Vacation Travel Assistance

The employee grieved the employer's response to his complaint regarding changes to the Vacation Travel Assistance under the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, the lack of employer notice and inequitable employer-employee support, which denied him financial opportunities. The grievor stated that the NJC was not treating all employees equitably and was discriminating against families because there would be absolutely no opportunity to take a family vacation prior to the NJC imposed deadline of July 5, 2002. The grievor requested reimbursement and or credit in the form of a cash payout of the cost of travel between location A and location B return for himself and his family members. The grievor also requested that calculation for the payout be made from the cost of regular return airfare between location A and location B prior to the airline changing their regular airfare rates or prior to the artificially imposed deadline of the NJC of July 5, 2002 using the regular airfare rates of the airline.

Effective April 1, 2002, the new Isolated Posts Directive introduced a parallel system of vacation travel allowance which affords two options to employees: 100% accountable allowance and the 80% non-accountable allowance, which is based upon payment of an amount equivalent to 80% of the appropriate return full fare economy class airfare between the headquarters and the point of departure; there is no requirement for the employee to take leave or to travel, nor are receipts required. Employees must specify their choice of one of the above options in writing.

In June 2002, one airline lowered its economy airfare for return travel from location A to location B (point of departure for location where the grievor's headquarters are located). On July 23, 2002, the grievor expressed a concern about the notion of an 80% non-accountable allowance based on the newly reduced airfare and requested eligibility for an allowance based on the higher airfare. When the Employer refused to grant him the allowance based on the higher airfare, despite the fact that he never requested the 80% non-accountable allowance formally, in writing, the grievor filed a grievance.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that section 2.6 of the IPGHD is the basis for the grievance because it was not applied consistently amongst employees. She submitted that the grievor claimed vacation travel assistance on February 3, 2003 and was of the opinion that he was not treated within the intent of the Directive, he received $4,451.62 instead of $6,486.48, for a shortfall of $2,034.86.

She submitted that, on July 9, 2002, the grievor was made aware by local management that the deadline for submitting a request for VTA to benefit from an amount equal to 80% of the higher airfare was July 5, 2002. Since the deadline had passed when he found out, the grievor could not take advantage of it. The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that during the grievance process there was no evidence presented that the July 5, 2002 deadline was an NJC deadline. She also submitted that, according to the uncontested testimony of a witness at the second level hearing, the employer advised employees in another office of the July 5, 2002 deadline before that date and some employees were able to receive their VTA based on the higher airline rates.

She stated that the National Joint Council issued a Communiqué on July 29, 2002 which clarified that the lowest airfare was to be used for the calculation of the 100% or the 80% VTA. She indicated that it was not clear why the NJC had opted to issue a Communiqué on that date. She submitted that the NJC issued a second Communiqué on November 13, 2002, which in her opinion showed variation of treatment amongst employees. She indicated that the communiqué prescribed a deadline of July 29, 2002, which had been impossible for the grievor to meet.

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the IPGHD should be applied equally to all employees, although the Directive does not specifically state so. The Bargaining Agent representative concluded her presentation by indicating that the grievor would like to receive clear information, because he did not receive clear indication from either management or the IPGH Committee on deadlines. She indicated that had he been treated the same as the other employees, his request for VTA would have been approved for an amount of $6,486.48 instead of $4,451.62.

The Departmental representative indicated that the grievor's first communication concerning the changes to the IPGHD was dated July 23, 2002. She explained that he was concerned about the fact that he could have received more money had he applied for the Vacation Travel Assistance before July 5, that the implementation of changes could have been postponed, and that employees in other departments were "forewarned" and able to receive the 80% VTA based on the higher airfare. He stated that his office was advised of the changes to the VTA on June 20, 2002. She indicated that the grievor did not apply for the VTA at the time of his first e-mail in July 2002.

She stated that the grievor and his co-workers were properly notified of the changes to the IPGHD. The formal notice of the new Directive was sent to the manager in location A on May 9, 2002, who transmitted the notice to all employees that same morning. The employer representative indicated that the employer relied on the both communiqués issued by the NJC to respond to the grievor, both prior and during the grievance process.

The Departmental representative indicated that the changes which the grievor emphasized were changes made by an airline. Those changes resulted in a lower maximum entitlement for the VTA. However, the changes made by an airline are something over which the Public service has no control or may have little or no notice. The Employer could only interpret the Directive as intended. She submitted that the grievor also spoke of inequities. A review of travel claims for employees in the grievor's office showed that any differences in amounts paid for the VTA (during the period affected by the change in the airline's fare) were based on the interpretation of the Directive and the communiqués issued by the NJC.

Finally, the Departmental representative indicated that the grievor ultimately applied for the 80% non-accountable VTA on February 3, 2003. On his application, the grievor noted the following: "Full fare is subject to current information and may change pending the outcome of an outstanding grievance. In no way does this application constitute acceptance of the current airfare rates." She concluded by saying that at the time of the grievor's application, the maximum allowable amount was clear, and he was provided the allowance within the intent of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Committee which concluded that given the clarifications issued by the National Joint Council in its communiqué issued on November 13, 2002, it agreed that employees who applied for the 80% non-accountable assistance received the amounts to which they were entitled.

The grievor had not requested the 80% VTA before July 29, 2002. The Committee agreed that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Directive when he requested the 80% non-accountable Vacation Travel Assistance on February 3, 2003 given that 80% of the lower "Y" class airfare of the airline was the appropriate amount for any applications made after July 29, 2002.

The grievance was denied.