British Columbia Emergency Health Services v Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, CUPE Local 873
BC LA, Arbitrator Sullivan, April 27, 2026

When an employer identifies a training need and invites employees to bid for spots, does “salary maintenance” — including shift premiums — apply as though the training were mandatory? Arbitrator Sullivan held it does not: the key distinction is whether the employee is compelled to attend, or voluntarily pursues a career-enhancing opportunity.

Background

Under Article 23.02 of the collective agreement between BC Emergency Health Services and CUPE Local 873, paramedics attending training required for licence maintenance, certification, Advanced Care Paramedic postings, or supervisory course completion receive salary maintenance — their hourly wage plus applicable shift premiums (Alpha, night, and weekend premiums).

The grievance concerned a different category: training programs such as “PCP-Flight” and “Low Acuity Response Unit” training, which the Employer identified a need for and invited employees to apply or bid on, but did not require any individual paramedic to take. The Union argued that salary maintenance, including premiums, should extend to this type of training.

The Union’s Position

The Union argued that because the Employer requested and needed the training, and because employees who declined might face practical consequences, wage maintenance should still apply. The Union pointed to the Employer’s own payroll policy (“Procedure 5.5”) and an alleged 2023 settlement by then-Director of Labour Relations Kiren Gill as evidence of an existing practice.

The Employer’s Position

The Employer argued that Article 23.02 is clear and exhaustive about when salary maintenance applies. Voluntary, bid-in training that an employee chooses to pursue for career advancement is fundamentally different from training the employer compels an employee to attend. The Employer also denied that any binding settlement was concluded in 2023, pointing to a subsequent Union follow-up letter showing the matter remained unresolved.

The Decision

Applying the Pacific Press interpretive principles and relying on consistent labour arbitration authority distinguishing compelled training from voluntary or promotional training (including Wexford Inc., Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services, and Health Employers Assn of BC), Arbitrator Sullivan held that Article 23.02 does not extend salary maintenance to training that employees voluntarily bid on — even where the Employer identifies the need and an employee feels practical pressure to apply. Only training the Employer actually requires attracts salary maintenance and premiums.

The arbitrator also found no binding 2023 settlement was reached between the parties. The grievance was dismissed.

Takeaway

The line drawn by many collective agreements — and by arbitrators generally — turns on whether the employee is compelled to attend training as part of their existing job, versus voluntarily pursuing career-enhancing opportunities. Only the former typically attracts full pay and premium protections absent clear contrary language. Employers should ensure their collective agreement language clearly delineates these categories, and unions seeking premium coverage for voluntary training should negotiate express provisions.