Meal Allowance

Background

The employee grieved the department's refusal to provide reimbursement for breakfast while on travel status on assignment to another establishment from February to April 2005.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The bargaining agent representative indicated the grievor was denied payment of the breakfast allowance in accordance with the Travel Directive while he was on travel status from February 7, 2005 to April 22, 2005, while working on assignment in City B.

The Directive does not give a specific time that any particular meal must be taken.  She submits that for fairness in application to all employees, normal and general mealtimes should be considered as to whether a particular meal allowance will be applicable in the circumstances.

The representative also noted the grievor helped the Employer keep the costs of his assignment down, by travelling during regular working hours, so as not to incur overtime.  Further, his mileage charge for travel to the assignment worksite was less than the charge would have been for departing from a location closer to the workplace location in City A.

The grievor was required to begin working one hour earlier than his regular shift while on assignment in City B.  He was expected to begin work at an hour that would, in normal custom, be considered as the beginning of the breakfast hours.  The grievor was paid mileage from his residence to the assignment location and back, and was paid a lunch allowance.  On one occasion only, he was permitted to claim a breakfast allowance for a day where he was required to depart his residence at 5:00 a.m., instead of 6:00 a.m.  As a result of the grievor being on travel status from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., both breakfast and lunch allowances ought to have been payable.

It does not meet the intent of the Directive to reimburse the grievor for one travel cost (kilometric and lunch allowance) but not another (breakfast allowance). The terms of the Directive are mandatory and should not be altered by the Employer if they believe that an employee should be treated differently because their circumstances are not the norm.  The claim is payable, regardless of whether the meal is normally taken or not.

The Executive Committee, in a decision dated July 8, 2005, had considered the issue of the duration of travel status and had allowed a grievance in a case where the grievor arrived home at 7:00 p.m., finding that the grievor was entitled to a dinner allowance because they were on travel status until they returned home.

In this case, it may be said that the grievor was within a 16 km span of his residence, when the breakfast hours fell.  However, he was not within Headquarters at this time.  Regardless, if his residence location could be considered his Headquarters, the Executive Committee has rejected this argument in a previous decision dated September 2, 2003.  The fact that an employee was within their Headquarters during the lunch period, as they were packing up to leave for travel outside Headquarters, did not mean that they were not entitled to the lunch allowance.

Departmental Representative Presentation

The departmental representative indicated the department's position is that the grievor was treated within the intent of the Travel Directive in that he received the lunch allowance, as this is the meal that fell within his period of travel status.

Prior to authorizing the travel arrangement, management had reviewed the work requirements of the position, the grievor's normal work pattern and the distance to be driven. Management determined the grievor could travel during work hours, thus avoiding potential excessive fatigue from driving 68 kilometers and having to work in the same day, as well as mitigating any disruption to the normal work schedule.

The representative referred to the NJC decision of July 8, 2005, where the Executive Committee considered the grievor's hours of work, core work hours, commuting patterns and travel status as important factors is assessing entitlement. The representative stated that these same factors were assessed by management in this case, in order to respect the grievor's normal commuting pattern and minimize risk on safety and health by reducing hours of work.

In addition, as the grievor normally left his residence to report to work at 5:30 a.m., and was authorized to travel as of 6:00 a.m. for the assignment period, it is reasonable to expect him to consume breakfast prior to his departure from his residence. This is also supported by the fact that the grievor was paid the breakfast allowance on March 23, 2006, on a day when he was required to depart from his residence at 5:00 a.m. This disrupted his normal commuting pattern, and resulted in the consumption of a breakfast while in travel status.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee considered the report of the Government Travel Committee and could not come to a consensus on whether the grievor was treated within the intent of the Government Travel Directive.  As such, the Executive Committee reached an impasse.