June 1, 1999
25.4.129
The employee grieved the Department's decision to allow one return ticket, which he believed contravened section 51.08 of the FSD. That authorization be given for a second return airline ticket in accordance with section 51.08 (b), on the condition that the cost not exceed the amount that would have been authorized for the travel of his two daughters under section 51.01.
In October 1997, the grievor, who is posted in Paris with his wife and his son, requested authority for him, his wife and his son, to travel to Montreal at Christmas time to visit his daughters who attended school in Montreal. The grievor requested travel authority under FSD 51.08. The Department only authorized travel for one person.
The Bargaining Agent representative stated that on October 6, 1997, the grievor sent a travel request to the Department requesting authority for him, his wife and his son to travel to Montreal under FSD 51 that the Department provide reimbursement for two tickets in lieu of the trips that could have been made by his two daughters who are currently attending school in Canada (Directive 51.01(b)). In his message, the grievor stated that he assumed the amount allowed would be the cost of 2 tickets Montreal/Paris/Montreal (i.e. the cost the department would have incurred should the grievor's daughters have travelled instead) and that he expected to pay any amount over and above. As well, he requested and obtained an authorization for his son under Directive 50.
On October 8, 1997, the grievor received a message from the Department explaining that under Directive 51.08(f), his two daughters were entitled to two trips during 1997/1998 and that his request would liquidate all of his FSD 51 entitlements for the year. The grievor then called Department Headquarters and told him that he did not understand the October 8 message's rationale that says " if you check directive FSD 51.08(f), the request will liquidate each of your FSD 51 entitlements for the year." According to the grievor, that statement meant that his daughters would loose their allowance for Christmas and Summer (about 4 tickets).
After discussions, the grievor understood that two tickets in exchange for the two tickets normally paid for the daughters for Christmas would be authorized. It was also mentioned to the grievor that he would receive the authorization in writing. Between October 8 and 15, the grievor ordered his tickets in order not to loose his reservations.
When the grievor received the October 15 e-mail, he realized that the authorization was only for one ticket. He immediately called Mr. X and asked an explanation as to why the October 15 message did not authorize two tickets? He replied that maybe there was a misunderstanding because he said "I authorized only one ticket". The grievor found this answer really strange given the reason for calling Mr. X was to obtain the authorization for two tickets.
On October 21, the grievor e-mailed his arguments to Mr. Y at Departmental Headquarters with regard to Directive 51.08; his reply of October 27 completely ignored the issues raised.
On November 7, the grievor e-mailed Mr. X concerning their telephone conversation about the trip authorization and the fact the he had already bought 3 unrefundable tickets.
On November 10, an e-mail from Mr. X to the grievor said: "The information provided to you over the phone was given after consultation with our policy advisor, Mr. Y. I should have rescinded our authority to you, however, after you advised me that you had already committed funds for the authority, I authorized it so that you the employee would not be out of pocket due to our error. I also advised you that I was not prepared to compound the error by authorizing further travel. Regretfully, I will not authorize any further increase in the authority."
The Bargaining Agent representative summarized her presentation by stating the following facts.
- The understanding of the grievor was the reimbursement of two tickets when discussed with Mr. X over the phone on October 8.
- Mr. X admitted having made a mistake in authorizing the grievor's trip.
- If the grievor had known that the Department would have paid for only one ticket, he would not have committed funds to travel from Paris to Montreal but would have asked his daughters to come to Paris instead.
- The grievor had to pay $1,070 for his wife's ticket.
- The FSD directives were changing at that time and it created a lot of confusion.
- The grievor's claim was primarily based on the following two extracts of FSD 51.08:
51.08 – Instructions " When considering the financial implications of Section 51.08, the travelling expenses of all persons authorized to travel from the employee's post are to be compared with the total travelling expenses that would have been incurred for travel to post by all eligible dependants/children."
According to the grievor, these instructions reiterate the fundamental principle that governs all of the FSDs (i.e. Expenses are reimbursable up to the amount of the eligible allowance). It is the grievor's view that the Department's interpretation of section 51.08f is contrary to these instructions because the cost of the travelling expenses of his two daughters from Montreal was not taken into consideration when limiting him to a single return ticket.
Furthermore, she quoted Section 51.08 b) which says: "...payment of actual and reasonable travelling expenses may be authorized for a return trip between the employee'' post and the location of the child .... In respect of the employee and/or spouse, where travel is in lieu of the provision of Section 51.01." She indicated that it is stated that the employee and his spouse may be authorized to travel under section 51.08 in lieu of the provisions of section 51.01.
According to the Bargaining Agent representative and on the basis of the above extracts, the authority should have included a second air fare up to the cost that would have been incurred should the grievor's daughters have travelled to Paris.
The Departmental representative raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of this grievance on the basis that the grievance was untimely in that it was not referred to the NJC within time limits.
The Departmental representative quoted the grievor's request received by the Department and which read "We would like to take advantage of FSD 51 for a family reunion during the holidays in December 1997 .... We would also like to use our trip to Canada to make some purchases for the girls' apartments...."
The Departmental representative then referred to FSD 51.08 which states that "At the request of the employee and for reasons acceptable to the deputy head, payment of actual and reasonable travel expenses may be authorized for a return trip between the employee's post and the location of the child/student/spouse or the headquarters city, as applicable, in respect of:
(c)the employee and/or spouse, where the travel is in lieu of the provisions of Section 51.01;
Where,
(h)In exceptional circumstances, return travel may be authorized to any other location, with any dependent eligible for travel under this directive; and
(i)the amount paid under this section shall not exceed the amount that would have been payable pursuant to Sections 51.01, 51.05 or 51.07, as applicable, and
(j)travel is approved from post, such travel liquidate one travel entitlement each for all eligible dependants, and
(k)travel from post under this section would apply to situations such as where an employee accepts an assignment on an unaccompanied basis and to unusual circumstances at post (unhealthy conditions, security considerations, inadequate accommodation, etc.) which justify family reunion away from post."
The Departmental representative maintained that the Department was unable to conclude that unusual or difficult circumstances or conditions existed in Paris at the time of the grievor's request and that the Department was satisfied that the refusal by Management was in keeping with the intent and the provisions of this directive.
The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the Foreign Service Directives Committee report which concluded that notwithstanding the provisions of Directive FSD 51(Family Reunion), it agreed that the grievor was not treated within the intent of this Directive. As travel had been authorized, albeit in error, the allowance should have been calculated in accordance with FSD 51.08; that is, the cost of return travel for the 2 daughters to travel from Montreal to Paris at Christmas, on the basis of the most economical fares available in October for travel in December.
The grievance was upheld.