January 14, 2009
21.4.968
Background
The employee requested a general travel advance in the amount of $300.00 to pay for security deposits for future car rentals while on travel status be authorized by the department.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that although the grievor's travel advance request was presented in general form, the grievor was in fact scheduled to travel outside his headquarters area on March 13, 2007. It was also pointed out that there is an ongoing requirement for the grievor to travel outside his headquarters area on government business.
The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that the employer's refusal to grant the grievor a travel advance for the rental of a vehicle violated section 1.7.1 of the NJC Travel Directive, which states that "employees on government travel shall be provided with a travel advance to cover travel expenses where government approved services and products are not prepaid or cannot be paid with an individual designated travel card." The grievor did not have a personal credit card or an approved individual designated travel card (AMEX).
The Bargaining Agent representative further submitted that the employer's refusal to discuss the grievor's travel advance request violated section 1.7.2 of the NJC Travel Directive, which states that "when an employee chooses not to obtain and use an individual designated travel card, provision of an advance shall be discussed between the employee and the employer. In such cases, travel advances shall not be unreasonably denied."
The Bargaining Agent representative suggested that the requirement of two weeks outlined in the employer's January 10, 2007 Memo is not supported by the NJC Directive; nowhere in the Directive does it call for a two week advance notice. The Directive provides for a discussion between the parties and further states that no travel advance shall be unreasonably denied. The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor's request for an advance was unreasonably denied.
The Bargaining Agent representative claimed that the grievor was off on sick leave from February 21 to March 6, 2007 inclusive and that he submitted his request immediately upon his return to work. This was 6 days prior to the scheduled travel and was sufficient for the employer to discuss the issue with the grievor and granted the request for the travel advance.
The Bargaining Agent also relied on the Principles and Purpose and Scope of the NJC Travel Directive in support of its position.
Departmental Presentation
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievance is now moot as the grievor has been away from the workplace continuously since the beginning of April 2007 and the employer has since adopted a new procedure where car rentals can be pre-arranged and where payments are made through a central office using a Designated Responsibility Centre Travel Card.
The Departmental representative submitted that the grievor's request was for an open-ended travel advance to pay for security deposits for car rentals for unspecified future travel. It is not the intent of the NJC Travel Directive to approve such general requests; travel advance requests pursuant to section 1.7 must be tied to specific travel.
The Departmental representative further submitted that the grievor's request did not follow employer procedures regarding travel advances. The grievor's travel advance request did not specify travel dates or locations and did not comply with the January 10, 2007 memo the grievor had been given which required him to submit a travel authority request at least two weeks prior to the travel in question for each travel instance.
Executive Committee Decision
The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and agreed that the employee had not been treated within the intent of sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 of the Travel Directive. It was also noted that the department's travel guidelines in regard to vehicle transportation for duty travel and instructions to the grievor were not in accordance with the NJC Travel Directive.
As such, the Executive Committee agreed that the grievance be upheld in so far as there is an acknowledgement on the part of the employer that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive. No further corrective action is required.