FPSLREB Decisions

[1]   This grievance concerns the overtime provisions of a collective agreement entered into on April 16, 1999, by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Treasury Board for the Operational Group.

[2]   The parties submitted a book of documents, statements, exhibits and jurisprudence. Tab 1 of the book contains an agreed statement of facts which reads as follows:

1. When the Grievor filed his grievance, he worked on the Agribusiness Farm at Frontenac Institution, in Kingston, Ontario, as a GL-MAN-06

2. In accordance with the collective agreement for the Operational Service group, article 29.02: " Where overtime work is authorized in advance by the Employer, an employee is entitled to overtime compensation."

3. Staff meeting minutes dated February 1, 1999 [refer to Tab 6]. Item 3 more specifically states: "Overtime to be approved by AOM before being worked and overtime forms must be submitted at the end of the month that the overtime was worked in."

4. A memorandum dated May 7, 1999, from the Assistant Operations Manager, was provided to all Farm Staff [refer to Tab 7]. More specifically: ".overtime must be approved by myself prior to any work being performed by any farm staff that would exceed the scheduled 40 hour work week."

5. The Grievor simultaneously submitted his overtime claims for the month (sic) of May, June and July 1999 in mid-July 1999.

6. At the first level grievance response, the Employer partially granted the grievance and agreed to pay 70 hours of overtime out of the 149 hours claimed [refer to Tab 2]. It was deemed to be pre-authorized and/or occurred prior to the issuance of the May 7, 1999 memorandum to all farm staff.

[3]   The book also contains contradictory versions of the facts of this case. The grievor contends that the overtime worked was in fact approved through an informal process for which there is little or no record. He also maintains that he was not at the staff meeting in February 1999, nor that he received the May memorandum. The evidence shows that the process to approve overtime was neither well documented nor formal. The employer denies having given approval for the overtime hours that were not paid during the grievance process. It contends that the grievor was made aware of the overtime discussion that took place during the February staff meeting and that he was given a copy of the May memorandum.

[4]   Given these contradictions, I expressed concern that the expedited adjudication process would not provide a proper mechanism to assess credibility and determine the facts of the case. The parties nevertheless asked that I continue to deal with the grievance on an expedited basis.

[5]   Given the nature of the agricultural work to be performed and the apparent practice to authorize overtime on an ad hoc basis over the phone, I conclude on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Perry was authorized to perform the overtime work he has claimed and therefore allow the grievance.

[6]   Mr. Perry is entitled to be paid the remainder of the overtime hours claimed and not already paid.

[7]   I strongly recommend that the parties discuss a more efficient and effective process for the approval and payment of overtime.

[8]   The grievance is allowed.

Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson

OTTAWA, November 8, 2004.