Audit reveals ‘abuse’ risk in OT bill for corrections employees

Federal corrections employees were paid more than $50 million in overtime in the past fiscal year, yet there is “little analysis” taking place at the national level as to the root causes of the overtime, according to the results of a new audit.

The audit also found few controls in place to monitor for excessive overtime on an individual basis, raising the “risk of abuse.”

The audit report was completed in October and recently posted on the Correctional Service of Canada website. Management agreed with the audit’s findings and recommendations and has prepared an action plan to be fully implemented by April, the report said.

Overtime pay steadily declined from $83 million in 2008-2009 to $38 million in 2012-2013, but it went up again to $50.6 million in 2013-2014.

One reason for the increase was the closure of some institutions, which generated a need to escort offenders being transferred to other institutions, auditors were told. There was also an increase in sick leave.

Other reasons cited included the need to monitor prisoners with overnight stays at hospitals, training, and responding to security incidents.

Whether these reasons were justified was not part of the audit.

Auditors found that the amount of overtime paid each year was consistently more than what was budgeted for that year. In 2013-2014, for instance, only $33 million was budgeted for overtime. As a result, funds had to be transferred from other programs.

“Without an accurate and realistic budget, it is difficult for managers to plan, monitor and control their expenditures without affecting other services,” the report said.

Auditors noted that they could not find any reports prepared for budget managers that looked systemically at the use of overtime or underlying causes.

While overtime expenses are discussed at senior management meetings, “there is currently no formal and comprehensive analysis of the root causes of overtime in order to find CSC-wide solutions on how to reduce the expense.”

Further, there was also no monitoring of employees who appeared to be working excessive or unusually long hours repeatedly.