Officer assumed standing authorization for overtime remained with new supervisor; argued overtime was necessary to get the job done
This instalment of You Make the Call features an officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) who claimed he was owed for overtime he worked without approval.
Gregory Smith was an occupational safety officer with the RCMP in Edmonton. His job often required long hours, so there was a “standing authorization” for him to work overtime when necessary, he claimed. His overtime claims were paid and he was never asked to obtain specific authorization.
In May 2003, Smith began reporting to a new director. In March 2004, Smith submitted overtime claims from May 2003 to March 2004 and the new director asked him if the claims had been authorized before he worked the overtime. Smith said he hadn’t previously needed preauthorization since his job required long hours. The director said the finance department had an issue with the lack of pre-approval and he would try to avoid dealing with them.
In August, Smith still hadn’t received the overtime pay and asked the director for an update. However, Smith still didn’t receive anything and told the director in October 2004 he needed to submit more claims. The director told Smith to “go ahead and process any claims you have, now that funds have been finalized,” so Smith resubmitted all his overtime hours from May 2003 to January 2004. This was followed in February 2005 by claims for the remainder of 2004 .
By March 2005, Smith hadn’t seen any overtime pay and made another inquiry. His supervisor told him his claims were being denied because it was his own decision to work overtime and he was “foolish” to have worked without approval.
Smith got his lawyer involved and on April 4, 2005, the director wrote to the lawyer that the overtime was not approved prior to Smith working it, as required by RCMP policy. The director also said Smith didn’t submit the claims during the same budget year in which the overtime was worked, which was necessary for budgeting reasons.
Smith filed a grievance, arguing there had been a “general recognition” that overtime was necessary for him to do the job that was expected of him and it wasn’t always practical to obtain approval because sometimes he travelled outside of normal work hours.
You Make the Call
Should Smith have been paid for overtime for which he hadn’t received specific approval?
OR
Was the RCMP not required to pay Smith for overtime he worked voluntarily and claimed late?
If you said Smith was entitled to be paid for the overtime he worked, you’re right. The adjudicator ruled Smith worked overtime without authorization, which was against RCMP policy, and even the blanket authorization under which he incurred overtime under his old supervisor was against policy. However, the adjudicator found the claims that were associated with travel expenses that were accepted should be approved, since the approval of the travel expenses showed acceptance of overtime in those circumstances.
The Federal Court, however, found that employees are normally paid for their work and the RCMP policy would have to expressly stipulate that an employee performing his regular duties outside of normal hours would be volunteering if he was working without approval. Since Smith’s superiors knew he had a heavy workload and Smith had made it clear he expected to be paid for overtime, the court found it wasn’t reasonable to assume Smith was volunteering his services when he worked overtime.
The court also found there was no requirement to submit overtime claims at any particular time and Smith should have been informed of any change in that policy. Though it agreed Smith should have tried to obtain pre-approval when possible and submitted his overtime claims in a more timely manner, the court found he had never been told he wouldn’t be paid.
