Canadian Labour Reporter

April 20, 2015 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 pay up to $100 per trip for travel expenses incurred by an em- ployee who is required to see a specialist for consultation, treat- ment or hospitalization. Teck Coal denied any wrong- doing, arguing it was not re- quired to pay expenses when the employee is able to see a specialist within the Elk Valley and vicinity of the Line Creek mine. "Employees are required to 'travel' before they are entitled to have their expenses paid and that requirement necessitates that they must leave their local area," counsel for the employer argued at the hearing. As the company saw it, there was a "common understanding" between the parties that travel expenses within the Elk Valley were not compensated. There are five mine sites owned and operated by Teck Coal in the area, and while em- ployees are able to drive their own vehicles to work, the com- pany also provides buses to and from designated pickup loca- tions. These buses operate twice daily, and are not available to transport employees at arbi- trary times or to arbitrary loca- tions. Because the towns within the Elk Valley are relatively small, most employees have, over time, gained practitioners in the area — though some needing spe- cialized medical attention are required to go to bigger cities such as Calgary or Lethbridge in Alberta. In the past, the employer paid travel expenses for such trips, the union said. The issue arose when an em- ployee, Calvin Hughesman, trav- elled from his home to a doctor in Elkford, B.C., a 76-kilometre distance. Whereas the union said Hughesman should be com- pensated, the employer dis- agreed, saying payment is not required when a worker can see a specialist within the Elk Valley area, and within the regular bus route. According to John Kinzie, the arbitrator presiding over the case, the issue was a matter of in- terpretation and language. Of particular concern is the phrase "immediate area" when concerning travel. If an employee's specialist lives in his own town, Kinzie said going to see him would not entitle him to travel expenses because that is unequivocally within the "immediate area." In the case at hand, Hughes- man's specialist was in a different city than his own, regardless of the fact that it was within the Elk Valley. "I am of the view that (the col- lective agreement) does not im- pose a geographical limitation on the ability of employees to recover their travel expenses for seeing a specialist to the effect that their travel must take them outside the bus route of the em- ployer's or outside the Elk Valley," Kinzie said. As such, the policy grievance was upheld and Hughesman was entitled to reimbursement for his travel time. Reference: Teck Coal (Line Creek Operations) and the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) local 115. John Kinzie — arbitrator. David McDonald for the employer, John MacTavish for the union. March 12, 2015. Air Canada seeks alternative route for debt collection IN AIR CANADA'S pre-employ- ment agreements with its rouge flight attendants, employees were required to reimburse Air Canada for the cost of certain training. After this training was com- pleted and employment began, the employer deducted these fees from the flight attendants' pay- cheques. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the exclusive bargaining agent for the employ- ees, filed a grievance. The union argued it did not authorize the deductions and the deductions were not negotiated. Arbitrator William Kaplan agreed with the union in his June 13, 2014, ruling. According to Kaplan, any de- ductions from pay must be nego- tiated with the exclusive bargain- ing agent. The ongoing deduction from negotiated wages went to the heart of the employment rela- tionship, he said, and it requires the agreement of the bargaining agent. He found the employer could not collect on the training debt in this fashion absent the union's agreement. Kaplan ordered the employer to cease the practice immediately and any monies deducted from flight attendants for this pur- pose were to be returned within 60 days to all current and former employees. After the award was issued, the employer approached the union to discuss alternative repayment arrangements. The union, however, took the position that the pre-employ- ment agreement was now void. Kaplan was once again seized to address the dispute. The employer submitted a re- quest for two issues that needed to be addressed. First, it needed to be determined whether an arbitrator under the collective agreement had jurisdiction to deal with the enforcement of pre-employment contracts. Sec- ondly, it needed to be determined whether it had been the intention of the award to render the pre- employment training debt void and unenforceable in any forum. The employer argued Kaplan's award did not invalidate the pre-employment contract. The award simply prevented the em- ployer from collecting the debt through payroll deductions. The union, however, argued the case was much more straight- forward. An award was issued, directing the employer to return monies it had improperly collected from flight attendants. The employer fully complied with the order. Kaplan's jurisdiction was only re- tained for the purposes of imple- menting that order. With the award implemented, the union argued, there was no jurisdiction remaining and there- fore no basis for the employer's request. The union said the issue should be dismissed. Kaplan agreed and dismissed the employer's request. "In these circumstances," Ka- plan said, "my jurisdiction on that particular dispute is exhausted as my award has been fully com- plied with." Kaplan said there was no basis in the circumstances of the case to revisit a "clear and straightfor- ward award" that the employer fully complied with. The request was dismissed. Reference: Air Canada and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Air Canada Component. William Kaplan — chief arbitrator. Ian M. Campbell for the employer, Megan Reid for the union. April 1, 2015. < from pg. 1 ARBITRATION AWARDS Air Canada deducts training fees from flight attendants' paycheques without union approval.

• Cover