Employer overlooks cops vying for exclusive program
Two cops in Prince Edward Island vying for a spot at one of the country’s top police colleges say they were not given the fair consideration they were owed — and an arbitrator has agreed.
Ross Davies and Dean Fields, constables with the Charlottetown Police Department, had both applied for an exclusive training course at the Canadian Police College in Ottawa, which, upon successful completion, could land them a job in the Charlottetown police identification department (run by only one officer at the time).
But when the spot was given to an officer who had already attended — and failed — the course, both Fields and Davies cried foul. The collective agreement dictated no officer would be allowed to repeat a course if it would mean taking that opportunity away from other employees.
So, both constables filed a grievance through their union, the Charlottetown Police Association Local 301.
The case stems back to 2007, when a posting to attend the once-a-year identification training program (involving photographic theory, crime science, fingerprint comparison and crime scene examination) went up. Davies and Fields were two of four applicants and the spot was eventually awarded to Const. Steve Currie.
However, Currie failed a couple of the tests and the college sent him home before he could complete the training.
The course was re-posted in subsequent years, and while Davies and Fields applied again, they were not selected. None of the officers selected were able to successfully complete the course.
Trouble arose when the officer in the identifications unit was promoted and a replacement was needed immediately.
The police service looked to Davies to fill the spot (he had previous identification training when he worked with the RCMP). He only performed day-to-day tasks of the job, none of the technical identification work.
In 2009, the posting for the course went up again. This time, Currie, Davies and Fields applied. Currie won.
According to the police chief, Currie was chosen because he had the best chance of successfully completing the course – which he did, and is currently the identification officer on the police force.
What’s in a name?
The word "repeat" has no ambiguity, the union argued. The collective agreement clearly stated the police force could not choose someone who has taken and failed a course until any other interested person was given the chance.
"As a result of the breach, the two grievors have lost an opportunity which had significant value," the union argued. "While it is difficult to quantify the loss to them in terms of the loss of benefits that come with the identification position, such as regular hours rather than shift work and perks such as the use of a vehicle, the course itself can be valued by its cost."
Therefore, the union proposed that the amount the employer pays to send an officer to the course should be split between both Fields and Davies.
But according to the police department, Currie was not a so-called repeat offender.
By definition, in order for someone to repeat a task, they would have had to complete it in the first place.
Because Currie was sent home before finishing the course, he did not technically complete it and therefore was not technically repeating it either.
In his decision, Kydd said the union interpreted the collective agreement correctly, which read, "No employee shall repeat courses until all employees have had an opportunity to attend."
"Repeat" is dubious diction, Kydd noted. So he instead decided to focus on the latter part of the provision, and determined it was intended to provide fair and equal opportunity for all officers.
"Fairness of opportunity is the apparent intent," his decision reads. "Therefore my interpretation of the meaning of this clause is that an employee who had been selected and attended the course was given a fair opportunity to complete the course, is barred from taking the course again if he or she does not complete it."
He then turned his attention to the award. The police chief estimated the cost of tuition for the training course to be $8,000. But because each of the grievors had a one-third chance of getting the position, Kydd divided the award into three parts and added four per cent interest.
In the end, both Davies and Fields were each awarded $3,600 in damages.
Reference: City of Charlottetown and Charlottetown Police Association Local 301. William H. Kydd – arbitrator. Karen Campbell for the employer, David Fisher for the union. March 16, 2013.
