The Regional Municipality of Peel v. Canadian Union of Public Employees
1770-11-PE The Regional Municipality of Peel, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Respondent.
BEFORE: Diane L. Gee, Vice-Chair, Ann Burke and Catherine Bickley, Members.
APPEARANCES: Carolyn Kay for the Regional Municipality of Peel; Melvin Rotman for the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: October 1, 2013
I. Issue
By way of an Order dated July 29, 2011 in respect of File Number 07.17357 (the “Order”) a Review Officer determined that the appropriate rating for the job related experience factor in respect of the job classification of Nursing Attendant /PCA is 2. The Review Officer further determined that the Nursing Attendant job classification should receive a rating of 2 for the multiple demands factor. When this application was filed, the Regional Municipality of Peel (the “Region”) sought to have the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) vary the Order so as to stipulate that the rating for both factors is 1.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Region advised that, because of the fact that there are no incumbents in the job class of Nursing Attendant, on a without prejudice basis to its position that the Review Officer’s decision concerning the rating for multiple demands factor for the Nursing Attendant was incorrect, it would not be pursuing its request to have the Order varied in so far as the Nursing Attendant position was concerned. The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 966 (“CUPE Local 966” or the “Union”) agreed with this approach. Accordingly this decision does not deal with the Region’s request to vary the multiple demands factor rating as set out in the Order in respect of the Nursing Attendant position.
The sole issue determined by way of this decision is whether the job related experience factor in respect of the Nursing Attendant/PCA job classification should be rated 1 or 2. The Region asserts it should be rated 1. The Union asserts it should be rated 2.
II. Brief Statement of Positions
In support of its request, the Region asserts that, prior to the applications to Review Services that led to the Order, the members of the Pay Equity Committee (the “Committee”) had agreed that the correct rating for the job related experience factor in respect of the Nursing Attendant/PCA job classification was 1. The Region asserts that the agreement was reached by way of the application of an agreed upon convention that was uniformly applied when evaluating all positions. Further, and in any event, the Region states that the factor should be rated 1 and not 2.
The Union disputes that the members of the Pay Equity Committee reached a consensus with respect to the rating of the job-related experience factor and further disputes that a convention was agreed upon for the purposes of rating the job-related experience factor. The Union argues that the proper rating is 2.
III. Statement of Determination
- For the reasons that follow, it is the panel’s determination that, assuming the Pay Equity Committee did not agree that the job related experience factor for the Nursing Attendant/PCA job classification should be rated 1, and assuming no agreement was reached as to a convention for rating the job related experience factor, the correct rating for the factor is 1. Having regard to this determination, except as is specifically dealt with below, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to decide whether Committee members reached an agreement as to the rating or the convention to be applied for the determination of the rating.
IV. The Background
The following background is provided merely for context.
The Region operates four long term care facilities: Sheridan Villa, Peel Manor, Tall Pines and Malton Village. CUPE Local 966 currently represents a separate bargaining unit of employees at each long term care facility.
In 1992, the Region and CUPE Local 210, who at the time represented the employees at Sheridan Villa, reached agreement on a pay equity plan for Sheridan Villa. At the same time, the Region and CUPE Local 966 reached agreement on a pay equity plan for Peel Manor. Both pay equity plans were retroactive to 1990. The male comparators for both plans were employees of the Public Works Department of the Regional Municipality of Peel who, at the time, were represented by CUPE Local 3162.
In 1999, the Region and CUPE Local 3162 agreed to re-evaluate all of the job classes in the public works bargaining unit. Before the process could be completed, there was a merger of bargaining units resulting in CUPE Local 966 becoming the representative of the public works bargaining unit. The Region and CUPE Local 966 completed the job evaluation exercise.
Tall Pines and Malton Village opened in 2004. In 2005, CUPE Local 966 acquired separate bargaining rights for each facility. The work performed and the female job classes in the Tall Pines and Malton Village bargaining units is virtually identical in nature to the work performed and female job classes at Sheridan Manor and Peel Manor.
At some point in time CUPE Local 210 was replaced by CUPE Local 966 as the bargaining representative for Sheridan Villa.
The Region and CUPE Local 966 formed a single Pay Equity Committee (the “Committee”) for Sheridan Villa, Peel Manor, Tall Pines and Malton Village. The members of the Committee consisted of employee representatives from each long term care facility and members of management as well as two consultants, a Chair and an individual to assist with administrative functions. The Committee first met in May 2006. Meetings were held at various times through to November 2007 when discussions broke down.
CUPE Local 966 filed an application with Review Services in or about December 2007 and the Region filed an application with Review Services in or about July 2008. The application filed by CUPE Local 966 asserted that the Employer had “not maintained pay equity”. The application filed by the Region asserted that the “Union has refused to continue negotiations for the finalization of pay equity plans” and “failed in its obligation to negotiate in good faith”.
One of the determinations made by the Review Officer in the Order is that the parties intended to negotiate a new pay equity plan due to changed circumstances retroactive to February 1, 2003.
The Review Officer’s reasons for finding that the factor of job related experience in respect of the Nursing Attendant/PCA job classification should be rated 2 are as follows:
Nursing Attendant/PCA – Re Job Related Experience Factor
After reviewing the pertinent data and comparing the ratings for this Factor with other job classes that received a 2 rating such as Painter, Seamstress, Labourer, Rod Person & Traffic Controller, I am of the opinion that the Nursing Attendant/PCA should also receive a 2 rating for this factor. This is especially appropriate considering that this job class is a front line service provider in a Home for the Aged that can encounter varied, unusual and/or stressful situations when dealing with a demanding vulnerable population. This includes the monitoring [of] the health of the residents, providing them with personal care and safety plus responding to various needs.
V. The Evidence
The Region called three witnesses: Alison Howard; Ron Kucharski; and Clive Peterson. Ms. Howard worked at the Tall Pines Long Term Care Centre from December 2003 to March 2011 as the Director of Care. Ms. Howard was on the Pay Equity Committee as a management representative from March 2006 to March 2007. At the time of her testimony, Ms. Howard was no longer employed by the Region. Mr. Kucharski has served as the Manager of Compensation and Benefits at the Region since June 1999. He has been involved in pay equity issues throughout his time with the Region. He was the Chair of the Pay Equity Committee. Mr. Peterson is the President of Clive A. Peterson & Associates Ltd. and provides consulting services in respect of pay equity/job evaluations to major employers. Mr. Peterson acted as a pay equity consultant to the Region.
The Union called Mary Jo Falle. Ms. Falle is the President of CUPE Local 966. Prior to becoming CUPE Local 966 President, Ms. Falle had 19 years of service with the Region. Her most recent position was that of Nursing Assistant/PCA working out of Sheridan Villa. Ms. Falles served as an employee representative for Sheridan Villa on the Pay Equity Committee.
When the Committee met, they discussed what tool was to be used to evaluate the job classifications. It was decided that the Committee would adapt the tools that had been used to evaluate jobs in the public works bargaining unit (also represented by CUPE Local 966) and use them to evaluate jobs in the long term care bargaining units. Given that the duties performed by the job classifications at each of the four facilities were indistinguishable, it was decided to evaluate each job class once and apply such evaluation to the job class at all four facilities. The evidence establishes that the Committee made amendments to the tools that had been used in the earlier evaluation of the public works job classifications and ended up with a Job Evaluation Questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) and Job Evaluation Questionnaire Administrative Guide (the “Guide”) that the Committee agreed was to be used in evaluating the long term care job classes.
The Committee also decided that the job descriptions pertaining to all long term care job classifications needed to be updated and reviewed for accuracy. While the Region did the majority of the work in this regard, the Union did review the job descriptions and did not register any concerns or complaint with respect to their content. Ms. Falles testified that the job descriptions were to be used to assist those on the Committee who were not in the position and give them basic information about each job classification. Ms. Falles agreed that the job descriptions were accurate but disagreed that they were the only tool or point of reference to be used when rating the factor of job related experience.
The Job Description that was finalized for the purposes of the job evaluation process in respect of the position contains a heading “Education, Experience and Qualifications” underneath of which appears the following:
High School Diploma is required.
Personal Support Worker Certificate, graduation from a program whose curriculum has been approved by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.
Experience in long-term care is preferred.
Must have effective oral and written communication skills in English, and a good understanding of customer service concepts.
Must be able to communicate appropriately with the residents, staff, visitors, volunteers and medical professionals.
Must be able to work with others in a team setting.
Must be physically able to perform all delegated duties.
The Questionnaire that was adopted by the Committee identified the following four factors as going to the level of skills required by a job:
Knowledge/Skills
Job-Related Experience
Communication Skills
Equipment/Machine operations skills
- The Knowledge/Skills and Job Related Experience factors were somewhat related. The questions pertaining to the Knowledge/Skills factor were as follows:
What is the minimum level of knowledge/skills required by the Region to carry out your job in a satisfactory manner? This knowledge may be obtained through formal education, specialized training or self-education.
Check the one box that best applies in your classification.
Requires the ability to read, write and use basic language skills. May also require ability to work with numbers. May be equivalent to some high school education.
Requires general knowledge of practices and procedures within a specific area. Some specific, short-term, practical training may be required. May be equivalent to a high school diploma.
Requires general knowledge in a broad field or specialized field (see examples below). May be equivalent to a high school diploma plus six months to eighteen months of formal course work.
Requires working knowledge of a broad field or specialized field (see examples below). May be equivalent to a high school diploma plus two years of formal education in a specialized field.
Requires thorough knowledge of a specialized field. May be equivalent to a high school diploma plus three or more years of formal education in a specialized field.
The questions pertaining to the Job Related Experience factor were as follows:
What is the minimum amount of job-related experience required by the Region to perform your job in a satisfactory manner?
Consider the level of knowledge/skills indicated for your job in the previous question. What level of job-related experience must be added to this base of knowledge/skills in order to perform your job?
Job-related experience may have been gained inside or outside the Region.
Check the one box that best applies.
Employee Supervisor
Up to and including 6 months.
At least 6 months but less than 1 year.
At least 1 year but less than 2 years.
At least 2 years but less than 3 years.
More than 3 years.
The Guide adopted by the Committee for the purposes of assisting employees and supervisors with responding to the Questionnaire contained the following comments concerning the factor of job related experience:
General Guidelines:
This question is closely related to the previous question. The previous question dealt with the minimum knowledge/skills requirements. This question deals with the minimum job-related experience required to be promoted into the job.
Specific Guidelines:
This question deals with job-related experience. You should consider the knowledge/skills requirements of your job as a base, and add on to that the amount of experience required to do your job effectively.
Consider what level of experience you would specify for someone to replace yourself. Ask yourself… could someone do the job if they did not have X years of experience in addition to the level of knowledge/skills indicated in the previous question?
Previous job-related experience may also have been gained through unpaid work such as volunteer work.
Consider only job-related experience. If you have some knowledge from previous jobs, but that knowledge is not required in the job you are doing now, do not consider it. (i.e. change in career path). …
Also if you have included some job-related experience in the level of knowledge you indicated in the previous question, you should not “double count” this experience under this question.
Please remember that this question is intended to measure all bargaining jobs represented by CUPE Local 966.
The Committee decided that the Questionnaire would be completed by one person in each job classification from each facility and one supervisor from each facility. Thus a total of four employees and four supervisors completed a Questionnaire with respect to the Nursing Assistant/PCA job classification. The ratings given to the factor of job related experience by the employees were: 2, 1, 3, 2. All four of the supervisors rated the factor 1.
Ms. Howard and Ms. Falles each testified as to the educational requirements of becoming a Nursing Assistant/PCA. Their evidence was consistent. A Nursing Attendant/PCA must have a PSW Certificate from a community or private college. The course is one year in length and includes two or more clinical placements. The courses cover palliative care, providing care to residents, communication skills, working with people who require care and dealing with the residents’ families. Ms. Howard testified that students did placements at Tall Pines where she worked. They would work side by side with a Nursing Attendant/PCA, doing the same things as a Nursing Attendant/PCA. There are two types of placements; a community placement and a consolidation. If the student is on a consolidation placement, the facility would do a report on the student’s performance. If the student is on a community placement the instructor employed by the College is with the student all the time. Ms. Howard testified that, in her experience, a student would spend 8 to 10 weeks in the facility.
Ms. Howard testified using Tall Pines as her reference point. There are three shifts at Tall Pines; days, evenings and nights. There are three Registered Nurses on duty in the days and evenings and one on duty on the night shift. There are three RPN’s on duty on the day and evening shifts and one RPN on duty at night. There are 19 or 20 Nursing Attendant/PCAS on duty on the day shift; 15 on duty on the evening shift; and six on duty on the night shift.
The facility is divided into six units with 25 – 27 residents in each unit. The facility is three floors; two units per floor. Nursing Attendant/PCAs are assigned to a floor. There would be an RPN in one unit on each floor during the day and evening shifts and an RN in the other unit on each floor. There would usually be two Nursing Attendant/PCAs in each unit. Each Nursing Attendant/PCA is responsible for about 12 residents.
When the day shift begins at 7:00 a.m., the Nursing Attendant/PCAs get a report from the RN or RPN as well as from the Nursing Attendant/PCA on the previous shift. They are advised as to what has been happening with each resident. The report is given orally, usually in the nursing station.
The Nursing Attendant/PCA will then check with the residents in the unit to make sure they are alright. They respond to call bells. They help the residents get out of bed and cleaned. They will assist the residents as needed with face and hand washing, toileting, teeth bushing, hair brushing and getting dressed. One or two residents each day might require bathing. The two Nursing Attendant/PCAs in the unit would assist one another where necessary for toileting and transferring a resident into a bath tub.
The Nursing Attendant/PCA then assists the residents to the dining room for breakfast. If necessary, they will transfer a resident to the dining room in a wheel chair. Once in the dining room the Nursing Attendant/PCA will assist with meal service and feed those residents who require help.
After breakfast there is toileting. After toileting the residents get ready to go to programs or therapy within the facility. Some of the residents go back to their rooms and lie on their beds or sit in a chair. The Nursing Attendant/PCAs make the residents’ beds and tidy up the rooms. Morning nourishment is handed out and then toileting is done again.
At lunch the Nursing Attendant/PCAs get all residents into the lunch area and provide meal service. They help feed the residents who require assistance. Following lunch the Nursing Attendant/PCAs assist with toileting. There are programs in the afternoon. Some residents prefer to go lie down on their bed. The Nursing Attendant/PCA assists the residents as necessary. The residents are provided with afternoon nourishment.
The Nursing Attendant/PCAs make entries in a log during the course of their shift. They report to the registered staff on the next shift. They also informally report to the Nursing Attendant/PCA coming in to work the next shift. The day shift ends at 3:00 p.m.
The evening shift begins at 3:00 p.m. They get a report from the registered staff on the prior shift as well as an informal report from the Nursing Attendant/PCA going off shift. The Nursing Attendant/PCA then does rounds and begins to get people up and ready for supper.
Ms. Howard testified that the number of Nursing Attendant/PCAs assisting a resident depends on the level of assistance required by the resident. Where the resident has limited mobility and needs to be transferred, two Nursing Attendant/PCAs would work together.
After dinner there may be evening programs or visitors. The residents are assisted with toileting and getting ready for bed. Assistance is given with washing and brushing teeth. The Nursing Attendant/PCAs thereafter do rounds to make sure everyone is alright, reposition residents and check incontinence products. Incontinence products are changed as required. The Nursing Attendant/PCAs do some documentation. The evening shift ends at 11:00 p.m.
Before going off shift the evening shift gives an informal report to the Nursing Attendant/PCA coming on the night shift. The night shift gets a report from the registered staff. Rounds are then done to check on the residents, again repositioning them and checking incontinence products. The Nursing Attendant/PCA would place incontinence products and linens in the rooms as required. Rounds are done every two hours throughout the shift.
By the end of the night shift, residents are starting to get up. The Nursing Attendant/PCAs would assist as required. The Nursing Attendant/PCAs might help the registered staff with a treatment, such as a change of dressing.
On all shifts, Nursing Attendant/PCAs update the registered staff about any changes in a resident’s health status.
In cross-examination, Ms. Howard agreed that Nursing Attendant/PCAs are involved when a resident is sick or dying; they are usually the first person on the scene when a resident falls down; they deal with colonoscopy bags; and they assist those residents who require oxygen.
Ms. Howard testified that she has interviewed and hired many Nursing Attendant/PCAs and has hired Nursing Attendant/PCAs with no prior work experience. She testified that there is no minimum level of experience necessary to be hired. Ms. Howard testified that the education acquired through the one year Personal Support Worker Certificate program is enough to prepare them for the position. It was Ms. Howard’s testimony that a Nursing Attendant/PCA is almost always first hired into a part-time position. They would work several years before acquiring full-time work.
Seventeen postings for a Nursing Attendant/PCA position, posted during the period of January 8, 2003 to October 30, 2007, were entered into evidence. Fifteen of the postings stated “Experience in long term care preferred.” Two of the postings did not refer to any prior job related experience being required or preferred.
Ms. Howard agreed that each unit in the facility had a different population. By way of example, one unit had a higher population of patients with dementia or wandering. She did not agree that any one unit contained aggressive residents stating that such residents were in all units.
Nursing Attendant/PCAs at Tall Pines received training to deal with particular resident behaviours from a consultant. This training was made available to all staff at the facility not just the Nursing Attendant/PCAs. In addition, Tall Pines provided some mandatory training as part of the Long Term Care facilities standards.
Ms. Falles testified that individuals are hired right out of college into a Nursing Attendant/PCA position; in fact, she was one of them. Ms. Falles testified that she has served as a mentor to students who come into the facility as part of their certificate program. She would take on a student and work side by side with them. At the end of the placement she would give a report to the college. She considered the placements one of the most vital parts of training.
Ms. Falles indicated that students will generally try to get their placement in the facility that they hope to be hired into. Ms. Falles testified that, during the placement, the students train with the staff; get to know how the facility operates and what the facility’s standards are.
Ms. Falles testified about the way in which Sheridan Villa is organized. Sheridan Villa has seven different units where the residents’ needs are provided for. Each unit is self sufficient. There are also areas within the facility, such as hair dressing, that serve all of the residents. There are four floors at Sheridan Villa. There are two units on floors one, two and three with roughly 27 residents in each unit. Each unit has three Nursing Attendant/PCAs, dietary aides and one RPN. Each floor has a central nursing station that serves both of the units on the floor. There is one RN per floor who is in control of all of the staff on that floor. There is a new unit on the fourth floor where residents with special behaviours such as dementia reside.
Ms. Falles agreed with the description of the work performed by a Nursing Attendant/PCA given by Ms. Howard in her testimony.
Ms. Falles testified that two new Nursing Attendant/PCAs would not be put together in a unit. Usually they partner a new person with a more experienced person. Ms. Falles testified that it usually takes 10 – 11 years to get a full-time job. A part-time person would always be paired with a full-time person. Ms. Falles stated that a part-timer would usually work on a full-timer’s days off. She states that a Nursing Attendant/PCA would never work alone; they always work in pairs.
Ms. Falles was asked how people (Nursing Attendant/PCAs) do when they start. She testified that it “takes a while”, “a good several months”, “6 – 12 months”, before the person “fully understands all aspects of the full job.” When asked how long it takes before a Nursing Attendant/PCA coming from college is “fully functional” she responded “over a year.” She went on to say that “at 12 months you can look after all disorders.” According to Ms. Falles, “that is why we work in teams.” Ms. Falles indicated that there are situations in each unit and that a resident can change drastically. She also indicated that there are many different chronic illnesses. It would take “months and months” for an Nursing Attendant/PCA to work in each of the units as staff are generally consistently assigned to the same unit in order to provide the residents with continuity of care.
Ms. Falles testified that the probationary period in the collective agreement is roughly three months and it takes 12 months to reach the top of the wage scale. All job classifications covered by the collective agreement have the same probationary period and a 12 month wage scale. Ms. Falles testified that the wage scale was developed based on the length of time it takes a Nursing Attendant/PCA to become “fully functional.” She later agreed that neither the wage scale nor the probationary period were to be considered for the purposes of determining the rating for the job related experience factor as they were the same for all long term care job classifications.
The long term care homes have educational “in services” on a regular basis on topics such as lifting policies; dietary changes; products in use in the facility. There are two mandatory in services each year in order to comply with Ministry requirements.
VI. Analysis and Determination
The Region asks that the Tribunal find that the proper rating for the job-related experience factor for the Nursing Attendant/PCA job classification is 1 and to vary the Order accordingly. For the reasons that follow, it is the panel’s determination that the correct rating for the factor is 1 and hereby varies the Order to the extent necessary to reflect this determination.
The evidence establishes that members of the Committee agreed to use the Questionnaire and Guide as tools to assist with the job evaluation exercise. The Questionnaire asks “what is the minimum amount of job-related experience required by the Region to perform your job in a satisfactory manner.” The Guide, under the heading “General Guidelines”, states that the factor of job-related experience “deals with the minimum job-related experience required to be hired or promoted into the job.” Under the heading “Specific Guidelines” it then states “you should consider … the minimum amount of experience required to do your job effectively.”
During the course of the proceedings, the Region argued that rating for the job related experience factor depended upon how much job related experience an individual required in order to be hired by the Region into the position. The Union argued that the rating for the job related experience factor depended upon how much job experience a person required in order to be fully functional as a Nursing Attendant/PCA. The fact that the Questionnaire asks about the minimum job related experience “required by the Region” and the Guide specifically states that the factor deals with the minimum job related experience required to be “hired” certainly suggests that the factor was looking at the point of hire; however, given that there is some ambiguity in the language used in the Questionnaire and Guide, for the purposes of this decision it has been assumed by the panel that the factor was concerned with the amount of job related experience required in order to perform “satisfactorily” or “effectively” which is the language used in the Questionnaire and Guide and thus the highest standard that the two documents might be interpreted to have set.
The Questionnaire agreed to by the Committee indicates that, if it takes up to and including six months for a Nursing Attendant/PCA to perform the job satisfactorily, the job related skills factor is to be rated 1. If it takes at least six months but less than one year for a Nursing Attendant/PCA to perform the job satisfactorily, the job related skills factor is to be rated 2. Thus the question is: does it take more than six months for a Nursing Assistant/PCA to perform the job satisfactorily or effectively?
Ms. Falles was asked how people (Nursing Attendant/PCAs) do when they start. She testified that it “takes a while”, “a good several months”, “6 to 12 months”, before the person “fully understands all aspects of the full job.” When asked how long it takes before a Nursing Attendant/PCA coming from college is “fully functional” she responded “over a year.” She went on to say that “at 12 months you can look after all disorders.”
As indicated above, the Committee agreed to use the Questionnaire and Guide as evaluation tools. Those two tools, interpreted in the manner most favourable to the Union, indicate that the Committee agreed to measure the amount of job related experience required to perform the job “satisfactorily” or “effectively”. Ms. Falles’ testimony was directed at the amount of time it takes a person to “fully understand all aspects of the full job”; a performance level higher than the level the evaluation tools state was to be measured. Ms. Falles’ evidence is therefore not directly responsive to the question this panel has to answer. It is, however, noteworthy that Ms. Falles estimated the amount of time it takes a Nursing Attendant/PCA to fully understand all aspects of the full job to be “a good several months” or “6 to 12 months”. If that is how long it takes to fully understand all aspects of the full job, it is reasonable to assume that the length of time it would take to perform the job satisfactorily or effectively would be shorter.
Without intending in any way to diminish the importance and demanding nature of the Nursing Attendant/PCA position, it is the panel’s view, as each of Ms. Howard and Ms. Falles testified, that the one year college program, and the clinical placements that form part of that program, in large part prepare an individual to satisfactorily or effectively perform the job. Ms. Howard testified that the college program was enough to prepare individuals for the job. Ms. Falles testified the clinical placements that form part of the one year college program are one of the most vital parts of training. Ms. Falles further testified that students will generally try to get their placement in the facility that they hope to be hired into and, during the placement, train with the staff; get to know how the facility operates; and what the facility’s standards are.
The duties performed by the Nursing Attendant/PCA concern caring for vulnerable residents. They assist residents in all areas of their daily living including washing, eating, social activities, toileting, getting into and out of bed, and bathing. While these duties are critical to the health and well-being of the residents, they do not strike the panel as duties that would require significant on the job training after the completion of a one year college program that involved at least two clinical placements. No evidence was placed before the panel to suggest the contrary. We heard no evidence of duties that a Nursing Attendant/PCA must perform that require more than six months of on the job training in order to perform satisfactorily or effectively. While it may take months before a Nursing Attendant/PCA has encountered a range of different behavioural issues, that does not suggest that a Nursing Attendant/PCA is not able to satisfactorily perform the job before he or she has done so.
The position description for the Nursing Attendant/PCA position suggests that persons can be hired into the job with no prior job related experience. Similarly the job postings placed into evidence state that prior job related experience preferred but not required.
The evidence of Ms. Howard and Ms. Falles establishes that persons are in fact hired into the position with no prior job related experience. While it is true that Nursing Attendant/PCAs work in pairs (two Nursing Attendant/PCAs are assigned to each unit) the evidence does not establish that such is done in order to provide training to newly hired Nursing Attendant/PCAs who have no prior job related experience. The evidence establishes that Nursing Attendant/PCAs almost always work in pairs, regardless of the length of service of the personnel concerned. Ms. Falles testified that a part-time employee would always work with a full-time employee but part-time employees are not necessarily short service employees. It takes a considerable number of years in part-time work before a Nursing Attendant/PCA is generally able to secure a full-time position.
The panel does not accept that having worked in each of the units is necessary in order for a Nursing Attendant/PCA to be able to perform his or her job satisfactorily. Ms. Falles testified that the staff are generally scheduled to work in the same unit in order to ensure continuity of care to the residents. It would take a considerable period of time for a Nursing Attendant/PCA to have worked in all of the units in a facility. There was no evidence that Nursing Attendants/PCAs must have worked in all of the units before they are considered satisfactory.
The fact that Nursing Attendant/PCAs receive ongoing training or education does not mean that they are not performing their job satisfactorily. The training is ongoing and is not offered only to newly hired Nursing Attendant/PCAs. The training is offered to all staff.
The Region provided the Review Officer and this panel with a grid or chart that it argues sets out the factor ratings that were agreed upon by the Committee for all long term care job classifications as well as the potential male job comparator classes from the public works bargaining unit. The Review Officer accepted that the chart had been agreed upon by the Committee and that issues arose at the sore thumbing stage. The Review Officer determined that the rating of 1 indicated on the grid for the job related experience factor in respect of the Nursing Attendant/PCA should in fact be a 2 in part because the job classifications of Painter, Seamstress, Labourer, Rod Person & Traffic Controller had been rated 2.
The educational requirement for the job classifications of painter, seamstress and labourer is high school or its equivalent. The education that is required by each of these three job classifications is not job specific. Someone who has graduated from high school would not necessarily know how to be a painter, seamstress or labourer. Hence, the personnel in each of these job classifications are required to learn the trade by way of on the job experience. The fact that each of these job classifications requires a general educational background and on the job training is reflected in the fact that they are rated 2 on the knowledge factor and 2 on the job related experience factor. In contrast, the job classification of Nursing Attendant/PCA requires the completion of a one year college program, inclusive of at least two clinical placements, that provides education and training specific to the Nursing Attendant/PCA job. As such, the Nursing Attendant/PCA job classification is rated higher on the knowledge factor than the job classifications of painter, seamstress and labourer (3 as compared to 2) but lower on the factor of job related experience (1 as compared to 2). In the view of this panel, when the general versus specific nature of the educational requirement is taken into account, a job related experience rating of 2 for the job classifications of painter, seamstress and labourer and 1 for the job classification of Nursing Attendant/PCA is logical.
The panel was provided with no information as to the job classification of Rod Person or Traffic Controller and has no foundation from which to judge the reasonableness of the ratings assigned to these job classifications. Finally, it is noteworthy that the chart indicates that a rating of 1 was assigned to the factor of job-related experience in respect of the following job classifications:
Activation Therapist
Day Program Assistant
Dietary Aide
Facility Aide
Laundry Aide
Nursing Attendant 1
Potwasher
R.P.N.
Rehabilitation Assistant
Storekeeper
Storekeeper/Driver
Watchperson/Maintenance
- Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the panel is of the view that less than six months job related experience is necessary for a Nursing Attendant/PCA to perform the job satisfactorily or effectively. Having regard to the contents of the Questionnaire and Guide that were agreed to by the Committee, the factor is thus properly rated a 1 and the panel hereby directs that the Order be varied to the extent necessary to reflect this ruling.
Dated at Toronto this 1st day of October, 2013.
“Diane L. Gee”
Diane L. Gee, Vice-Chair
“Ann Burke”
Ann Burke, Member
“Catherine Bickley”
Catherine Bickley, Member