Claimant's Grievance Over Overtime Shift Denied

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 202 60402 File : 566- 02- 47501 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 33 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME_2] [NAME_3] and [NAME_4] ( [NAME_5]) Employer Indexed as [NAME_1] v. [NAME_4] ([NAME_5]) In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication Before: [NAME_6], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For [NAME_3]: [NAME_7], counsel [NAME_8]: [NAME_8] and [NAME_8], counsel ADVANCE \y 657 Heard by videoconference, August 5, October 1 to 3 and 27, 2025 .

REASONS FOR

DECISION I. Individual grievance referred to adjudication [ 1 ] [NAME_2] (“[NAME_3]”) filed two distinct grievances that were heard separately during the same hearing; they are in Board files nos. 566-02-47501 and 40771. For clarity’s sake, I decided to render two separate decisions. This one pertains to the grievance in Board file no. 566-02-47501, which is about [NAME_3] being denied an overtime shift opportunity in the form of an urgent, overnight inmate escort.

II. Introduction [ 2 ] [NAME_3] works as a correctional officer ([NAME_10]), and as of the hearing, he had done so for the last 27 years. From time to time, the [NAME_5] ([NAME_5] or “the employer”) calls for volunteers to escort an inmate to different places. Sometimes, the escort is near the related institution, but others are overnight and generate overtime, which can be financially interesting for [NAME_10]. [ 3 ] The details of this grievance involve a call for an urgent overnight escort, which [NAME_3] responded to by telephone. He inquired about the financial implications for the [NAME_10] carrying out the escort. He told the correctional manager (CM) that he had to make some verifications before accepting the work but that he would call right back. When he called back to say that he was available, the CM told him that other volunteers had taken all the escort positions. He grieved both not being chosen for the escort and the associated loss of overtime. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that on a balance of probabilities, the grievance is not substantiated, and that there was no breach of the collective agreement between the [NAME_4] ([NAME_4]) and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers - Syndicat des agents correctionnels du Canada - CSN (“the bargaining agent”) for the Correctional Services ([NAME_10]) group that expired on May 31, 2022 (“the collective agreement”). Therefore, the grievance is denied.

III. Preliminary objections to introducing audio recordings [ 5 ] At the start of the hearing, [NAME_3] objected to the introduction of two telephone call recordings, challenging their integrity. Both involved [NAME_3] and his manager. They were made from the first escort-related call. She further requested another recording that the employer might have possessed. [ 6 ] Counsel [NAME_8] replied that both recordings were made from the first call but that for some reason, the call-recording system saved that call into two separate files. As for the disclosure of the other recording, she stated that the employer required more details to locate it. Both files recorded [NAME_3] and his manager. [ 7 ] Both counsels stated that they would call as witnesses to testify the two persons involved in the telephone conversations. I concluded that since the integrity of the two recordings could not be objectively confirmed and that the two parties involved in the conversations were to testify, the recordings were not required. I followed the same reasoning for the other recording, more so because it was not yet available and because it was too late in the hearing process to entertain it. [ 8 ] I decided to allow [NAME_3]’s objection to deny introducing the employer’s two telephone recordings, and I denied his request that the other recording be disclosed.

IV. Summary of the evidence A. For [NAME_3] [ 9 ] The facts of this grievance occurred on January 17, 2023, at the employer’s [NAME_11] (“the institution”) in Edmonton, Alberta. [NAME_3] testified that he had been part of over 100 escorts throughout his career but never an overnight one. [ 10 ] He testified that overnight escorts involve a financial aspect. The institution provides a credit card for gasoline. It also covers meals and hotels, but the [NAME_10] must pay those expenses out-of-pocket, submit a claim, and be reimbursed. Sometimes, the [NAME_10] paid for bottled water for the inmate at their expense. There was no petty cash for those expenses. [ 11 ] [NAME_3] referred to his grievance form and testified that he received a text message from his CM for an overnight escort to Saskatchewan. He called his CM to express his interest, but when he found out that he had to pay out-of-pocket for his meals and hotel, he said that he had to verify that with his spouse and that he would call his CM right back. When he called back to confirm his availability, he was told that the escort spot had been taken. He stated that 5 to 10 minutes passed between the 2 calls, which are part of the recordings referred to earlier in this decision. [ 12 ] [NAME_3] knew that he had to submit his expense claim when he got back, to be reimbursed. He claimed that that process goes against Appendix D of the collective agreement. [ 13 ] He testified that he had won his case in a similar, previous grievance, in which he reached an agreement with the employer, which agreed to reimburse him the overtime that he had lost in a different situation. At that time, [NAME_12] was his bargaining agent representative. [ 14 ] The first-level grievance decision denying that grievance was rendered on February 7, 2023. [NAME_3] referred to an email he received from [NAME_15], Assistant Warden Operation (AWO), dated February 13, 2023, discussing this grievance. He testified that he felt offended that his name and position were mentioned and that he felt hurt that a comment was made about his personal cashflow. The email suggested that he could obtain a federal government credit card, but he refused, because he was afraid of fraud and because he did not know how to obtain one. [ 15 ] [NAME_3] stated that normally, calls for volunteers for overnight transfers are made on the same day as the escort is required. He also stated that had he mentioned that he was available for the escort at issue in this decision on the first call, he would have been chosen. [ 16 ] He testified that before he could accept the proposed escort, he had to find a way to pay for it. He submitted a report from the Scheduling and Deployment System (SDS) from January 17, 2023, to establish that he had been available. He stated that he was not chosen because he could not afford the expenses. [ 17 ] On cross-examination, [NAME_3] stated that he had been under no obligation to accept the escort duty. He confirmed that he spoke with his CM and that he told his CM that he had to verify whether he could do it but that when he called back, the opportunity had been taken. [ 18 ] [NAME_3] stated that the requirement that a [NAME_10] pay their travel expenses up front contravenes Appendix D, article 4, of the collective agreement. He stated that buying a $1 bottled water for an inmate is not the same as paying up front for $150 to $200 hotel rooms. The CM had a gas card. He acknowledged and was aware that hotel-room expenses were covered by Appendix D, clause 3(a), of the collective agreement. He testified that 3 or 4 times, from other [NAME_10], he had heard that an institutional credit card could be used to book and pay for hotels. [ 19 ] [NAME_3] reiterated that he was upset that his financial circumstances were discussed publicly. He also confirmed that he had resolved at the first level the similar grievance and that he had been paid the overtime that he had been denied. [ 20 ] [NAME_3] called [NAME_12] to testify. As of the hearing, she had been a [NAME_10] for 30 years and was a bargaining agent shop steward and local vice-president. She testified that she acts as an officer advocate, provides guidance, helps with accommodations, attends hearings, and helps complete forms. [ 21 ] She introduced the collective agreement, the Global Agreement between the employer and the bargaining agent, and the [NAME_16] from both January 1, 2011, and November 5, 2013. [ 22 ] [NAME_12] referred briefly to the grievance form and to the consultation notes of February 7, 2023. She represented [NAME_3] at that meeting and acknowledged that the notes were an accurate description of what occurred. The employer had no credit card to put at [NAME_3]’s disposal to book a hotel room or in case of emergencies. She stated that funds should have been provided to him before the trip. She claimed that he felt threatened by the email dated February 13, 2023. The warden had stated that it would take another six months to obtain an institutional credit card. She testified that [NAME_3] received no training on how to complete the travel-expense claim form. [ 23 ] She then referred to the second-level grievance hearing notes of March 13, 2023, and stated that they were a faithful account of what transpired that day. She stated that [NAME_3] felt bullied when he was told to apply for a federal government credit card. She confirmed that she had never seen petty cash used to cover such travel expenses. [ 24 ] [NAME_12] was referred to the grievance form dated January 16, 2023. She testified that [NAME_3] was available for overtime on January 17, 2023. She did not witness the telephone call between [NAME_3] and his CM, she is not involved with the institutional credit card, and she is not aware of the requirement for an employee to obtain a federal government credit card. [ 25 ] In reference to [NAME_15]’s February 13, 2023, email to [NAME_3], she claimed that there is a requirement for each employee to obtain a credit card or to already have one. She stated that no policy grievance was filed about the travel credit card or Appendix D of the collective agreement. [ 26 ] On redirect examination, [NAME_12] testified that she received several complaints about the credit cards and travel-expense claim reimbursements. She stated that an institutional credit card had been in place in 1995 but that at that time, it depended on the warden. She stated that today, her members have to use their own credit cards. [ 27 ] [NAME_3] called [NAME_17]. As of the hearing, he had been a [NAME_10] for 18 years in different institutions in the employer’s Prairie Region. He had been involved with the bargaining agent for 14 years in different capacities, from local steward to president. As of the hearing, he was a local vice-president. [ 28 ] He testified that he had been on more than 100 escorts. He explained that they were carried out mainly for medical reasons, funerals, or transfers to other institutions. He explained the different qualifications and requirements and the tasks associated with transfers. He testified that the associated costs are essentially for hotels and meals. He stated that in the Prairie Region, some wardens had and would hold an institutional credit card to cover those expenses. [ 29 ] In cross-examination, he stated that most escorts are not urgent. He testified that overtime is assigned equitably among the bargaining unit members and that there is no day shift entitlement. B. [NAME_8] 1. [NAME_18] [ 30 ] As of the hearing, [NAME_18], Senior Labour Relations (LR) Officer, had been with the [NAME_5] since 2008. Within the LR Secretariat, he dealt with different projects and policy development for the corporate LR team. In 2018 and 2019, he occupied the same position and was assigned to [NAME_10]-related issues and overtime files. He contributed to a large settlement of more than 1000 cases. He also sat at the [NAME_10] Group bargaining table. [ 31 ] He testified that his current position is the same as the one he occupied in 2023. He sat at the Program and Administrative Services bargaining table, became a subject-matter expert in grievances at the first and second levels, and provided training across the country. He claimed that he worked as “the pen” when writing the national overtime policy. He testified that to be eligible for overtime, an employee must meet the position’s qualifications. The overtime system is really about equity between employees. He claimed that changes were made to include those who require accommodation. He testified that he reviewed [NAME_3]’s file. [ 32 ] [NAME_18] was referred to the collective agreement, Appendix D, (p. 102) which deals with inmate escorts. [ 33 ] At that point, the [NAME_3] raised an objection about the use of the probative, extrinsic proof value of the evidence that [NAME_18] offered to establish the negotiating parties’ intentions. I found that that evidence did not contribute to my determination of this grievance and that it shed no light on explaining the policy. I allowed the testimony but stated that I would give it no weight in my deliberations. [ 34 ] Article 3 of Appendix D of the collective agreement explains how reasonable expenses are reimbursed. He testified that it follows the rules that the National Joint Committee (NJC) established. He testified that in emergencies, there is no time for a cash advance and that petty cash cannot be used to cover hotel expenses. [ 35 ] [NAME_18] testified that the overtime refusal for the escort did not result from an SDS analysis. [ 36 ] In cross-examination, he testified that he did not know the institution’s hotel-booking practice. 2. [NAME_15] [ 37 ] [NAME_15] was the CMs’ direct supervisor from 2020 to 2025. He testified that in 2023, the institution had no institutional credit card for travel. Travel claims had to be submitted and processed, and employees used their personal credit cards or a federal-government-issued credit card. Employees could also ask for cash advances. He claimed that all the [NAME_10] followed that process. Emergency overnight escorts were no different. He stated that cash advances required 48 hours’ notice. He claimed that individual federal government credit cards have been available since at least 2008 and that one was available to [NAME_3]. He testified that he had never received a grievance related to a payment not being made, interest being charged, or an employee’s credit rating being affected. [ 38 ] He testified that in May 2023, he received an institutional credit card. Those cards never leave an institution. An employee contacts his office to have a hotel reservation preauthorized. [ 39 ] [NAME_15] was referred to his email to [NAME_3] dated February 13, 2023, (yee v.2, tab8) and stated that its purpose was to resolve the situation while waiting to receive the institutional credit card. He stated that he and [NAME_3] have a good working relationship and that he did not force [NAME_3] to obtain a credit card. [ 40 ] In cross-examination, he stated that he did not have a federal government credit card and that when he travelled, he used his own credit card. 3. [NAME_20], retired CM [ 41 ] [NAME_20] was a CM in January 2023. He explained his CM responsibilities and stated that one was to ensure to have escorts for inmates as required. He stated that sometimes, escorts were done overnight, which involved hotels, meals, and incidental expenses. The [NAME_10] paid them and then submitted travel-expense claims and were reimbursed. Cash advances were not possible for urgent transfers, due to a lack of processing time. He claimed that most of the [NAME_10] have done it and know the process. [ 42 ] He testified about the grievance. On January 17, 2023, he texted the [NAME_10], requesting 2 volunteers for an urgent overnight escort. [NAME_3] called him to ask about the escort and the travel-expense reimbursement. [NAME_3] told him that he had to check with his wife, to confirm his availability. [NAME_19] replied that he would take the first 2 volunteers. [NAME_3] called him back 10 minutes later, but he had already confirmed 2 volunteers. [ 43 ] On cross-examination, [NAME_19] stated that [NAME_3] was not disqualified because he did not have a credit card. He told [NAME_3] that he would take the first two available volunteers. 4. [NAME_21], Acting Assistant Warden [ 44 ] As of the hearing, [NAME_21] had worked with the employer for 16 years. He began as a [NAME_10] and as of the hearing was an acting assistant warden, but at the relevant time, he was a CM. He testified about the escort process and requirements. He explained that with urgent escorts, his assistant would make the arrangements for the [NAME_10] to be reimbursed, which the [NAME_10] often did themselves. The practice has been in place for 15 years, and he claimed that the [NAME_10] were aware of it. [ 45 ] He testified that he had never encountered a [NAME_10] who could not pay for their hotel. He stated that as of the hearing, the warden had an institutional credit card, and that petty cash was used for a different purpose than the hotel cost. He stated that federal government credit cards are also available to employees, if they want them, and that one was available to [NAME_3]. He stated that travel purchases made on either credit cards are reimbursed. He stated that he did not discuss this issue with [NAME_3]. He stated that he was unaware of any grievance being filed about credit cards not being reimbursed or about a negative credit rating occurring. He added that this practice is still in effect. [ 46 ] In cross-examination, [NAME_21] denied that when leaving on an urgent escort, the [NAME_10] do not always have a return time. He stated that they always have an estimated time of return. He testified that he did not know how long the escort at issue was to take. He stated that not everyone is on the texting list; those interested had to provide their phone numbers. He stated that no one was available on the SDS, which is why a call was made, and that had no one accepted it, he would have ordered two [NAME_10] to carry out the escort. [ 47 ] In redirect examination, he stated that the call and text process was informal.

V. Summary of the arguments [ 48 ] Both counsels presented extensive arguments to support their respective positions on the grievance. Although I will present a summary of their arguments, I considered them in their entirety in my analysis and when I reached my conclusion. A. For [NAME_3] [ 49 ] [NAME_3] argued that this grievance disputes the employer’s erroneous interpretation of the collective agreement’s Appendix D, article 4, which states that when a [NAME_10] is responsible for escorting an inmate, before the escort starts, the [NAME_5] shall give that [NAME_10] the amount of money required to cover their authorized expenses. [ 50 ] She claimed that when [NAME_3] answered the escort call, he inquired about who would pay for the hotel and the other expenses. His CM told him that he would have to pay for them. [NAME_3] replied that doing so would breach the collective agreement and that he had previously won a similar grievance dealing with employer advances. She claimed that he said that he had to find the money and that when he called back five minutes later, the escort opportunities had all been taken. [ 51 ] The [NAME_3] relied on the evidence from [NAME_3]’s and [NAME_12]’s testimonies to confirm that neither petty cash nor an institutional credit card was available. She claimed that the urgent nature of the escort was of no matter because the employer had to have in place the basic operations to fulfil its collective agreement obligations. She argued that for the escort, the employer was able to provide money only for gas, not for the [NAME_10]. [ 52 ] She relied on [NAME_22]’s testimony to illustrate how other institutions in the [NAME_5]’s Prairie Region provided an institutional credit card, to pay for hotel reservations, and petty cash, to pay for meals and inmate expenses. [ 53 ] She claimed that [NAME_3]’s potential use of a federal government credit card is immaterial since he did not possess one; nor was he offered one before January 17, 2023. She submitted that the employer’s refusal to provide the financial means to the [NAME_10] before an escort violated Appendix D of the collective agreement and caused [NAME_3] to lose an overtime opportunity. She claimed that he had to find funds before accepting the escort, which the employer should have provided, as the collective agreement stipulates. [ 54 ] [NAME_3] argued that Appendix D, article 3, deals with the conditions in which a [NAME_10] is reimbursed “… reasonable expenses incurred as normally defined by the Employer …”. She claimed that the employer referred to His Majesty in right of Canada, represented by the [NAME_4]. She linked it with clause 41.03 of the collective agreement, which specifies that the NJC makes amendment recommendations to its Travel Directive that the [NAME_4] approves. [ 55 ] She argued that clause 3(a) and article 4 of Appendix D address two separate obligations to two different parties. Clause 3(a) refers to the employer, meaning the [NAME_4], and article 4 refers to the [NAME_5]. She claimed that those distinctions create two obligations of equal value and that the employer must respect them. She added that under article 4, the [NAME_5] must provide an advance, but that under clause 3(a), the [NAME_10] will be reimbursed their reasonable expenses, as the [NAME_4] defines them. [ 56 ] She referred to The Queen v. Sommerville , [1974] S.C.R. 387, and DHL Express (Canada) Ltd. v. Canadian Auto Workers, Locs. 4215, 144 and 4278 , 2004 CanLII 94640 (CA LA) at 295, to emphasize that the predominant point for the adjudicator is the collective agreement’s language. She interpreted the literal meaning of that clause and article as that the obligation to provide the cash advance falls on the [NAME_5], not the [NAME_4], before the escort duty begins. She further extrapolated from her interpretation that thus, the authorized expenses are those of the [NAME_10], including meals, for the escort’s entire duration, as defined by article 2, and the approved overnight stopover, as set out in article 3. [ 57 ] [NAME_3] referred to [NAME_22]’s testimony to set out how another [NAME_5] institution in its Prairie Region managed an overnight escort rather easily by completely covering its [NAME_10]’ expenses and by covering the inmates’ expenses with petty cash. [ 58 ] She argued that interpreting Appendix D as solely requiring the [NAME_4] to reimburses the [NAME_10]’ expenses after the fact implies that the parties wrote article 4 after article 3 for no reason, which she claimed would be absurd. [ 59 ] In summary, his counsel stated that [NAME_3] was qualified and available for the escort on January 17, 2023. It should have been assigned to him, as he was the second to respond to the call. Had the employer not breached the collective agreement by not taking responsibility for the escort’s authorized expenses, he would have carried it out and would have been compensated for 19 hours of overtime plus all the pertinent shift premiums. [ 60 ] As for the remedy, [NAME_3] seeks compensation for 19 hours of overtime plus all the pertinent shift premiums and all the legal interest. [ 61 ] Relying on the arbitration decision in Western Canada Council of [NAME_23] v. [NAME_24] , 2013 CanLII 19947 (CA LA), the [NAME_3] also seeks damages for the bargaining agent of $2000 for the collective agreement breach. B. [NAME_8] [ 62 ] Counsel [NAME_8] stated that the grievance was for a single overtime shift of 19 hours on January 17, 2023. The thrust of her argument is that [NAME_3] was not ready and available within the meaning of clause 21.10(a) of the collective agreement, which states that to be entitled to an equitable distribution of overtime, the [NAME_10] must be ready and available. [ 63 ] Counsel [NAME_8] briefly summarized the facts of the case and emphasized that the escort was to be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. When [NAME_3] called to express his interest and hung up without confirming his availability for the escort, he was not available. She stated that from his testimony, he apparently said to the CM that he believed that he would need a few minutes to find a way to pay for the extra expenses. She stated that from the CM’s testimony, [NAME_3] apparently said that he would have to look into a couple of things and did not specify them. The CM stated that nothing was said about his finances. When [NAME_3] called back 5 or 10 minutes later, the escort positions had been filled. [ 64 ] She stated that [NAME_3] testified that in all his time with the [NAME_5], he had never worked an overnight escort. He also testified that he was not familiar with the reimbursement process and stated that he should not have had to pay. She stated that in cross-examination, he did not dispute that hotel expenses were covered under clause 3(a) of Appendix D of the collective agreement, not paragraph 4. She claimed that he testified that he understood that the [NAME_10] paid for their hotels on overnight escorts and that they were reimbursed by submitting a travel-expense claim. [ 65 ] Counsel [NAME_8] stated that when the call at issue was made, [NAME_3] had no real understanding of the long-standing past practice of how hotel expenses were being administered for urgent overnight escorts. She argued that overtime is not a right and that [NAME_3] had to play his part to ensure that he was readily available in that specific context, if he wanted to work that shift. [ 66 ] She argued that if he was interested in overnight escorts, he could have inquired as to what might have been required of him in advance in those urgent situations, to ensure that he was readily available when those escort calls came. There is no evidence that he did any of that. Therefore, he was not readily available when the call was made. [ 67 ] Counsel [NAME_8] argued that [NAME_3] was not readily available within the meaning of clause 21.10 of the collective agreement and therefore was not entitled to work the shift. He cannot be compensated for a shift that he did not work because he did not meet the precondition of being readily available for it. The grievance ought to be denied for that reason. [ 68 ] Counsel [NAME_8] also discussed at length the notion of the equitable distribution of overtime and supported her argument that it was equitable by citing a copious amount of case law. [ 69 ] She turned to the issue of clause 3(a) and article 4 of Appendix D of the collective agreement. She argued that I need not engage in that analysis in this specific case since [NAME_3] did not work the shift. He did not incur any expenses. She claimed that whether hotel costs should be paid by reimbursement or in advance is moot because no expenses were incurred. [ 70 ] She argued that the language of Appendix D is clear and that regardless of whether articles 3 or 4 are being dealt with, two conditions must be satisfied to engage Appendix D in this context: a [NAME_10] must either be required to escort (article 3) or be responsible for escorting (article 4) an inmate, and expenses must be incurred (article 3) or authorized (article 4). [ 71 ] She argued that [NAME_3] was neither required to nor responsible for escorting an inmate at all on January 17, 2023, on the urgent overnight escort shift. He did not satisfy that precondition. She claimed that he incurred no, and received no authorization for, any expenses. Appendix D of the collective agreement is simply not engaged in the facts of this case, and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) can and should decline to make any further findings on its interpretation and application. [ 72 ] She asked the Board not to make declarations based entirely on speculation and hypotheticals. She claimed that if it did, it would create a dangerous precedent and could potentially affect the parties’ ability to negotiate this issue in the next bargaining round. The proper recourse would be to wait for a case that does not deal purely with hypotheticals and that instead has concrete evidence that a [NAME_10] actually carried out an escort and then had an issue with an expense payment related to it. [ 73 ] Counsel [NAME_8] argued that the employer’s past practice and its witness’s testimonies support its interpretation of the collective agreement and Appendix [NAME_10] carrying out an overnight escort could pay their hotel and meal expenses using their own credit card or a federal government one and submit a travel-expense claim, to be reimbursed. According to the employer’s witness, [NAME_21], this practice had been in place for over 15 years, and all the [NAME_10] were well aware of it. [ 74 ] In conclusion, its counsel submitted that the employer’s position is that [NAME_3] did not meet his burden to demonstrate that he was available for the overnight, urgent, escort overtime shift, that he received an inequitable distribution of overtime, or that he met the conditions of Appendix D. She stated that this grievance should be denied.

VI. Reasons [ 75 ] The issue I must determine is whether [NAME_3] was readily available within the meaning of clause 21.10(a) of the collective agreement for an urgent overnight escort. Clause 21.10(a) reads as follows: “The Employer shall make every reasonable effort to allocate overtime work on an equitable basis among readily available qualified employees”. [ 76 ] This grievance may be summarized as follows. On January 17, 2023, [NAME_3] received a text from his CM that indicated a need for volunteer [NAME_10] for an urgent overnight escort. He called his CM and inquired as to who would pay for the hotel. The CM told him that the [NAME_10] were responsible for their expenses. He stated that that forced him to state that he would not be able to carry out the escort. He claimed that that went against the collective agreement. [ 77 ] It is notable that [NAME_3]’s narrative changed from the evidence that I heard. I heard that he responded to the call, asked about who would pay for the hotel, and told the CM that he would have to verify with his spouse and that he would call back shortly. When he called back to say that he could do it, he was informed that the opportunity had been taken. The CM testified that [NAME_3] had to verify a couple of things before confirming that he could do the escort and that [NAME_3] was to call him right back. [ 78 ] The process of calling volunteer [NAME_10] for urgent overnight escorts is rather simple. [NAME_10] interested in being called upon provides their CM with their name and phone number. When a need arises, they all receive a text message, and on a first-come, first-served basis, the escort positions are filled. I find it absolutely plausible that whoever might be interested in an overnight escort would have to call home before accepting it. I find that [NAME_3]’s reasons for calling home, which were to see if he could financially afford doing it or if other family related issues would prevent him from doing it, were very legitimate but also irrelevant. [ 79 ] In this case, from the evidence heard, [NAME_3] called the CM first, then he called home, confirmed that he could go, and then called the CM again, but it was too late. I agree with the employer’s argument that as of the first call to the CM, [NAME_3] was not readily available within the meaning of clause 21.10(a). He became available only after the second call, and by then, the openings had been filled. [ 80 ] [NAME_3] discussed at length the notion of the equitable distribution of overtime and supported her argument by citing a copious amount of case law. In his testimony, [NAME_3] confirmed that he had no doubts that had he confirmed his readiness and his ability to carry out the escort, the CM would have chosen him for the escort. I find that that fact completely contradicts the argument that the overtime distribution among the [NAME_10] was not equitable. [NAME_3] did not receive the escort assignment simply because he was not yet available; he had to call home before accepting it. Equitable assignment had no role in this matter. [ 81 ] [NAME_3] argued that, had the employer not breached the collective agreement by not taking responsibility for the escort’s authorized expenses, [NAME_3] would have carried out the escort and would have been compensated for overtime. However, [NAME_3]’s and the CM’s testimonies show that the loss of the overtime opportunity was related to [NAME_3]’s necessity to verify with his spouse to confirm his availability which he then confirmed to the CM and thus was unrelated to who was paying the expenses for the escort. [ 82 ] The evidence established as well that the process of overnight escorts and travelling expenses was well known and well established. As of the events at issue, [NAME_3] had been in the [NAME_5]’s employ for 25 years, and from his testimony, he had never carried out an overnight escort. He stated that he was not familiar with the process of obtaining a federal government credit card and completing a travel-expense claim. I find that he bore some responsibility for finding out about the process and what was involved in an overnight escort and that he failed to meet it. [ 83 ] The circumstances of an urgent escort make it unfeasible to process an advance of funds in time since that requires 48 hours’ notice. The employer has put in place a practice under which it provides the [NAME_10] with a federal government credit card or they may use their own and then, when they return, be reimbursed by submitting a travel-expense claim. [ 84 ] It is not clear when [NAME_3] became aware that a federal government credit card was available for employees, but he testified that he did not want one because he was afraid of fraud. That might have been a legitimate concern, but it was also a personal impediment that prevented him from using a financial tool that would have allowed him to be readily available for the overnight escort at issue. It is not known if he had a personal credit card at the relevant time; if so, it also could have been used. [ 85 ] [NAME_3] testified that he had won a previous grievance of this nature and that he expected to win this one as well. Although there was no evidence of that settlement, it leads me to believe that he was aware of the overnight escort process but that he chose to do nothing to become readily available. Volunteering his name for the escort implied that he had the means to accomplish it. One of the means was to have the financial wherewithal to be a readily available qualified employee, as understood by clause 21.10(a) of the collective agreement. He was not readily available when he first called his CM. [ 86 ] This is an individual grievance about one urgent overnight escort. [NAME_3] insisted that the modern interpretation of the collective agreement be followed. I find that the language of clause 3(a) and article 4 of Appendix D is abundantly clear for these circumstances. I find the same about clause 21.10. I find that the practice that was in place was in harmony with the terms of that article and those clauses. [ 87 ] According to the evidence, the employer had instituted a long-standing practice of making available a federal government credit card for the purpose of paying for such urgent-escort travel expenses. Also, it put in place a process for travel advances, in certain circumstances, i.e., for travel that is not urgent. Unfortunately for [NAME_3], it did not apply to urgent overnight escorts. [ 88 ] In conclusion, I find that on a balance of probabilities, [NAME_3] did not demonstrate he was readily available for the urgent overnight escort overtime shift. [ 89 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

VII. Order [ 90 ] The grievance is denied. April 2, 2026. [NAME_6], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board