Paramedics working 12-hour weekend night shift could earn $7.85 per hour in shift premiums
A British Columbia arbitrator has dismissed a grievance by a union challenging an employer’s refusal to pay full “salary maintenance” – including shift premiums – when paramedics attend certain employer-initiated training as trainers or trainees.
In a decision published on April 27, 2026, arbitrator Christopher Sullivan dismissed the policy grievance filed by the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, CUPE Local 873, against British Columbia Emergency Health Services, finding wage maintenance under the collective agreement does not extend to Alpha, night, and weekend premiums when paramedics voluntarily access non-mandatory training such as PCP-Flight and Low Acuity Response Unit courses.
Shift premiums can comprise a significant portion of total pay, and a paramedic working a 12-hour weekend night Alpha2 shift currently earns $7.85 per hour in shift premiums.
Wage maintenance with training
The union filed its grievance on May 7, 2025, alleging the employer had failed to correctly provide wage maintenance to members engaged in BCEHS-provided training as both students and instructors. It argued Alpha, night, and weekend premiums were not being paid when members were moved off regular shifts to participate in or deliver employer-provided training, resulting in a net financial loss.
The union argued that under the collective agreement, and as confirmed by Procedure 5.5, it is the employer's request that an employee attend training that triggers wage maintenance — and whether the requested training is mandatory or not is irrelevant.
Counsel added that any assertion paramedics are free to decline employer training requests is a fiction, as a refusal could be construed as insubordination.
The union further alleged that at a Jan. 20, 2023 grievance meeting concerning Critical Care Paramedic Training, employer representatives conceded that affected members were entitled to receive premiums while in employer training and committed to auditing members' pay and drafting settlement agreements.
The employer disputed that any agreement was reached.
Training wages in collective agreement
Article 23.02 sets out when training is paid on a salary maintenance basis. Subsection (a) covers training required for license maintenance; (b) covers certification training to the relevant paramedic level; (c) covers Advanced Care Paramedic training where the employer posts under Article 13.05; and (e) covers supervisory training for employees who have not completed the appropriate course.
Subsection (d), by contrast, provides that other required in-service training attended on days off shall be paid in accordance with Article 16, not on a salary maintenance basis, with the employee having the option to take compensation in either pay or mutually agreed time off.
The union also pointed to the employer's payroll document, Procedure 5.5, which states the wage rate is guaranteed when an employee is removed from a regularly scheduled shift at the employer's request, and that the employee should not incur a net loss of pay from what they would have received for the original regularly scheduled shift.
Training and regular work schedules
Sullivan found Article 23.02 clear on its face and not extending to bid-based opportunities. He held the fact the employer "requires" paramedics with certain training, and allows employees to bid on those opportunities, does not necessarily translate to the employer "requiring" a paramedic to take such training.
He wrote that the collective agreement reveals an intention that if the employer requires a paramedic to attend training without reference to their regular work schedule, the employer shall ensure no net loss of pay. If a paramedic instead chooses to access an opportunity, perhaps to enhance future career opportunities, the employer is not required to pay premiums for periods the employee does not work.
In addition, Sullivan found no binding agreement had been reached, noting that fundamental terms in 2023 were not agreed on with sufficient clarity to constitute a meeting of the minds and that there was no signed written instrument. He observed that an employer representative had indicated a favourable outcome, but higher-level confirmation was required for a deal and this was known to the union.
A Sept. 29, 2023 letter from the union itself described the matter as unresolved without mentioning any prior settlement.
Sullivan concluded that the line drawn by the parties on pay during training turns on whether it is the employee that chooses the disruption, or whether they are compelled to incur such. The grievance was dismissed.
See British Columbia Emergency Health Services v Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia Cupe Local 873, 2026 CanLII 40036 (BC LA)
