Paramedics paid for standby

Paramedics in Weyburn, Sask., are entitled to premium pay while on standby, an arbitrator has decided.

Joel Rogers, a primary care paramedic since 2011, was required to be on standby for a 24-hour period two summers ago. During the period, he was called in to work two shifts, which his union argued entitled him to a premium call-back pay for the second shift.

As per arguments from the Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan (HSAS), the collective agreement dictated Rogers be compensated for the second shift, as those hours constituted overtime hours and they would have made a significant difference on his paycheque.

The HSAS opposed the employer’s view that the end of a casual employee’s 24-hour stand-by period should "reset" the premium pay clock, converting the premium hours to regular hours, even though the employee remained at work without interruption. There was no evidence or explicit language indicating any "reset" button in the collective agreement.

"If the employer wished to change the long-standing practice with respect to call-back payment, the place to make the change was the bargaining table, not by changing the practice mid-contract," union counsel said at the hearing.

The employer, Sun Country Regional Health Authority, operating under the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations, said the union’s interpretation of the agreement would "produce absurd situations marked by anomalies and unfairness."

The employer said the union’s interpretation led to a doubling up of hours — an employee who is called in for half an hour, then sent home and receives the minimum three-hour call-back pay, then returns for six hours is paid double time for the second shift.

This employee would get more pay than an employee who was simply called into work for a 12-hour period at straight time — something the employer denounced as "fast track overtime" and resulted in unequal treatment.

Complicating the matter is past practice at Sun Country was not consistent with the contractual language.

It is not uncommon, noted arbitrator Allen Ponak, as arbitrators have long been conscious of the need for a practical common sense approach, given the long- term, continuing nature of collective bargaining relationships and the need for the parties to work together on a daily basis.

In the matter at hand, Ponak sided with the union, saying the contractual language favoured the union’s argument. In particular, he concluded the call-back provision did not require that an employee must have worked a regular scheduled shift in order to qualify for the call-back pay.

"Accepting in principle that the use of different words is intended to mean different things, overtime pay and premium pay are not the same," the decision reads.

"But simply because premium pay rates and overtime pay rates are the same for certain things, does not make working overtime and working in a situation that attracts premium pay one and the same. An employee may be working at a premium rate without necessarily working overtime, and vice versa."