While most Canadians know they are entitled to fair compensation for all hours worked for a given employer, it is less clear whether employees are entitled to reimbursement for expenses associated with training undertaken at their employer’s behest. In particular, employees are often uncertain whether they are entitled to compensation for time spent upgrading their skills and knowledge and for the fees associated with such training, including the costs of such programs and the tools required to complete them successfully.

Although such matters may often be resolved through a review of the relevant employment agreement or collective agreement, in the absence of an agreement or in circumstances where the parties are unable to agree upon the proper interpretation of such agreements, it may become necessary to seek the assistance of the Labour Relations Board or the courts to ascertain each party’s rights and obligations.

In this blog, we explore employers’ obligations to compensate employees for employment-related training and education, including when such compensation will be considered payable, the scope of their obligation, and in what circumstances it arises.

Hospital Refuses to Reimburse Employees Who Completed Wound Care Training

The recent case of International Union of Operating Engineers [IOE Local 772] v Kemptville District Hospital involved a grievance by two employees of the respondent hospital, who claimed that they were each entitled to compensation for time spent completing a course in wound care.

Although basic wound care is within the scope of the duties of registered nurses and registered practical nurses, advanced wound care necessitates more intensive training and/or experience. As such, before 2022, the respondent hospital regularly engaged the services of such specialized nurses to provide such services on an as-needed basis.

In 2022, the hospital offered its nursing staff the opportunity to undertake wound care training as part of its plan to improve wound care. Should none of their nurses be interested in applying for or participating in such training, the hospital would have continued contracting out for these services.

Fortunately for the hospital, the two grievors indicated they were interested in undertaking the wound care training program. Each was enrolled in the course, and the hospital paid the $6,392 in fees associated with registering the two grievors and the textbooks necessary to complete the course. Once enrolled, the grievors discovered that the course demanded significantly more investment of time than they had anticipated. As such, they each requested that the hospital compensate them for the many hours spent studying for the various tests and completing assignments related to the course. The hospital declined to pay the grievors for their time, which prompted their union to file a grievance on their behalves in which they asserted that, amongst other things, the hospital’s refusal to compensate the grievors for study time associated with their training constituted a violation of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Laws Governing Compensation for Employment-Related Training

In this case, the employees belong to a union, which means the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer governs the employment relationship, including compensation for training programs undertaken at the employer’s behest. As such, any grievance related to failure to pay such compensation must be resolved by first considering the collective agreement and its provisions concerning such compensation. Had the employees been employed under common law (i.e., not a member of a union), then the parties would consult the applicable employment contract.

In all workplaces, whether unionized or not, parties concerned about compensation for employment-related training must consider Regulation 285.01 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which governs “deemed work”. That regulation dictates that work will be deemed to have been completed by an employee for an employer in the following circumstances:

1. The work is requested or permitted by the employer to be undertaken and is actually performed by the employee, despite the fact that the employment contract either forbids such work or requires that the employer provide permission to engage in such work in advance of such work being undertaken; or
2. No work has actually been performed, yet the employee was required to remain at their place of employment or otherwise hold themselves available for work, including during rest or break periods.

Ontario’s Ministry of Labour issued guidelines entitled The Employment Standards Act Policy and Interpretation Manual. The guidelines will be implemented to assist in interpreting Regulation 285.01 and include a section regarding Training Time. The guidelines with respect to training time specifically dictate that time spent by an employee in training that is required by the employer is to be considered work time and thus compensable at the employee’s regular rate of pay. However, time spent in training that is not required by the employer or is unnecessary to enable the employee to perform the duties of their employment does not count as work time and is thus not compensable.

The guidelines provide an example of an employee hoping to gain a promotion who undertakes additional education or training to secure such promotion would not be entitled to compensation for the time spent taking such training, as the efforts in these circumstances would not be considered to have been undertaken at the behest of the employer.

Employees Assessed as Not Engaged in Work Warranting Compensation

The arbitrator reviewed the above provisions of the Employment Standards Act and the associated guidelines and concluded that it was clear that, for training to be considered “deemed work” as defined by Regulation 285.01, “it must be required by the employer or by law as a condition of employment or continued employment”. In this case, the hospital had not demanded that the employees undertake the wound care training to retain their positions of employment with the hospital; instead, the hospital had offered its employees the opportunity to upgrade their skills of their own accord, should they be interested in doing so. At no time were the employees threatened with termination of their employment if they declined to undertake the offered training; indeed, most of the hospital’s nurses declined to take the hospital up on their offer.

In these circumstances, in which the training did not constitute a condition of continued employment with the hospital, the arbitrator was satisfied that the employees had not been engaged in deemed work within the meaning assigned that term under Regulation 285.01. As such, they were not entitled to compensation for the time spent completing the advanced wound care course.

In terms of the applicability of the grievors’ collective agreement, the agreement included a clause respecting Education Leave, which dictated that any employee who the hospital required to engage in training to update their skills and qualifications would be reimbursed by the hospital for tuition costs and afforded a paid leave of absence applicable to the duration of the course, so long as such employee completed their course. The arbitrator noted that the word “require” has been defined in previous arbitral decisions to mean something more than a request and includes an element of necessity and/or compulsion. A review of the circumstances revealed that the hospital had invited the grievors to participate in the additional training but had not compelled them to do so. The grievors were free to elect, as did nearly all of their coworkers, not to undertake such training. In these circumstances, the collective agreement did not obligate the hospital to compensate the grievors for the time spent on the wound care training course.

Contact Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins Today for Advice on Reimbursement of Employment-Related Training Expenses

If you have undertaken employment-related training and are unsure after review of your employment contract or collective agreement of your right to compensation for same, or you are an employer that has requested employees undergo training and you seek to ascertain your obligation to compensate such employees in respect of same, then you need cogent, thoughtful legal advice to help you clarify your rights and responsibilities and ensure appropriate payment of compensation. Fortunately, Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins LLP is here to help.

From our offices in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins LLP is proud to provide savvy, knowledgeable legal advice to employees and employers from all over Southwestern Ontario. Contact us today, either online or via telephone at (416) 364-9599, and one of our friendly, professional staff will be pleased to schedule a confidential consultation.