May 18, 2007
21.4.929
Background
The employee grieved the refusal of the department to reimburse the rate of private accommodation while he was on assignment outside the headquarters area.
Bargaining Agent Presentation
The bargaining agent representative stated that the employer acknowledged the grievor was in a travel situation since the grievor's lunches were reimbursed whether he was on the road or in the office in "City A".
The representative identified NJC grievance #21.4.846 as a similar case in which the Executive Committee concluded that the grievor had not been treated within the intent of the 2002 Directive because 1) the principal residence of the grievor was located elsewhere, and 2) the grievor was outside the headquarters area (16 km) and was thus on assignment.
The representative noted that the grievor was on assignment 225 kilometres from his headquarters area. The notion of principal residence refers to the residence where he has his place of work. As the grievance was filed in April 2005 the new Directive of October 2002 should apply, and it no longer includes mention of another principal residence. Under the Directive, employees traveling on government business with a secondary residence or cottage in the designated travel area can claim private non-commercial accommodation expenses, meals and incidentals.
The representative added that the grievor did not receive notice of workplace change; the departmental representative confirmed that notice was issued but neither side has been able to retrieve a copy of the notice. The grievor only kept the house in "City A" as he was unable to sell the home at the time.
Departmental Representative Presentation
The departmental representative submitted that the grievance was denied at the second level by the Departmental Liaison Officer based on the fact that during the assignment to "City A" from May 1 to November 30, 2004, the grievor lived with his family in his principal residence in "City A" and therefore did not incur all the expenses subject to the travel claim.
While on assignment in "City A", the grievor stayed in his family home, which constituted his principal residence. The grievor was reimbursed for his lunch but since he stayed in his own house, incidental expenses and cost of housing do not apply. The grievor stayed in his own home by choice. Although he worked at the office in "City A" and his headquarters area was "City B", the "City A" office is located less than 16 kilometres from his principal residence.
The departmental representative maintained that despite decision #21.4.845 and 21.4.846 of the NJC Executive Committee, the current grievance differs in that the grievor has only one principal residence, which is located within the headquarters area. The representative also added that a temporary rental, like the one in "City B", cannot be considered a second home.
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.