An arbitrator has dismissed a grievance by two nurses at Kemptville District Hospital in Ontario who sought compensation for personal time spent completing an advanced wound care course, ruling the hospital was not obligated to pay them under the collective agreement or the Employment Standards Act.
Arbitrator Elizabeth McIntyre concluded the hospital did not violate the collective agreement or employment legislation by declining to pay nurses M.H. and P.M. for time spent completing a wound care certification program.
The grievance arose after M.H. and P.M., both registered practical nurses at the hospital, undertook an advanced wound care course to provide enhanced care previously administered by an external registered nurse consultant. While the hospital covered the tuition and textbook costs for the course, it denied the nurses’ requests for paid time off or reimbursement for personal time dedicated to the training.
Mandatory versus voluntary training
The union argued this constituted a violation of Article 23.03 of the collective agreement, which mandates paid leave when the hospital requires an employee to undertake a course of studies to upgrade their qualifications. Article 23.03 states:
“Should the Hospital require an employee to undertake a course of studies in order to upgrade his/her qualifications, the Hospital shall grant the employee leave of absence with pay and shall reimburse the employee for tuition costs, provided the employee successfully completes the course of studies.”
The union contended that since the hospital initiated the training as part of its 2022–2023 Wound Care Quality Improvement Plan and identified the need for enhanced wound care to be provided in-house, the training was effectively required. Alternatively, the union argued the hospital violated the Employment Standards Act by not compensating the nurses for time spent on mandatory training.
The hospital maintained that participation in the course was voluntary and that the nurses were not compelled to undertake the training. It argued the obligation to provide paid leave under the collective agreement is only triggered when the hospital requires an employee to take a course, implying a degree of compulsion or necessity.
Arbitrator McIntyre agreed with the hospital’s position, stating that “the grievors were not compelled by the hospital to undertake or continue the wound care course.” She noted both nurses volunteered for the training after the hospital sought expressions of interest from staff and were aware they would not receive paid leave for the course.
“The evidence establishes that, if none of the nursing staff had been willing to take the course, the hospital would have continued with the preexisting arrangement of contracting in the necessary expertise,” McIntyre wrote.
M.H. and P.M. testified they spent approximately 25 to 30 hours per week on the course, dedicating personal time during evenings and weekends. They initially believed the course would require less time based on communications from their manager, who had indicated that “the time commitment will be significant” but also suggested much of the training would occur “on the unit, practicing with your patients.”
Nurses misled, but no compulsion or requirement to take course
The arbitrator recognized the nurses were misled regarding the amount of time the course would require and that the training did not, in fact, take place during their work hours as previously indicated. However, she found this did not amount to compulsion or a requirement to undertake the course.
“While it is very unfortunate that the grievors were not fully informed of the time commitments required to complete the course before they were enrolled, this does not lead to the conclusion that the grievors were compelled or required to complete the course,” McIntyre wrote.
Regarding the claim under the Employment Standards Act, the arbitrator concluded the training was not “required as a condition of employment and therefore was not deemed work within the meaning of the Act and Regulation 285.01.”
For HR professionals and employment lawyers, this decision underscores the importance of clear communication regarding training opportunities and compensation expectations. Employers should ensure that when offering voluntary training, the terms are clearly outlined, and employees understand whether participation is mandatory and whether they will be compensated for their time.
The ruling also highlights the significance of the term “require” within collective agreements. As McIntyre noted, “The determination of the issue in this case turns, not on whether the hospital required the training in question to meet its goals, but rather on whether the grievors were required to take that training.”
The arbitrator emphasized that having the training to provide enhanced wound care is not a requirement of the registered practical nurse position. She stated, “I conclude that having the training to provide enhanced wound care is not a requirement of the RPN job.”
The decision delves into the interpretation of “require” in the context of education leave provisions, citing previous arbitration awards. McIntyre emphasized that “the evidence must show a degree of insistence or compulsion to establish that the training was required of an employee. A mere request to pursue a course of studies is not sufficient.”
In this case, the hospital had informed the nurses that education leave would not be provided and that they could manage their schedules or make switches as needed. When the nurses requested compensation after realizing the course’s intensity, the hospital reiterated the training was voluntary and offered them the option to withdraw without penalty.
“There is no evidence to support the conclusion that the grievors were coerced, compelled or forced to express interest in, or undertake, the wound care course,” McIntyre stated.
Ultimately, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the hospital was not obligated to pay the grievors for their time spent in training under either the collective agreement or the Employment Standards Act.
For more information, see International Union of Operating Engineers. [IUOE Local 772] v Kemptville District Hospital, 2024 CanLII 104393 (ON LA).
