The grievor's overtime claim did not jive with the activity reported by the outside contractor. When his supervisor checked previous overtime against parking records, they showed he had been leaving earlier than he claimed. The arbitrator found the parking records were public documents and the grievor's claim of reimbursement for travel time was unsubstantiated.
A hospital engineer responsible for repairing and maintaining the machines used in nuclear medicine was fired for filing improper overtime claims and for insubordinate behaviour.
Hired in 2006, B.K. worked at a large regional health facility. His position in the bargaining unit was listed as Charge Medical Physics Engineer. B.K. and a colleague covered two overlapping shifts that spanned operating hours that ran from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
B.K. and his colleague managed their hours according to the honour system and were not required to punch a time clock. Overtime claims were required to list the date, the number of overtime hours worked and a rationale for the overtime. Claims were filed on a weekly basis.
B.K. had arranged for overtime on the first weekend of May 2010 in order to observe a manufacturer’s installation of a new machine in the hospital’s nuclear medicine department.
The following Monday, B.K.’s supervisor checked in on the installation. In conversation with one of the installers, the supervisor learned progress was slightly delayed because of fire alarms that had shut down the wing on Sunday and that, consequently, no one had returned after lunch.
Later that week, while processing overtime claims, the supervisor noted B.K. had put in for nine hours of overtime on that Sunday.
Parking records, overtime claims did not match
The supervisor investigated. First she attempted to track B.K.’s movements from his pass card swipes at the door scans at various points throughout the hospital. However, these records were not determinative. They recorded B.K.’s last scan near his office at about 2:00 p.m. but did record when he left the building.
The supervisor then reviewed parking records. These showed that B.K. had only been on the property for six and-a-half hours on that Sunday. Next, the supervisor reviewed B.K.’s parking records for the previous five months and compared those records to his overtime claims. Her analysis revealed 54 occasions where B.K.’s overtime claims were at odds with his whereabouts.
B.K. and his union representative attended a meeting on May 13 called by the supervisor to examine the apparent discrepancies.
B.K. said the difference in the time claimed for overtime was accounted for by “call backs” and for travel time. B.K. said the industry standard was to claim overtime for travel time as he had done with his previous hospital employer.
Informed by the supervisor that overtime pay for travel time was not the standard at their hospital, B.K. remained defiant. At the conclusion of the meeting, he was given a document outlining the discrepancies in his claims and afforded an opportunity to provide explanations.
Four days later B.K. e-mailed his supervisor and the director of human resources to address the questions about his overtime claims.
B.K. claimed the supervisor had authorized special arrangements and practices, including overtime pay for travel time.
B.K. was fired. The letter of termination referenced about 124 discrepancies in his overtime claims amounting to almost $8,000. The letter also contained allegations of insubordination related to a couple of incidents where B.K. had refused certain tasks and one case where he had spoken inappropriately to a vendor representative.
Parking records not private
The union grieved. The union argued the parking records did not meet the appropriate standard for evidence and that the records were, in any case, protected by privacy rights under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Even if the allegations were true, a lesser penalty was warranted, the union said.
The Arbitrator disagreed. B.K.’s parking records were fair game at arbitration and no expectation of privacy was attached to parking records, the Arbitrator said.
The claims B.K. made concerning his entitlements to overtime pay had no basis in the collective agreement, the Arbitrator said. His claims he had special authorizations from his supervisor were also incredible.
That B.K. claimed in the breach the overtime he put in for included travel time not specifically listed on his claim forms suggested some subterfuge, the Arbitrator said. If he had felt that he was entitled to overtime for travel, it should have appeared on his claim forms. It did not.
“In the circumstances, I am satisfied, notwithstanding [B.K.’s] sense of entitlement, that he was guilty of culpable misconduct with respect to recording his overtime,” the Arbitrator said.
This was serious misconduct that warranted a significant response, the Arbitrator said.
Had B.K. been prepared to acknowledge his misconduct, a lesser discipline might have been possible.
However, B.K.’s obstinacy in the face of the evidence and incidents of insubordination at around the same time made reinstatement inappropriate, the Arbitrator said.
In addition, post termination, B.K. made a number of questionable comments and allegations about his supervisor to senior management both at the hospital and at one of the multinational equipment manufacturers. This conduct strained a number of relationships and had a negative impact on the hospital and the cancer treatment centre.
The grievance was dismissed.
