The grievor alleged that the employer had denied him the equitable distribution of overtime for two shifts in January 2011 – for the first shift, the overtime was assigned to three officers – the first officer was asked to remain at work to complete a report on issues that occurred during his shift – the second officer was called to work overtime because of an emergency created by a suicide watch – the third officer, a CX-02, was called in to work in a CX-01 position because the employer considered that the situation was special and that it required an officer who possessed certain skills – for the second shift, the employer allocated the work to an officer who was paid at time and one-half rather than allocating it to the grievor, who would have been paid at double time – with respect to the first overtime opportunity, the adjudicator held that the grievor could not have performed the overtime related to the writing of the report as it required first-hand knowledge – for the second officer called, he held that there was an emergency and that the employer was entitled to call in another officer who lived closer to the workplace – however, with respect to the employer calling in a CX-02 to fill the CX-01 position, he held that the employer had failed to rebut the grievor’s evidence with evidence of its own that the overtime shift presented specific requirements that entitled it to call in a CX-02 – for the second shift, the adjudicator held that the employer’s policy of assigning overtime first to those who would be paid at time and one-half had created an inequity in this case and therefore violated the collective agreement – the adjudicator rejected the grievor’s mileage claim as it was designed to be a reimbursement for expenses incurred – as the grievor had not used his car, no expenses had been incurred.

Grievance allowed in part.