan Ouzas, National Representative Tracey Pinder, Healthcare Coordinator

Robert Hickman Barrister & Solicitor

4

For CUPE:

Trillium Health (November 22, 2015)

For CUPE:

West Nipissing (November 24, 2015)

For West Nipissing:

For CUPE:

Mattawa General (November 24, 2015)

For Mattawa General:

For CUPE:

Glengarry Memorial (November 25, 2015)

For Glengarry:

For CUPE:

Royal Ottawa (November 25, 2015)

For Royal Ottawa:

For CUPE:

Norm Berthiaume, National Representative Doug Allan, Research Officer

Bob Bass Bass Associates



Michel Revelin, National Representative Tracey Pinder, Healthcare Coordinator


Fran Belanger, National Representative Doug Allan, Research Officer

Dan Palayew Borden Ladner Gervais Barristers & Solicitors

Paul Boileau, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

Caroline Richard Bird Richard Barristers & Solicitors

Danika Brisson, National Representative Connie Hurtubise, National Representative Jonah Gindin, Research Officer

5

Hamilton Health Science Centre (December 8, 2015)

ForHHSC:

For CUPE Service:

For CUPE Trades:

Mark Mason Hicks Morley

Gerry McDonnell, National Representative

Gus Oliveira, National Representative

The indicated above matters in dispute proceeded to a hearings held throughout Ontario on the dates noted in September, October, November & December 2015. The Board met in Executive Session on January 31, 2016 and February 1, 20 & 21, 2016.

6

Introduction

This Board of Arbitration was constituted under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to hear various local issues between the members of the participating hospitals (hereafter "the participating hospitals" and OCHU I CUPE (hereafter "the union"). The participating hospitals and the union are voluntary participants in central bargaining. They are bound by the Memorandum of Conditions for Joint Bargaining dated June 17, 2013 and the Memorandum of Settlement between Participating Hospitals and CUPE dated September 29, 2013. These two memoranda establish a collective bargaining framework in which, simply put, the parties have agreed that some issues are central and some issues are local. The central issues were resolved when the parties entered into a collective agreement expiring on September 28, 2017. Local issues negotiations between the participating hospitals and applicable union locals occurred between September 2, and December 16, 2014. This Board was consensually constituted to deal with the outstanding local issues. On July 23, 2015, the Board issued its award respecting two coordinated issues: RPN Adjustment and Mentorship. An award was also issued in respect of the William Osler Health Centre and an interim award in respect of Trillium Health (with several issues deferred pending completion of the local issues process). Moreover, and at the request of the parties, a final award was issued in respect of Hamilton Health Sciences Centre in advance of completion of the Board's consideration of the other outstanding local issues.

In considering the various issues in dispute, the Board has paid careful attention to the detailed briefs, the submissions at the hearings, and the applicable statutory criteria, as well as the guiding and important principles of replication and demonstrated need. Where inability to pay was argued, the submissions of the parties have been thoroughly considered. As requested by the parties, all agreed upon items are to be included in the collective agreements settled by this award. Any union or hospital proposal not specifically addressed in this award is deemed dismissed.

A ward - General

Student Supervision (Preceptorship)

Awarded where requested effective February 1, 2017. Toronto Grace increased to .60¢ effective February 1, 2017. Language to read:

Registered Practical Nurses may be required, as part of their regular duties, to supervise activities of students in accordance with the current College of Nurses of Ontario Practice Guidelines - Supporting Learners. Nurses will be informed in writing of their responsibilities in relation to these students and will be provided with what the Hospital determines to be appropriate training. Any information that is provided to the Hospital by the educational institution with respect to the skill level of the students will be made available to the nurses recruited to supervise the students. Upon request, the Hospital w ill

7

review the nurse's work.load with the nurse and the student to facilitate the successful completion of the assignment.

When a nurse is assigned nursing s tudent supervision duties, the Hospital will pay the nurse a premium

of sixty cents ($0.60) per hour for all hou rs spent supervising nursing s tudents.

Uniforms

In all hospitals where monetary improvement requested, increased to $120 full-time and $60 part-time effective February 1, 2017. Superior conditions maintained.

Paramedic Adjustment (North Bay Regional Health Centre, Notre Dame Hospital, Mattawa General Hospital)

North Bay and Mattawa fall under the District of Nipissing SSAB. Notre Dame falls under the District of Cochrane SSAB. SSABs fund paramedics including those employed in hospitals. The District of Cochrane has settled directly with its paramedics and there is no reason why those rates should not also apply to paramedics employed by Notre Dame. Replication would argue in favour of this result and it should logically, given previous local issues awards, be extended to the District of Nipissing. These rates are not the CUPE provincial average for paramedics employed by municipalities as sought by the union.

Effective September 29, 2015:

Effective September 29, 2016:

end rate of $36.98.

end rate of $37 .72.

These rates are inclusive of the general wage increase. Retroactivity to all current and former employees within sixty days.

Note: Existing differentials to be maintained in any related classifications.

Award - Individual Hospitals

CAMPBELLFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Part-time Medical Certificates

Union proposal awarded with amendment. Provision to read: "The hospi tal shall pay the full cost of any medical certificate it requires of any part-time employee."

8

CORNWALL COMMUNITY HO SPIT AL

Third Consecutive Weekend Off

Union proposal granted with standard exceptions: except if the cause of working three (3) consecutive weekends is due to a shift exchange, or the employee has requested weekend work, or the weekend is worked by an employee to satisfy specific days off requested by the employee.

Lead Hand Rate

Effective date of award, Lead Hand Premium to be .60¢ an hour.

GLENGARRY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Pharmacy Technician

$28.27 inclusive of general wage increase effective September 29, 2014.

Article 6.03(b) (PT)

Union proposal awarded with amendment. Provision to read: "Employees working their third (3"') or subsequent consecutive weekend shall be paid time and one half (1-1I2) the employee's straight time hourly rate of pay, except if the cause of working three (3) consecutive or subsequent weekends is due to a shift exchange, or the employee has requested weekend work, or the weekend is worked by an employee to satisfy specific days off requested by the employee."

HEALTH SCIENCES NORTH

Electronic Applications

Remitted to the parties for resolution.

Unilingual Employees

Remitted to the parties for resolution.

9

Vacation Accrual

Union proposal granted.

Call in shifts


HURON PERTH HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE

Wage Adjustment- Lab Support 1

Comparable OPSEU rate in effect on September 28, 2017 awarded effective September 28, 2017.

Wage Adjustment- Health Records Practitioner

Current comparable OPSEU rate awarded date of award.

NORTH BAY REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE

Uniforms

Existing provision amended: "The hospital will provide and launder uniforms where required."

PEMBROKE REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Shift Cancellation

Effective thirty days after issue of award, change to 24 hours notice.

Work Schedule

Existing provision amended to November l •.

10

Vacation Accrual


Call in shifts


HURON PERTH HEAL TH CARE ALLIANCE

Wage Adjustment- Lab Support 1

Comparable OPSEU rate in effect on September 28, 2017 awarded effective September 28, 2017.

Wage Adjustment- Health Records Practitioner

Current comparable OPSEU rate awarded date of award.

NORTH BAY REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE

Uniforms

Existing provision amended: "The hospital will provide and launder uniforms where required."

PEMBROKE REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Shift Cancellation

Effective thirty days after issue of award, change to 24 hours notice.

Work Schedule

Existing provision amended to November 1~ .

10

PROVIDENCE HEALTHCARE

Meal Allowance

To $8.00 effective date of award.

Union Stewards

Union proposal awarded with amendment: "Provided such union representatives/ stewards are available, the employer will utilize union representatives/ stewards that are allocated to specific classifications and/ or work areas. Such designations shall be provided to the employer by the union on a regular basis."

ROUGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM

Processing Technician Wage Adjustment

Rate increased to $23.50 date of award.

ROYAL OITAWA HEALTH GROUP

Parking

Union proposal granted. Provision to read: "Employees paying for parking will be charged a pro-rated amount for the first month when access to the parking lot is provided after the 1" day of the month.

SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL

Premium Pay for Consecutive Weekends

Existing provision amended: "In the event a third or subsequent weekend .... " Amended provision to come into effect sixty days after issue of award.

Scheduling, Seven Day Shifts (FT)

Add: No employee will be scheduled for consecutive periods of seven days / shifts separated by day(s) off.

11

Amended provision to come into effect sixty days after issue of award.

Scheduling, RPN Floating (FT & PT)

Following awarded, effective sixty days following issue of award.

The assignment to other patient areas (floating) will occur in the following manner:

An employee will not float during their probationary or orientation period; Volunteers will be requested first; Starting with the most junior PT RPN, on a rotation basis within a calendar year (January-December).

The employee will be provided with a meal ticket ($9.00) when they float to another unit for four (4) hours or more.

Uniform

Provision amended: uniform allowance will be paid when uniform required by the hospital.

Lead Hand Premium (FT & PT)

Increase by .10¢ effective date of award.

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Seniority Lists

Hospital proposal awarded.

CS & TD Wage Adjustment

Effective date of award increase by .10¢.

12

WEST NIPISSING GENERAL HOSPITAL

ECG Technician Wage Adjustment -----Increased to North Bay Hospital rate date of award.

Conclusion

At the request of the parties, we remain seized with the implementation of our award.

DATED at Toronto this 29·• day of March 2016.

"William Kaplan" William Kaplan, Chair

I partially dissent. Partial dissent attached.

Brett Christen, Hospitals Nominee

I partially dissent. Partial dissent attached.

Joe Herbert, OCHU I CUPE Nominee

13

PARTIAL DISSENT OF THE EMPLOYER NOMINEE

I generally agree w ith the Chair's balanced approach in addressing the numerous issues placed before

this local issues Board. However, for the reasons set out in the Employer Nominee's dissent to the

Hamilton Hea lth Sciences award of this Board, I again dissent from the increases for particular

classifications awarded on the basis of the central OPSEU Rate.

Given the current fiscal situation facing hospitals and the fact that a .7% increase for all classifications

for each year of the Collective Agreement (in addition to a corresponding annual lump sum payment)

has been negotiated centrally, I believe that all requests for classification adjustments, including those

based upon OPSEU "parity", should have been approached with extreme constraint.

While a great many requests for classification adjustments were not awarded, the adjustments that

were granted, together with the centrally negotiated increases, provide employees in these

classifications with significant increases to an existing wage rate that was, in many cases, freely

negotiated by the Union. Classification wage adjustments impact internal relativities at the hospital and

may affect a hosp ital's pay equity responsibilities. These types of increases are also not reflective ofthe

outcome of actual collective barga ining negotiations in which it is rare that parties agree, in add ition to a

general increase, to a significant increase for one or two individual classifications. Generally, when this

occurs in free collective bargaining, it is to address an employer's retention and recruitment issues. In

the cases of the adjustments made in this award, there was frequently litt le to no compelling evidence

of the hosp ital having any retention or recruitment difficulties, which is not surprising given the state of

the Ontario economy in recent yea rs and the comparative desirability of a unionized position at a

hospital.

14

PARTIAL DISSENT OF THE UNION NOMINEE

I share the view that the award represents an effort toward balance, however that balance has been to

some extent undermined by the abnormal and excessive delay in effecting compensation changes.

An example of this is found in the improvements made to uniform allowance. The amount of the

allowance receives a modest increase from the expired provision, however the balance achieved in

providing for a modest improvement is undermined in that the increase in the amount of the allowance

is not made effective until the final months of a four-year agreement. For almost all of the agreement,

employees will receive the lesser quantum.

A further example is found in the general failure to award retroactivity on wage adjustments. Even

where a small portion of retroactivity has been awarded, in the case of paramedics, it is too little. In the

first two years of the four-year term, paramedics will earn less than their comparators. Paramedics who

are formally employed by hospitals which undertake to provide services to upper-tier municipalities

have normally been paid on par with paramedics employed throughout municipalities in Onta rio. The

denial of any retroactive payment for the first two years of the term defeats that normative outcome,

and undermines the balance in the award.

Dated this 17th day of March 2016 in Dunedin, FL.

Joe Herbert

Union Nominee

15

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

PURSUANT TO THE HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTES ARBITRATION ACT

BETWEEN:

The Participating Hospitals

AND

CUPE, Local Unions of OCHU/CUPE

(Coordinated Issues: RPN Wage Adjustment & Mentorship )

Before: William Kaplan, Chair Brett Christen, Hospitals Nominee Joe Herbert, CUPE Nominee

Appearances

For the Participating Hospitals: Carolyn Kay Hicks Morley Barristers & Solicitors

For CUPE: Jonah Gindin Researcher OCHU/CUPE The matters in dispute proceeded to a hearing held in Toronto on July 9, 2015. The Board met in Executive Session in Toronto on July 16, 2015.

2

Introduction

This Board of Arbitration was constituted under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to hear various local issues between the members of the participating hospitals (hereafter “the participating hospitals” and OCHU/CUPE (hereafter “the union”). The participating hospitals and the union are voluntary participants in central bargaining. They are bound by the Memorandum of Conditions for Joint Bargaining dated June 17, 2013 and the Memorandum of Settlement between Participating Hospitals and CUPE dated September 29, 2013. These two memoranda establish a collective bargaining framework in which, simply put, the parties have agreed that some issues are central and some issues are local. The central issues were resolved when the parties entered into a collective agreement expiring on September 28, 2017. Local issues negotiations between the participating hospitals and applicable union locals occurred between September 2, and December 16, 2014. This Board was consensually constituted to deal with the outstanding local issues.

By agreement of the parties, and for reasons of convenience and efficiency, two local issues were coordinated and referred to a hearing: RPN wage adjustment and Mentorship. Those two coordinated issues, which apply to most, but not all of the participating hospitals, proceeded to a hearing held in Toronto on July 9, 2015. The Board met in Executive Session in Toronto on July 16, 2015. In considering these issues, the Board paid careful attention to the detailed briefs, the submissions at the hearing, and the applicable statutory criteria, as well as the guiding and important principles of replication and demonstrated need. It should also be noted that the Board has, at the request of the parties, met, reviewed and decided these issues before turning its attention to the other local matters in dispute.

RPN Wage Adjustment

In brief, the union seeks a wage adjustment for the RPNs bringing their rate to 75% of the eight-year central RN rate. The union pointed to the extensive CNO evidence of an increasing RN-RPN overlap in scope of practice and increased RPN autonomy among other factors to justify the increase. When this data was examined, the union argued that there was a strong case in favour of adjusting the RPN wage rate as RPNs were now performing virtually all of the nursing functions and doing so autonomously. Comparator data established that increased RPN autonomy was appropriately reflected in higher RPN rates.

The employer was opposed noting that with the exception of some outliers at the top (the result of pay equity) and some (on this issue) non-participating hospitals at the bottom, the RPN rate is basically uniform. The participating hospitals observe as well

3

that this is a local issue, not a central one and the Board, therefore, has no authority or jurisdiction with respect to it. The participating hospitals also take the position that there is no evidence of demonstrated need, and no difficulties whatsoever in recruitment and retention. The OHA submitted data indicating that the cost of the union’s adjustment would amount to 2.31% of total compensation making it, the participating hospitals assert, beyond unaffordable in the current economic climate.

The Board has carefully considered this issue.

In our view, given the commonality in function across this classification, large gaps in rates for RPNs were completely unjustified. For all intents and purposes, however, those gaps – “the enormous spread” no longer exists. Currently, 56 of the participating hospitals where this issue arises pay $28.55. Nineteen pay between $28.61 and 29.90. One hospital, Mattawa General, pays $30.18 and another, North Bay General, pays $32.72 (with these two high and outlier rates, the participating hospitals submit, resulting from pay equity not free collective bargaining). It would be completely inconsistent with, indeed contrary to, the arbitral intervention to date, clearly directed at removing the unjustified gaps, to bring all participating hospitals up to the top rate enjoyed by employees at a single hospital even if doing so was proposed in the context of establishing a percentage wage relationship between RPNs and RNs because of commonality in scope and autonomy in practice.

The union’s request is denied.

Mentorship

The union seeks a mentorship provision based on existing central ONA language. The participating hospitals are opposed. The union asserts that the provision is normative and based on demonstrated need at local hospitals. It notes, further, that the obligations only come into play when the participating hospital initiates a mentorship program. The union further notes that the OHA and the SEIU agreed in that group of participating hospitals to comparable language in their last central negotiations that led to a voluntary agreement. CUPE has, moreover, been successful in negotiating this provision with two participating hospitals in the current local issues bargaining and it exists at other CUPE-represented hospitals as well.

In its brief, the participating hospitals observe that “one of the Hospital’s fundamental rights is to identify those individuals who they believe would benefit from having a mentor and to pair that RPN with an individual ideally suited to provide the requisite guidance” (at p. 23). None of the difficulties identified by the participating hospitals are persuasive. And while it is true enough that it is the responsibility of all professionals to mentor, it is equally true that it is now common in this sector for this work to attract terms and conditions and a premium if a hospital directs an RN or RPN to perform it. In

4

our view, if a participating hospital chooses to direct an employee in this way, the terms and conditions of that direction should be according to normative collective agreement criteria, and those criteria are now pervasive, both in the ONA and the SEIU central collective agreements. Awarding this proposal is completely consistent with, even mandated by, replication. Accordingly, we award the union proposal effective ninety days following issue of this award.

Conclusion

At the request of the parties, we remain seized with the implementation of our award.

DATED at Toronto this 23rd day of July 2015.

“William Kaplan” William Kaplan, Chair I dissent in part. Partial dissent attached. Brett Christen, Hospitals Nominee I dissent in part. Partial dissent attached. Joe Herbert, OCHU/CUPE Nominee

5

Hospitals’ Nominee’s Addendum (RPN Wage Adjustment)

& Dissent (Mentorship)

Addendum (RPN Wage Adjustment)

I agree with the Chair’s decision on the issue identified in the Award as the “RPN Wage

Adjustment”. Although I agree with the Chair’s denial of the Unions’ request for this item, I

have prepared this Addendum to comment upon the appropriateness of the Unions’ proposal

and the Board’s jurisdiction with respect to the proposed item.

By way of background, it is useful to note that the local unions tabled a common proposal at

each local negotiation seeking an RPN wage increase. The Unions’ proposal, which is entitled

“RPN Wage Adjustment”, was a request to adjust the RPN maximum rate to $32.14 prior to

the application of the general (i.e. centrally negotiated) wage increase and to adjust all other

steps of the RPN Wage grid so as to maintain the previous percentage relationship between

the steps on the grid. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement between Participating

Hospitals and CUPE dated September 29, 2013, the parties agreed to wage increases of 0.7%

in each of the four years of the Collective Agreement expiring September 28, 2017 as well as

four annual lump sum payments of 0.7%. The Unions’ proposal seeks an additional wage

increase for the RPN classification.

6

The Unions advance many arguments in support of the proposal including arguments relating

to the RPN’s scope of practice, increased autonomy of RPNs over the years, and the overlap in

certain RPN and RN competencies. In respect of these arguments, the Unions rely upon past

and present relationships between RPN and RN wage rates in Ontario (described as the “tie-

point” argument by the parties), and in other provinces, and also reference the duties and

educational requirements of LPNs in the United States.

The Chair denied the Unions’ request for an additional RPN wage increase finding that such an

increase would be inconsistent with and contrary to the awards of prior local arbitration boards

which, in some cases, had awarded an RPN adjustment to increase the uniformity of the RPN

wage grid at participating hospitals (it is not necessary for the purposes of this addendum to

comment upon these awards). The Chair also states that such an increase is unwarranted

“even if proposed in the context of establishing a percentage wage relationship between RPNs

and RNs …”. While this statement is correct, the Board’s Award should also have clearly

indicated that it would be completely inappropriate and beyond the jurisdiction of a local

issues arbitration Board to grant the additional wage increase requested by the Unions for the

RPN classification.

The Unions’ arguments in support of this local issue are based entirely upon submissions

relating to certain alleged characteristics or circumstances of the RPN classification generally,

7

including the “tie-point” argument, as might be made in respect of a central wage issue. The

fact that the submissions are made in respect of one particular classification rather than all

classifications under the Collective Agreement or in a coordinated manner by the local unions

does not change the fact that this is a local issues board with jurisdiction only to determine

local issues at the participating hospitals. On this issue, there were no arguments or

circumstances advanced by any local union based upon the particular circumstances of the

local parties or of RPNs at a particular participating hospital. Quite simply, there is no local

issue to be addressed. As such, the requested wage increase is one that is beyond the

jurisdiction of a local issues board to determine.

Dissent (Mentorship)

I have reviewed the Board’s Award on the Mentorship issue and respectfully dissent from the

Board’s Award on this issue. The Mentorship language proposed by the local unions provides

for a process for establishing an RPN mentorship program at a hospital (the “Mentorship

process”) and mandates a sixty cents (60¢) per hour premium for the mentor RPN (the

“Mentorship premium”).

The award of the above Mentorship proposal by the Board is said to be based upon the

principle of replication. However, only a handful of hospitals have voluntarily agreed with their

8

CUPE locals to include the proposed mentorship language in their Collective Agreement. As

such, I disagree that the principle of replication requires the award of this item. Although it is

true that the SEIU and participating hospitals agreed to the mentorship language at their

central negotiations, there were undoubtedly trade-offs made by that Union to obtain this

language that are not present here.

In any event, replication is only one of the principles that is to be considered by an interest

arbitration board. Of equal, or greater significance, is the principle of demonstrated need.

There was no concrete evidence before the Board of the need for the Mentoring process at

any local participating hospital nor of the need for the Mentorship premium. It is my view that

all of the local unions failed to meet the onus of establishing a demonstrated need for their

proposal. As such, the Mentorship proposal should have been denied by the Board.

With respect to the Mentorship premium, it should be remembered that RPNs receive a wage

rate which compensates them for performing the duties and requirements of their

classification, including the meeting of their professional obligations. One of an RPN’s

professional obligations is to mentor colleagues. While all RPNs may not regularly perform this

duty, this does not mean that when mentoring a colleague, an RPN is somehow performing an

“extra” duty that should attract additional compensation. Like other duties and responsibilities

within the scope of the RPN classification that an RPN may be required to perform, the

9

performance of a professional obligation by an RPN should not attract an addition premium

and one should not be mandated by this Board.

With respect to the Mentorship process, how a hospital establishes and formalizes a

mentorship program for RPNs should be left for the hospital to determine in accordance with

its particular needs and requirements. This is particularly the case in the absence of any

demonstrated need for a formal Mentorship process.

For these reasons, I would have denied the Union’s proposal on this item.

10

DISSENT OF UNION NOMINEE

The Chair’s decision in this case is simply wrong.

The union based its case for a wage adjustment for RPN’s upon factors that included:

1. The expanded areas of RPN competencies, and;

2. The extensive overlap between RN and RPN scope of practice and competencies which renders

disproportionate the current compensation disparity, and;

3. The autonomy of RPN’s in providing nursing care within the same profession as RN’s, and;

4. The anomalous salary relationship of RPN’s to RN’s in Ontario, when compared to other

Canadian jurisdictions where RPN’s provide nursing care autonomously.

Looking at the latter factor alone, it is clear that the current disparity between RPN wages and RN

salaries in Ontario hospitals is an anomalous one. In Canada, there are five provinces, including Ontario,

where RPN’s are licensed to provide autonomous nursing care, and five where they are not. In the other

four provinces where RPN’s provide autonomous nursing care to hospital patients, their wages

represent between 72% and 79% of RN salaries measured at the job rate. In those provinces where

RPN’s do not provide autonomous nursing care to hospital patients, and continue to work under the

supervision of RN’s, the comparable salary ratio ranges between 65% and 67%.

The provinces where RPN’s practice nursing autonomously, and the ratio of the maximum RPN wage

rate to the maximum salary rate of RN’s, are set out below.

11

Province RPN/PN Salary Ratio

Manitoba 79%

Saskatchewan 76%

Quebec 75%

Alberta 72%

Ontario 67%

It is worth noting that the higher ratio of RPN wages to RN salaries in the other above provinces is not a

function of lower RN salaries. Instead, in three of the other four above provinces where RPN’s practice

nursing autonomously, the RPN hourly wage rate is higher than it is in Ontario.

The provinces where RPN’s do not practice nursing autonomously and thus remain under the

supervision of RN’s, and the ratio of the RPN wage rate to RN salaries (measured each at the maximum

rate) in those provinces, are set out below.

Province RPN/PN Salary Ratio

P.E.I. 67%

Newfoundland 66%

12

British Columbia 66%

Nova Scotia 65%

New Brunswick 65%

It is apparent that RPN’s in Ontario, who earn 67% of the RN rate, belong to the first category, where

RPN’s engage in autonomous nursing practice, but they are paid as though they belong to the second.

They are paid in relation to RN’s as though they fall into the group where RPN’s are not permitted to

practice nursing autonomously and remain under the supervision of RN’s.

Ontario RPN’s are the only RPN’s in Canada who are both covered by the same regulatory college, and

covered by the same nursing legislation, as RN’s. However notwithstanding these factors, and

notwithstanding that they now have the same scope of practice as RN’s and that the nursing

competencies of the two classifications overlap more than at any previous time, and notwithstanding

that these RPN’s practice autonomously rather than under the direction of RN’s, they are paid in relation

to RN’s at the same ratio as RPN’s in those jurisdictions which do not allow for autonomous RPN

practice.

I am not suggesting, and nor did the union, that there is no significant difference between RN’s and

RPN’s in their nursing education and in their competencies. That is not the issue at all. Instead, the issue

raised is the relationship within the practice of nursing of RPN wages to RN salaries.

Nursing in Ontario is a single profession with two classifications. The relationship of one classification to

the other within the same profession ought to make some sense. It makes no sense at all to have one of

the largest percentage gaps in Canada, in the province where one would expect by any objective

measure to see the opposite.

13

By failing to do anything at all to address this inappropriate salary relationship within the nursing

profession, the Chair’s award has failed to do what ought to have been done, namely award an

adjustment which would cause RPN wages in these hospitals to bear a more reasonable relationship to

those of RN’s. I would have awarded such an adjustment.

Dated this 23rd day of July.

Joe Herbert

Nominee of the Union

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION CUPE, Local Unions of … · Bass Associates Jonah Gindin, Research...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION CUPE, Local Unions of … · Bass Associates Jonah Gindin, Research...