View cases - Stewart McKelvey

would impose some cost on Skeena. It would have to pay additional people to work while theseindividuals each went through 144-192 hours of training. There would be some ongoing costbecause of the high turnover of Utilitymen. Mr. Vatcher estimated some 20 individuals wouldhave to be trained and this number was not disputed. While the collective agreement (Ex. 17)sets out the rate of pay for Utilitymen and AROs so it would be possible to estimate the cost ofthe additional training, there is no evidence to put this amount in proportion to Skeena’sexpenses or revenues. Thus it is not possible to determine whether the additional training costwould constitute undue financial hardship to Skeena.[93] With respect to disruption of the collective agreement, Mr. Vatcher testified that ensuringthat the ARO and Utilitymen on Mr. Pannu’s shift formally assume the Recaust Operator andARO duties in the event of an emergency shut down would be “extremely onerous.” It wouldnecessitate a change in job descriptions and would therefore disrupt the collective agreement.Without more evidence on this point, I am not persuaded that changes to job descriptions and tothe collective agreement would really be necessary. If the existing job descriptions andcollective agreement permit Utilitymen to be trained and to work as relief AROs and AROs to betrained and work as relief Recaust Operators, simply training more people would not disrupt thecollective agreement.[94] However, the training described above only occurs on a voluntary basis. If not enoughUtilitymen and AROs volunteered for the training, it would not be possible to staff Mr. Pannu’sshift without requiring some Utilitymen and/or AROs to take additional training. This wouldrequire amendments to the job descriptions, a complicated process involving a 65-stepassessment under an industry-wide job evaluation plan. Similarly, if the Union took the positionthat Utilitymen required to incur ongoing responsibility for emergency shut downs on Mr.Pannu’s shifts ought to receive additional compensation, the job evaluation process would haveto be initiated. Skeena did not present evidence of whether it had asked its Utilitymen and AROswhether they would be willing to receive training and assume responsibility for emergencyprocedures on Mr. Pannu’s shifts. Nor did it show what the Union’s position would have been.Therefore, it has not established undue hardship on this basis. It has only established that it ispossible that accommodating Mr. Pannu would have caused a “substantial departure from the23