Overview
MEP did not maintain overtime rosters that would keep track of when each officer was asked to work overtime and whether each one accepted or declined any overtime offered. As a result, MEP could not ensure that there was an equitable distribution of overtime.
The table below details the regular hours and overtime compensation paid for each job title during our audit period.
Overtime Earnings by Job Title
|
Job Title |
Number of Officers |
Overtime Hours Worked |
Total Overtime Pay* |
Average Overtime Pay* |
Average Overtime Hours Worked* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Officer |
46 |
11,312 |
$580,816 |
$12,626 |
246 |
|
Sergeant |
22 |
5,245 |
314,701 |
14,305 |
238 |
|
Lieutenant |
17 |
5,955 |
399,341 |
23,491 |
350 |
|
Overall Total/Average |
85 |
22,512 |
$1,294,858 |
$15,234 |
265 |
* These numbers were rounded to the nearest dollar.
During our review of overtime payments, we noted some significant disparities in overtime earnings within each job title. For example, one lieutenant earned more than $59,000 in overtime while another earned $1,180; one sergeant earned $52,865 in overtime while another earned $0; and one officer earned $30,165 in overtime while another earned $0. Our analysis determined that the top 10 overtime earners in each job title earned, on average, over 750% more in overtime than the bottom 10.
Although disparities in overtime earnings do not necessarily indicate an inequitable overtime distribution process, MEP could not provide documentation of why such disparities existed.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 7.2(I) of the unit 5 CBA states,
Overtime shall be distributed as equitably and impartially as practicable among persons in each work location. . . . The Employer shall maintain an overtime roster in each facility where members of Bargaining Unit 5 are employed.
Reasons for Issue
MEP’s overtime policy did not include procedures for maintaining an overtime roster within each officer’s assigned facility. In addition, MEP’s management informed us that overtime was assigned according to officer seniority, region, and operational necessity and that if an officer was not offered overtime, s/he would complain.
MEP management provided us with emails to show that overtime opportunities were offered to officers. However, without overtime rosters, which are required by the CBA, there is inadequate assurance that overtime opportunities are distributed equitably.
Recommendation
MEP should enhance its overtime policy to include the requirement that accurate overtime rosters be maintained in each facility where MEP officers are employed and also include any other procedures MEP deems necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of overtime.
Auditee’s Response
The provision of the collective bargaining agreement at issue both requires MEP and the other agencies employing members of the Union to distribute overtime "as equitably and impartially as practicable" and "maintain an overtime roster in each facility where members of [the Union] are employed." Recognizing the distributed nature of the MEP workforce and the lack of any appropriate facilities in which to post paper rosters, neither the Union nor the MEP has sought to utilize traditional "rosters" to achieve the goal of equitable and impartial distribution of overtime for at least thirty years. Rather, the longstanding and current practice is for a supervising officer to distribute overtime opportunities by email, and thereafter keep track of officers accepting and denying (or declining to respond to) opportunities in an electronic fashion, thereby creating an electronic roster. The MEP believes that this practice complies with the both the spirit and the letter of the collective bargaining agreement as viewed through the consistent past practice of the MEP and the Union.
Accordingly, while the MEP cannot utilize physical rosters to facilitate distribution of overtime in the same manner as other agencies employing members of the Union, the MEP can improve the policies and procedures governing the overtime distribution process. More specifically, MEP is exploring the procurement of an electronic system that would allow employees to learn about and sign up for overtime opportunities while keeping records of that activity in a more easily searchable, centralized location.
Auditor’s Reply
As noted above, MEP’s CBA states that “the Employer shall maintain an overtime roster in each facility where members of Bargaining Unit 5 are employed.” During our audit, we found that MEP did not maintain overtime rosters that would keep track of when each officer was asked to work overtime and whether each one accepted or declined any overtime offered. MEP management did provide us with copies of emails that documented that it informed officers of overtime opportunities, but it did not provide us with any documentation to substantiate that it maintained electronic rosters.
Based on its response, MEP is taking measures to address our concerns in this area.
| Date published: | April 21, 2020 |
|---|