Union claimed physical tests for those returning to work after long absences was unnecessary and unfair
An Ontario municipality did not violate a collective agreement when it implemented a new physical test for paramedics to qualify for active duty, the Ontario Arbitration Board has ruled.
The regional municipality of Durham, Ont., included as part of its equipment for paramedics a “stair chair,” a device used to transport patients up and down stairs with a person carrying from each end. It was only used in certain rare circumstances but paramedics had to successfully demonstrate their ability to lift a patient in the chair up a flight of 11 stairs in college and as new hires. They were also required to re-establish their abilities if they were returning to work after an absence of more than 90 days. In practice, if a paramedic was faced with a heavy patient or difficult situation, she could call for assistance or ask someone for help.
In 2006, the municipality introduced a new model of stair chair, which was easier to use. Though it was heavier, it included a track that could take most of the weight while paramedics guided it. There was also the option of having the lead carrier face forward, rather than backward. The old model required the leader face backward.
The municipality expected paramedics to continue with the leader backward position so they could communicate with each other, and it was the style taught in colleges. However, it didn’t communicate this expectation and some paramedics felt the leader forward position, which was included in the new chair’s training literature, was safer.
In 2008, a paramedic was injured while moving a patient on a stretcher from the back of an ambulance. This led to a labour inspection that concluded the frequency of training for the stretcher should be increase. As a result, the municipality implemented a cycle of review for all conveyance equipment, including the stair chair.
Paramedics have trouble with retesting
In June 2008, paramedic Kelly Sedore came back to work after more than two years off due to illness. She failed to pass the stair chair test on two attempts. She was referred to HR to work out a temporary accommodation or unpaid leave of absence.
In November 2008, Joyce O’Reilly and Stephanie McComb returned to work after long absences and were both required to operate the stair chair in six different situations going up and down stairs, with and without the tracks, at each end of the stair chair. O’Reilly passed with difficulty and she was told had she failed she could be sent home without pay. McComb complained she wouldn’t have to go up more than one flight of stairs in the field, while she had to do six flights in the test. She also complained she shouldn’t have to perform the test without the tracks as she would always use them in the field.
Another paramedic, Andrew McCabe, refused to do the test in the leader backward position as he felt it was unsafe. He was told he would have to retake the test and demonstrate the leader backward position and if he refused again, he would be considered insubordinate. McCabe complied out of fear he would lose his job. However, two other paramedics refused to perform the test in the leader backward position and declared it a work refusal under health and safety legislation. A risk assessment recommended the municipality train for both carrying techniques, so the two paramedics were directed to complete the leader backward technique.
The union filed a grievance, arguing the amount of steps and circumstances in the test were not rationally connected to the demands of their duties as they would never encounter a situation that required them to perform all of the test scenarios. The union also said since they had to take the test in college and upon hiring, the employer shouldn’t impose another test unless there were concerns about competency. The 2008 accident that spurred the cycle of reviews for conveyance equipment had to do with a stretcher, not a stair chair, it said.
The board found there was nothing in the collective agreement that prevented the municipality from implementing a more rigorous testing process, as this fell within its right in the agreement to “operate and manage its business in all aspects in accordance with its responsibilities and powers and functions.” Though the conditions were not the same as what paramedics would encounter in the field, it was possible they could face any of the scenarios, so testing all of them was reasonable. However, the board noted it might be necessary to spread out the testing.
